The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJefferson County Early Learning Center Geotech Report (Rev. Jan. 31, 2024)& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Offices Serving the Western United States 1230 Finn Hill Road NW, Suite A Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 598-2126 Fax (360) 598-2127 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER 1500 VAN NESS STREET PORT TOWNSEND,WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.102-23021 OCTOBER 5,2023 REVISED JANUARY 31,2024 Prepared for: OLYMPIC PENINSULA YMCA ATTN:MS.WENDY BART 675 NORTH 5TH AVENUE,SUITE 3A SEQUIM WASHINGTON 98382 Prepared by: KRAZAN &ASSOCIATES,INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 1230 FINN HILL RD.NW,SUITE A POULSBO,WASHINGTON 98370 (360)598-2126 & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Offices Serving the Western United States 1230 Finn Hill Road NW, Suite A Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 598-2126 Fax (360) 598-2127 October 5, 2023 KA Project No.102-23021 Revised January 31, 2024 Olympic Peninsula YMCA 675 North 5th Avenue, Suite 3A Sequim, Washington 98382 Attn: Ms.Wendy Bart Email:wendy@olympicpeninsulaymca.org Tel:(360) 504-0526 Reference:Geotechnical Engineering Services Jefferson County Early Learning Center 1500 Van Ness Street Port Townsend, Washington Dear Ms.Bart, In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vijay Chaudhary, P.E. Project Engineer AG:EA:VC:SEW & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Offices Serving the Western United States 1230 Finn Hill Road NW, Suite A Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 598-2126 Fax (360) 598-2127 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..........................................................................................................................................1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................................................2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC SETTING............................................................................................................................................3 FIELD INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................................................................3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..........................................................................................................................................4 Erosion Concern/Hazard .........................................................................................................................................4 Landslide Hazard.....................................................................................................................................................5 Seismic Hazard........................................................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................7 General....................................................................................................................................................................7 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................................................................8 Structural Fill.........................................................................................................................................................10 Temporary Excavations.........................................................................................................................................11 Shallow Foundations.............................................................................................................................................11 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork ........................................................................................................................13 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls.........................................................................................................13 Erosion and Sediment Control...............................................................................................................................15 Groundwater Influence on Structures and Earthwork Construction......................................................................15 Drainage and Landscape .......................................................................................................................................16 Utility Trench Backfill ..........................................................................................................................................16 Stormwater Infiltration..........................................................................................................................................17 Pavement Design...................................................................................................................................................17 Testing and Inspection...........................................................................................................................................18 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................19 VICINITY MAP ............................................................................................................................Figure 1 SITE PLAN....................................................................................................................................Figure 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .........................................Appendix A EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS....................................................................................Appendix B PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS ...............................................................................................Appendix C & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Offices Serving the Western United States 1230 Finn Hill Road NW, Suite A Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 598-2126 Fax (360) 598-2127 October 5, 2023 KA Project No.102-23021RevisedJanuary31, 2024 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER 1500 VAN NESS STREET PORT TOWNSEND,WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION. This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for the Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center project located at 1500 Van Ness Street in Port Townsend, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented in this report, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, excavations, structural fill, utility trench backfill, foundations, pavement design, stormwater infiltration, drainage, and erosion control. For our use in preparing this report, we have reviewed the plan sheet A100 titled “Jefferson County Early Learning Center”, prepared by Present Future Architects, dated May 25, 2023, a topographic survey, prepared by Van Aller Surveying, dated July 27, 2023. A site plan showing approximate locations of the explorations is presented following the text of this report in Figure 2. A description of the field investigation and laboratory testing as well as the exploration logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendix B contains a guide to aid in the development of earthwork specifications. Pavement design guidelines are presented in Appendix C. The recommendations in the main text of the report have precedence over the more general specifications in the appendices PURPOSE AND SCOPE. This investigation was conducted to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the subject property, to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in the design of specific construction elements, and to provide criteria for site preparation and earthwork construction. Our scope of services was performed in general accordance with our proposal for this project, dated August 2, 2023 (Proposal Number G23028WAP) and included the following: An exploration of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by advancing four (4) soil borings to a maximum depth of 31.5 feet below existing ground surface (bgs) using a subcontracted drill rig; KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.2 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States An exploration of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by excavating two (2) test pits to a maximum depth of 7.5 feet bgs using a subcontracted excavator and operator; Provide a site plan showing the soil boring and test pit locations; Provide comprehensive boring and test pit logs including soil stratification and classification, and groundwater levels where applicable; Perform one (1) Large-Scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) and provide opinions and recommendations regarding stormwater infiltration feasibility in accordance with Volume V, Chapter 5 of the 2019 Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW); Provide foundation recommendations for the proposed structures including foundation type, allowable bearing pressure, anticipated settlements (both total and differential), coefficient of horizontal friction, and frost penetration depth; Provide recommendations for seismic design considerations including site coefficient and ground acceleration based on the 2018 IBC; Provide recommendations for retaining wall design including lateral earth pressures (active and passive); Provide recommendations for structural fill materials, placement, and compaction; Provide recommendations regarding the suitability of on-site soils as structural fill; Discuss potential geological hazards and provide mitigation recommendations as applicable; Provide recommendations for temporary excavations; Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control; Provide recommendations for pavement design. Environmental services, such as chemical analysis of soil and groundwater for possible environmental contaminants, are not included in our scope of services for this project. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand that the site development will include design and construction of one commercial buildings with an associated parking lot and driveway. We understand that development will also consist of design KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.3 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States and construction of associated utilities, bioswale, and landscape areas. We understand that onsite stormwater management is being considered. SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is situated within the southeastern portion of a developed assessor parcel 001023006. The parcel covers an area of approximately 6.52 acres. The site is bordered by Harrison Street to the East, Blaine Street to the south, a paved access road to the west, ancillary school structures to the north. The site can be accessed via the paved road to the west. The parcel is currently developed with school buildings, shed/ storage buildings, tennis courts, a gazebo, sidewalks, and paved parking and landscaped areas. The site is currently vacant field and appears to be previously graded. The site is generally flat at an elevation of approximately 192 feet with a steep, east- descending slope in the northeastern portion of the site. The steep slope is about 30 to 33 degrees (57 to 66 percent), with elevations ranging from approximately 190 feet to 165 feet. The slope along the eastern portion of the site is heavily vegetated with brush, brambles, and a few young to middle-aged trees. The remainder of the site is vegetated with grasses. There were two small concrete pads near the top of the slope in the northeastern portion of the site. We did not observe visual signs of shallow soil movement or soil creep along the slope, such as minor sloughing and curved tree trunks. We did not observe signs of significant erosion or accumulation of surface water during our site visit. GEOLOGIC SETTING The Geologic Map of Jefferson County Washington, (WA DNR Open File Report 2005-3, December 2005) indicates that the site vicinity is underlain by continental glacial till (Qgt) deposits. Glacial till is a compact deposit of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders deposited at the base of the continental glacier. The soils exposed in our explorations were generally consistent with the mapped geology. FIELD INVESTIGATION Exploratory soil borings and test pits were completed to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. Soil Borings: Four (4) exploratory soil borings, designated B-1 through B-4 were completed on August 28, 2023 with a subcontracted drill rig. The soil borings were advanced to depths of approximately 9.0 to 31.5 feet bgs. Test Pits: Test pits TP-1 and TP-2 was completed on August 28, 2023 with a subcontracted excavator and operator. The test pits were excavated to depths of about 6.0 to 7.5 feet bgs. Large-Scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT): We performed one (1) Large-Scale PIT in accordance with the DOE 2019 SWMMWW, Volume V, Chapter 5. The PIT was performed at roughly 2 feet bgs in TP-1. The KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.4 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States area exposed for the PIT was at least 100 square feet. The testing included a pre-soak period, followed by determination of a steady-state infiltration rate and then a falling head infiltration rate testing. After the PIT was completed, the test pit was over-excavated to approximately 5.5 feet below the test elevation to document whether any restrictive layers or groundwater seepage were present. A geologist from Krazan and Associates was present during the exploration, examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations. Representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered in the geotechnical explorations were collected and sealed in plastic bags. The soils encountered in the exploration were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). These samples were transported to our laboratory for further examination and testing. SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS This section of the report is intended to provide a general description of the subsurface conditions. Detailed descriptions of the soils exposed in each of the explorations are presented in the exploration logs in Appendix A. Undocumented Fill:Soil boring B-1, encountered moist, loose to medium dense brown to grayish brown silty sand with gravel to about 11.5 feet bgs, which was interpreted as undocumented fill. Native Glacial Soils:Our explorations of the site generally encountered/exposed moist, medium dense to very dense,grayish brown to gray silty sand with gravel, brown to light brown sand with silt and gravel, and gray sand extending to the explored depths of 31.5 feet bgs.We interpreted these soils to be native glacial deposits.Cobbles and boulders were also encountered/exposed within this stratum. Groundwater Observations:Groundwater seepage was not encountered during our explorations. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Erosion Concern/Hazard The Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) map for the Jefferson County Area, Washington (WA635),classifies the site area as following: Townsend gravelly sandy loam (0 to 15 percent slopes),Hydrologic soil group C; Hydrologic soil group C soils have moderate erosion potential when disturbed. These soils may erode rapidly if water is allowed to concentrate on steep slopes. Based on our review of the City of Port Townsend Municipal Code,the existing slopes in the northeastern portion of the site would be considered erosion hazard area due to the steepness.During our site visit, we KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.5 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States did not observe signs of signification erosion along the slopes.Based on our explorations and visual site reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely impact the erosion potential, provided that our recommendations are followed for both design and construction of the project. It has been our experience that soil erosion due to wind can be minimized by limiting the amount of stripped soil areas exposed during construction activities, frequently wetting the surface soils during construction, and with proper landscaping of the site following completion of construction. Typically, erosion of exposed soils will be most noticeable during periods of rainfall. The potential for erosion may be mitigated by the use of temporary erosion control measures, such as silt fences, hay bales, straw wattles, mulching, control ditches or diversion trenching, and contour furrowing. The walls of excavations should be covered with plastic sheeting, or other erosion control surfacing during periods of rainfall. Erosion control measures should be in place before the onset of wet weather.To minimize erosion concerns, the Erosion and Sediment Control section of this report should be followed.Stormwater runoff should not be allowed to flow over or concentrate on the steep slopes in the northeast portion of the site. Landslide Hazard We have reviewed the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR),Department of Energy (DOE), and Jefferson County published and interactive maps. The WADNR does not show any landslides mapped near the site vicinity. The DOE Coastal Zone Atlas map extends to the southern-half of the site and shows stable slopes.However, the steep slope along the northeastern portion of the site is not within the extent of the map. The Jefferson County Public Land Records online portal does not include any mapped landslide hazards on the project site. We have reviewed the topographic map, prepared by Van Aller Surveying, dated July 27, 2023. Our review of the topographic map and surficial site reconnaissance indicate that there are east-descending steep slopes in the northeastern portion of the site.The slopes are inclined at about 19 to 33 degrees (35 to 66 percent), and the height ranges from 4 feet to 30 feet The site slopes meet the City of Port Townsend critical slopes criteria, which is defined as any slope of 40 percent or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25-foot horizontal run.As the referenced slope extends horizontally to the south,the slope becomes less than 40 percent or less than 10 feet in vertical height and is no longer considered a critical slope per the City of Port Townsend criteria.Please note that the extent of the critical slope depicted in Figure 2 is approximate.At the time of the site visit,the steep slope was heavily vegetated with brush,brambles, and a few young to middle-aged trees.During our site visit we did not observe signs of recent slide scarps, tension cracks, or slumps within the site that would indicate current deep-seated instability on the steep slopes within the property. Signs of shallow soil movement and soil creep, such as curved tree trunks, were not observed on the slopes of the property. However, it should be noted that soil creep is the gradual, imperceptible downslope movement of surficial soils under the effect of gravity, and is typical on steep slopes. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.6 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Our explorations generally exposed/encountered medium dense to very dense native glacial soils,which is interpreted to form the core of the site slopes and are considered to have good shear strength. The final grading plan was not available at the time this report was prepared.Based on our communication with the design team and review of the preliminary civil plan sheets, prepared by Atwell, dated August 24, 2023,we understand that the grading will be minimal. Based on our explorations and our review of the available data,and provided that the recommendations of this report is followed for design and construction, it is our opinion that the proposed onsite and offsite development will not adversely impact the site slopes and associated buffers. In our opinion,a minimum of a 10-foot buffer from the top of the slope, and a 15- foot building setback will be adequate for this project. This buffer should not to be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. No material of any kind should be placed permanently on the buffer or slope or be allowed to reach the slope, such as excavation spoils, lawn clippings and other yard waste, trash, and soil stockpiles. Replacement of vegetation in the undisturbed buffer area should be performed in accordance with the City of Port Townsend code.Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the steep slopes. Any sloping areas disturbed during construction should be planted with vegetation as soon as practical to reduce the potential for erosion. Seismic Hazard The 2018 International Building Code (IBC), Section 1613.2.2, refers to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16 for seismic Site Class Definitions. It is our opinion that the overall soil profile corresponds to Site Class C as defined by Table 20.3-1 “Site Class Definitions,” according to the ASCE 7-16 Standard. Site Class C applies to a “very dense soil and soft rock” profile. The seismic site class is based on a soil profile extending to a depth of 100 feet. The soil explorations on this site extended to a maximum depth of 31.5 feet and this seismic site class designation is based on the assumption that very dense conditions continue below the depth explored. We referred to the Applied Technology Council (ATC) website and 2018 IBC to obtain values for SS,SMS, SDS,S1,SM1,SD1,Fa,and Fv. The ATC website utilizes the most updated published data on seismic conditions from the United States Geological Survey. The seismic design parameters for this site are presented in the following table: KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.7 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Seismic Design Parameters (Reference: 2018 IBC Section 1613.2.2, ASCE 7-16, and ATC) Seismic Item Value Site Coefficient Fa 1.200 Ss 1.350 SMS 1.620 SDS 1.080 Site Coefficient Fv 1.500 S1 0.493 SM1 0.739 SD1 0.493 Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high groundwater table. The native soils primarily consisting of medium dense to very dense granular soils interpreted to underlie the site are considered to have a low potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion. The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Jefferson County, Washington, by Stephen Palmer, et al. (WADNR, September 2004) indicates that the site is mapped in an area of very low liquefaction susceptibility.Based on our explorations and review of the above-mentioned map, it is our opinion that the site has a low liquefaction hazard, and the proposed development should not increase the liquefaction hazard provided that our recommendations are followed for both design and construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion from a geotechnical standpoint that the site is compatible with the planned development, provided that the geotechnical engineering recommendations presented in this report are included in the project design and implemented during construction. We recommended that Krazan review the final development design plans. Soil Conditions:Our explorations were advanced in the proposed development areas.With the exception of B-1, competent native glacial soils were exposed/encountered near surface in our explorations, and extended to the maximum explored depths of 6.0 to 31.5 feet bgs.Competent native glacial soils were encountered at about 11.5 feet bgs in B-1. Most of the soils exposed/encountered at this site are considered moisture-sensitive and will be easily disturbed and difficult to compact when wet. We recommend that construction take place during extended KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.8 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States periods of dry weather in the summer months, if possible. If construction is to take place during wet weather, additional expenses and delays should be expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls to protect exposed subgrades and construction traffic areas.The on-site soils may be suitable for use as structural fill material, provided the moisture content is near optimum and the soil could be suitably compacted to specifications.This will depend on the moisture content of the soils at the time of construction.Krazan and Associates should be retained to determine if the on-site soils can be used as structural fill material at the time of construction. Foundations:Based on our explorations, conventional spread footings supported on medium dense or firmer native soil, or on structural fill extending to medium dense or firmer native soil,should provide adequate support for the proposed structures. Detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report. Stormwater Drainage:Proper site grading and drainage should help maintain current stability conditions. A comprehensive drainage plan will be an important part of a successful development project at this site. Surface water runoff should not be allowed to develop concentrated flow over the steep slopes on this property during or after construction. Proper grading and functional drainage systems are important for maintaining the currently stable condition of the site slopes.We understand that a bioswale in the southwest portion of the site is being considered for stormwater management. Further discussion of stormwater management and infiltration rate is provided in the Stormwater Infiltration section of this report. Site Preparation In general,site clearing should include removal of any vegetation and associated root systems; wood; abandoned utilities; structures including foundations, rubble; and rubbish. After stripping of organic topsoil is completed, the building pad and pavement areas should be proof-rolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck and be visually inspected to identify any loose/soft areas. Building Foundation Subgrade Preparation:In the building footprint, any loose/soft soils should be excavated to expose the underlying firm native soils. The resulting excavations should be filled to the planned bottom of the structure’s subgrade elevations with suitable soils as per the Structural Fill section of this report.Based on our soil explorations, we interpret the medium dense or firmer native load bearing soils at this site to be at about 1.0 to 2.0 feet bgs. Exterior Flatworks and Pavement subgrade preparation:Undocumented fill or loose/soft soils in the pavement areas should be removed to at least 1-foot below the planned subgrade elevation. We recommend that a high-strength woven geotextile separation fabric then be placed over the entire over excavated grade, such as Miraffi 600X or equivalent. After the fabric is placed, the area should be filled to the planned subgrade elevation with suitable soils as recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. In the exterior flatwork (sidewalk) areas, any loose/soft soil should be removed to at least 6-inches below the planned subgrade. The geotextile separation fabric will not be needed for sidewalk areas.Deeper KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.9 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States excavation may be required, if yielding soil conditions and trash or debris are exposed during over- excavation. During wet weather conditions, which typically occur from October through May, subgrade stability problems and grading difficulties may develop due to excess moisture, disturbance of moisture sensitive soils and/or the presence of perched groundwater. Earthwork construction during extended periods of wet weather could create the need to remove wet disturbed soils if they cannot be suitably compacted due to elevated moisture contents.Most of the soils exposed/encountered at this site are considered moisture- sensitive. If over-excavation is necessary, it should be confirmed through continuous monitoring and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer or geologist. Soils that have become unstable may require drying to near their optimal moisture content before compaction is feasible. Selective drying may be accomplished by scarifying or windrowing surficial material during extended periods of dry, warm weather (typically during the summer months). If the soils cannot be dried back to a workable moisture condition, remedial measures may be required. Preparation of the site for wet weather conditions may consist of the placement of a layer of aggregate base for the protection of exposed soils during construction. It should be understood that even if Best Management Practices (BMPs) for soil protection are implemented for the wet season, there is a significant chance that additional soil mitigation work will be needed. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be completely removed and backfilled with structural fill. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below the planned subgrade elevations should be excavated to expose medium dense or firmer soil, and be backfilled with structural fill. In general, any septic tanks, underground storage tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures and deleterious materials should be completely removed. Any concrete footings encountered in the planned foundation area should be removed to depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill. All fill on the sloping areas should be placed as structural fill. Where fills greater than 8 feet are to be constructed on original ground that slopes at inclinations steeper than 6:1 (horizontal to vertical), benches should be cut into the existing slope as the filling operations proceed. Each bench should consist of a level terrace, a minimum of 4 to 8 feet wide (based on the width of the equipment utilized), with the rise to the next bench held to 4 feet or less. Where fills of comparable height will be constructed on ground that slopes at an inclination steeper than 4:1 (horizontal to vertical), a keyway should be provided along the toe of the fill slope in addition to the benches. Each keyway should consist of a level trench at least 8 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, with side slopes not exceeding 1:1 (horizontal to vertical), cut into the existing slope. Permanent fill slopes should be no steeper than 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Fill materials should not be placed in any section of the slope until the subgrade for that section has been suitably prepared and evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Brush, roots,sod or any other organic, perishable or unsuitable material should not be placed in the fill slope. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.10 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Site grading near the crowns of the reconstructed slopes should be accomplished, such that, excessive sheet run-off is prevented. The completed slopes should be seeded or otherwise vegetated to protect from future erosion. Well vegetated slopes at the recommended configuration should be reasonably protected from typical erosional effects. However, vegetation on the slopes may not provide protection from unusual flow conditions, such as flood events or concentrations of stormwater runoff occurring on the slopes. A representative of our firm should be available on request during all grading operations to observe, test and evaluate earthwork construction. These testing and observation processes are an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction and stability of the material. The geotechnical engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations, contained in this report, are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to the recommendations set forth in this section and in the Structural Fill section of this report. Structural Fill Fill placed beneath foundations or other settlement-sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in-place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the subgrade prior to structural fill placement. BMP’s should be followed when considering the suitability of the existing materials for use as structural fill.The on-site soils including the undocumented fill may be suitable for reuse as structural fill, provided the soil is free of organic material and debris, and it is within ± 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Laboratory testing of some of the on-site soils indicated percentage of silt and clay (passing no. 200 sieve) to be greater than 5. It should be noted that the on-site soils with silt and clay content greater than 5 percent will be difficult to compact during the wet weather. Cobbles and boulders were noted at the time of our exploration.Cobbles and boulders should be removed from the soil prior to use as structural fill.If the on-site soils are stockpiled for later use as structural fill, the stockpiles should be covered to protect the soil from wet weather conditions. We recommend that a representative of Krazan & Associates be on site during the excavation work to determine which soils are suitable for placement as structural fill. Imported, all weather granular structural fill material should consist of well-graded gravel or a sand and gravel mixture with a maximum grain size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve). Structural fill can also consist crushed rock, rock spalls and controlled density fill (CDF). All structural fill material should be submitted for approval to the geotechnical engineer at least 48 hours prior to delivery to the site. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.11 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Structural fill soils should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness prior to compaction, moisture-conditioned as necessary, (moisture content of soil shall not vary by more than ±2 percent of optimum moisture) and the material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. In-place density tests should be performed on all structural fill to document proper moisture content and adequate compaction. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the compaction requirements or if soil conditions are not considered stable. Temporary Excavations The on-site soils have variable cohesion strengths, therefore the safe angles to which these materials may be cut for temporary excavations is limited, as the soils may be prone to caving and slope failures in temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet.Temporary excavations in the existing materials should be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V where room permits. Flatter inclinations may be necessary where caving conditions, and groundwater seepage are encountered. All temporary cuts should be in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Part N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring. The temporary slope cuts should be visually inspected daily by a qualified person during construction work activities and the results of the inspections should be included in daily reports. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the stability of the temporary cut slopes and minimizing slope erosion during construction. The temporary cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheeting to help minimize erosion during wet weather and the slopes should be closely monitored until the permanent retaining systems are complete. Materials should not be stored and equipment operated within 10 feet of the top of any temporary cut slope.A Krazan & Associates geologist or geotechnical engineer should observe the temporary cut slopes, at least periodically,during the excavation work. The reason for this is that all soil conditions may not be fully delineated by the limited sampling of the site from the geotechnical explorations. In the case of temporary slope cuts, the existing soil conditions may not be fully revealed until the excavation work exposes the soil. Typically, as excavation work progresses the maximum inclination of the temporary slope will need to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer so that supplemental recommendations can be made. Soil and groundwater conditions can be highly variable. Scheduling for soil work will need to be adjustable, to deal with unanticipated conditions, so that the project can proceed smoothly and required deadlines can be met. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, Krazan & Associates should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. Shallow Foundations General:The proposed structures may be supported on a conventional spread foundation system bearing on the medium dense or firmer native soils or on structural fill including granular soils, rock spalls or CDF extending to the medium dense or firmer native soils.Based on our soil explorations, we interpreted the KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.12 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States medium dense or firmer native load bearing soils at this site to be approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet bgs in the proposed building area. Soil Bearing:Footings supported as mentioned-above, may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf)for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loads such as wind or seismic loading. A representative of Krazan and Associates should evaluate the foundation bearing soil and observe structural fill placement, where utilized. For frost protection and bearing capacity considerations,exterior footings should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. Footing widths should be based on the anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Footings should have a minimum width of at least 12 inches regardless of load. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soils should be removed from the foundation excavations prior to placing concrete. Structural Fill in Footing Areas:Structural fill placed for foundation support should follow these recommendations. If structural fill consisting of granular soils or rock spalls are used, then the foundation excavations would need to be widened on both sides of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over-excavation below the bottom of the footing. Structural fill consisting of granular soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. To reduce the volume of extra excavation needed for the footing trenches and to simplify structural fill placement, it may be practical to place CDF to fill the deeper footing trenches to the planned footing subgrade elevations. If CDF is used, the trench may be excavated only slightly wider (6 inches wider on each side) than the footing. Potential Foundation Settlement:For foundations constructed as recommended, the total settlement is not expected to exceed 1-inch. Differential settlement should be less than ½-inch. Most settlement is expected to occur during construction, as the loads are applied. However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. It should be noted that the risk of liquefaction is considered low, given the composition and density of the native glacial soils. Design Parameters –Lateral Resistance:Resistance to lateral displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.40 acting between the bases of foundations and the supporting subgrade soil. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces (neglecting the upper 12 inches). The allowable friction factor and allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure values include a factor of safety of 1.5. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Foundation Drainage:Seasonal rainfall, water run-off, and the normal practice of watering trees and landscaping areas around the proposed structures, should not be permitted to flood and/or saturate KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.13 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States foundation subgrade soils. To reduce the buildup of water within the footing areas, continuous footing drains (with cleanouts)should be provided at the bases of the footings. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid perforated PVC pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed near the bottom and enveloped in all directions by washed rock and wrapped with filter fabric to limit the migration of silt and clay into the drain. Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork The floor slab and exterior flatwork subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation section of this report, and may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction value of k = 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci). In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness, such as areas covered with moisture sensitive floor coverings, we recommend that concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a water vapor retardant system. The system should consist of a vapor retardant sheeting underlain by a capillary break consisting of a minimum of 4-inches of compacted clean (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve), open-graded coarse rock of ¾-inch maximum size. The vapor retardant sheeting should be protected from puncture damage. In addition, ventilation of the structure may be prudent to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. The exterior flatwork should be placed separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls We have developed criteria for the design of retaining or below grade walls. Our design parameters are based on retention of the native soils or structural fill. The parameters are also based on level, well-drained wall backfill conditions. Walls may be designed as “restrained” retaining walls based on “at-rest” earth pressures, plus any surcharge on top of the walls as described below, if the walls are braced to restrain movement and/or movement is not acceptable. Unrestrained walls may be designed based on “active” earth pressure, if the walls are not part of the buildings and some movement of the retaining walls is acceptable. Acceptable lateral movement equal to at least 0.2 percent of the wall height would warrant the use of “active” earth pressure values for design. The following table, titled Wall Design Criteria, presents the recommended soil related design parameters for retaining walls with well-drained level backfill. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.14 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Wall Design Criteria “At-rest” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure)55 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) (Triangular Distribution) “Active” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure)35 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) (Triangular Distribution) Seismic Increase for “Active” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure) 11 psf x H (Uniform Distribution) Where H is the height of the wall in feet Passive Earth Pressure on Low Side of Wall (includes factor of safety of 1.5)Neglect upper 1-foot, then 300 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) Soil-Footing Coefficient of Sliding Friction (includes factor of safety of 1.5)0.40 If vehicular loads are expected to act behind the wall within a horizontal distance of less than or equal to one-half of the wall height, then a live load surcharge should be applied for the design. In this case, we recommend the addition of vehicle surcharges of 70 psf and 100 psf to the active and at-rest earth pressures, respectively. The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressure generated by water accumulation behind the retaining walls or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations or roadways adjacent to the wall (surcharge loads). To minimize the lateral earth pressure and reduce the buildup of water pressure against the walls, continuous footing drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the bases of the walls. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid PVC perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed near the bottom. The drainpipe should be enveloped by 6 inches of washed gravel in all directions wrapped in filter fabric to prevent the migration of silt and clay into the drain. The wall fills adjacent to and extending a lateral distance of at least 2 feet behind the walls should consist of free-draining granular material. All free-draining backfill should contain less than 3 percent fines (passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) based upon the fraction passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve with at least 30 percent of the material being retained on the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve.Alternatively,a drainage composite may be used. It should be realized that the primary purpose of the free-draining material is the reduction of hydrostatic pressure. Some potential for the moisture to contact the back face of the wall may exist, even with treatment, which may require that more extensive waterproofing be specified for walls, which require interior moisture sensitive finishes. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.15 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States We recommend that the wall fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. In-place density tests should be performed to verify adequate compaction. Soil compactors place transient surcharges on the backfill. Consequently, only light hand operated equipment is recommended for fill compaction within 3 feet of walls so that excessive stress is not imposed on the walls. Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures should be taken and these measures should be in general accordance with local regulations. At a minimum, the following basic recommendations should be incorporated into the design of the erosion and sediment control features of the site: 1)Phase the soil, foundation, utility, and other work, requiring excavation or the disturbance of the site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September). However, provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMPs), grading activities can be undertaken during the wet season (generally October through April). It should be noted that this typically increases the overall project cost. 2)All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible. 3)Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt fences with a lower Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration systems. 4)Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited other filtration methods will need to be incorporated. 5)Surface water runoff should not be allowed to develop concentrated flow over the steep slopes on this property during or after construction. Groundwater Influence on Structures and Earthwork Construction Groundwater seepage was not encountered in our explorations.It should be recognized that groundwater elevations may fluctuate with time. The groundwater level will be dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Therefore, groundwater levels at the time of the field investigation may be different from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.16 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States If groundwater seepage is encountered during construction, we should observe the conditions to determine if dewatering will be needed. Design of temporary dewatering systems to remove groundwater should be the responsibility of the contractor. If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated. These soils may “pump,” and the materials may not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include: disking and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with drier materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material. A qualified geotechnical engineering firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. Drainage and Landscape Special attention to the drainage and irrigation adjacent to the buildings is recommended. Grading should establish drainage away from the structures and this drainage pattern should be maintained. Water should not be allowed to collect adjacent to the structures. Excessive irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be allowed to occur. The ground surface should slope away from building pads and pavement areas, toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Roof drains should be tightlined away from foundations. Roof drains should not be connected to the footing drains. Pavement areas should be inclined at a minimum of 1 percent and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities, and suitable outlets. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Utility Trench Backfill We recommend that utility trench backfill be placed in general accordance with typical recommendations for structural fill placement. A firm and unyielding subgrade should allow for the proper placement of subsurface utilities. This could include the placement of geotextile and quarry rock in the bottom of utility trenches prior to placement of pipe bedding, utilities and trench backfill. Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards, by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of precipitation. All utility trench backfill for this project should follow the recommendation as per the Structural Fill section of this report. Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.17 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States upper 5 feet of utility trench backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Below 5 feet, utility trench backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with the pipe manufacturer's recommendations. The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trenches regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. Stormwater Infiltration A Large-Scale PIT was performed in accordance with the DOE 2019 SWMMWW, Volume V, Chapter 5. The PIT was performed in TP-1 at a depth of about 2 feet bgs. The exposed soils at the test depth consisted of moist, gray silty sand with gravel and extended to the maximum explored depth of about 7.5 feet bgs, where refusal was encountered. The entire stratum was interpreted as native glacial till soils. The measured steady-state infiltration rate was 0.19 inches per hour.A total correction factor of 0.41 should be applied to the measured steady-state infiltration rate when evaluating the size of the stormwater management system. Based on our explorations, and the Large-Scale PIT result, the on-site native glacial soils are not considered suitable for stormwater infiltration at this site. Pavement Design The pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation section of this report. It should be noted that subgrade soils that have relatively high silt contents may be highly sensitive to moisture conditions. The subgrade strength and performance characteristics of a silty subgrade material may be dramatically reduced if it becomes wet. Therefore, we recommend that the pavement subgrade not be exposed for long periods, especially during wet weather. Traffic loads were not provided, however, based on our knowledge of the proposed project, we expect the traffic to range from light duty (passenger automobiles) to heavy duty (firetrucks). The following tables show the minimum recommended pavement sections for both light duty and heavy-duty traffic loads. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.18 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (FLEXIBLE) PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate Base* 3.0 in.6.0 in. HEAVY DUTY Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate Base* 4.0 in.6.0 in. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (RIGID) PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY Min. PCC Depth Aggregate Base* 6.0 in.6.0 in. HEAVY DUTY Min. PCC Depth Aggregate Base* 8.0 in.6.0 in. * 95% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 The pavement specification in Appendix C provides additional recommendations. The asphaltic concrete depth in the flexible pavement tables should be a surface course type asphalt, such as Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ½ inch HMA. The rigid pavement design is based on a Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) mix that has a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with a fiber mesh. The design is also based on a concrete flexural strength or modulus of rupture of 575 psi. Testing and Inspection A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions, including foundation bearing soils,are consistent with those exposed during our exploratory field work. This activity is an integral part of our services as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of our recommendations has been incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. Furthermore, Krazan & Associates is not responsible for the contractor’s procedures, methods, scheduling,or management of the work site. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.19 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Olympic Peninsula YMCA and their assigns, for the specific application to the subject site.Geotechnical engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves. Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to improvements in the field of geotechnical engineering, physical changes in the site either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations,or possible changes in the proposed structure after the time of completion of the soils report may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that three years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction are characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original geotechnical investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. Our report, design conclusions,and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those encountered during our field investigation. The findings and conclusions of this report can be affected by the passage of time, seasonal weather conditions, manmade influences such as construction on or adjacent to the site,and natural events such as earthquakes, slope instability, flooding, or groundwater fluctuations. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so that the recommendations can be reviewed and re-evaluated. Misinterpretations of this report by other design team members can result in project delays and cost over- runs. These risks can be reduced by having Krazan & Associates, Inc.involved in the design team’s meetings and discussions prior to and following submission of the geotechnical report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should also be retained to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. To reduce the risk of contractors misinterpreting the recommendations of this report,Krazan & Associates should participate in pre-bid and preconstruction meetings, and provide construction observations and testing during the site work. KA Project No. 102-23021 Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center October 5, 2023 Revised January 31, 2024 Page No.20 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scope of our geotechnical engineering services did not include any environmental site assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessments. The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical developments.We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above, and should not be used for any other site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (360) 598-2126. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vijay Chaudhary, P.E Shawn Williams, L.E.G. Project Engineer Engineering Geologist AG:EA:VC:SEW 01/31/24 01/31/24 Number and Approximate Location of Hand Auger Exploration LEGEND H-1 SWCampusDrive 13 2 n d A ve NE Lot C Proposed Building Proposed Building Lot D B-1 B-2 B-1B-2 B-3 B-1 B-2 B-4 B-3 B-5 H-1 H-2 TP-1 TP-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-6 TP-1 SWCamp u s Dr iv e 13 2 n d A ve NE Lot C Proposed Building Proposed Building Lot D B-1 B-2 B-2 B-4 B-3 B-5 H-2 TP-1 TP-2 TP-6 Appendix A Page A.1 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Investigation The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program.Four (4) soil borings and two (2) test pits were conducted and sampled to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site.The soil borings, designated B-1,B-2,B-3, and B-4 were drilled on August 28,2023 using a subcontracted drill rig.The soil borings were advanced to depths between 9.0 feet and 31.5 feet bgs.The test pits, designated TP-1 and TP-2 were excavated on August 28, 2023 using an excavator subcontractor. The test pits were excavated to depths of about 6.0 and 7.5 feet bgs.The approximate boring and test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2).The depths shown on the attached boring and test pit logs are from the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. Soil boring samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as described in ASTM Test Method D1586. The Standard Penetration Test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside-diameter, split barrel sampler into the subsoil with a 140-pound hammer free falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer-blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of an 18-inch sample interval is defined as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or N-value. The blow count is presented graphically on the boring log in this appendix. The resistance, or “N” value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or of the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Additionally,we performed one (1) Large-Scale PIT in accordance with the DOE 2019 SWMMWW, Volume V, Chapter 5. The PIT was performed at roughly 2 feet bgs in the TP-1. The area exposed for the PIT was at least 100 square feet. The testing included a pre-soak period, followed by determination of a steady-state infiltration rate and then a falling head infiltration rate testing. After the PIT was completed, the test pit was over-excavated to approximately 5.5 feet below the test elevation to document whether any restrictive layers or groundwater seepage were present. A field geologist from Krazan and Associates was present during the explorations, continuously examined and visually classified the soils in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), and maintained logs of the explorations, which are presented in this appendix. Representative samples of the soils encountered in the geotechnical explorations were collected and transported to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing program was developed primarily to determine the index properties of the soils. Test results were used for soil classification and as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered. Sieve analysis and natural moisture content tests were performed on selected samples. The laboratory test results are included in this appendix. Project Number: 102-23021 & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. Date: Sep 2023 Drawn By: AG References: USCS Soil Classification Proposed Jefferson County Early Learning Center Relative Density with Respect to SPT N-Value Coarse-Grained Soils Density Very Loose Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard 0 - 4 0 - 1 2 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 15 16 - 30 > 30 5 -10 11 - 30 31 - 50 > 50 Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense DensityN-Value (Blows/Ft)N-Value (Blows/Ft) Fine-Grained Soils USCS Soil Classification Major Division Coarse- Grained Soils < 50% passes #200 sieve Gravel and Gravelly Soils < 50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Gravel (with little or no fines) GW Well-Graded Gravel Poorly Graded Gravel Silty Gravel Clayey Gravel Well-Graded Sand Poorly Graded Sand Silty Sand Clayey Sand Silt Lean Clay Organic Silt and Clay (Low Plasticity) Inorganic Silt Inorganic Clay Organic Clay and Silt (Med. to High Plasticity) Peat GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Sand (with little or no fines) Gravel (with > 12% fines) Sand (with > 12% fines) Sand and Sandy Soils > 50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Silt and Clay Liquid Limit < 50 Silt and Clay Liquid Limit > 50 Highly Organic Soils Fine- Grained Soils > 50% passes #200 sieve Group Description LOG OF BORING No. Date Drilled: Location: Water Level: Logged By: Project: Ground Elevation: Hammer Type:Manual Automatic Other Drilling Method: Krazan & Associates, Inc. De p t h ( f t ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N o . /T y p e 1s t 6 " 2n d 6 " 3r d 6 " N V a l u e N VALUE GRAPH (Last 12") 10 20 30 40 50 Notes: LEGEND SAMPLER TYPE SS - Split Spoon NQ - Rock Core, 1-7/8" ST - Shelby Tube CU - Cuttings- AWG - Rock Core, 1-1/8" CT - Continuous Tube DRILLING METHOD HSA - Hollow Stem Auger RW - Rotary Wash CFA - Continuous Flight Augers RC - Rock Core D C - Driving Casing B-1 8/28/23 Port Townsend, WA Not encountered. AG Jefferson County Early Learning Center ~190 ft. HSA Ground Surface Brown to grayish brown, silty sand with gravel (undocumented fill) (moist, loose to medium dense) -Becomes grayish brown and medium dense. Light brown, sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) (moist, medium dense to dense) -Gravel no longer observed. -Becomes dense. Gray, sand (SP) (moist, very dense) End of Exploratory Boring S1/GB S2/SS S3/SS S4/SS S5/SS S6/SS S7/SS S8/SS - 19 7 7 22 17 23 50/6" - 15 9 7 11 20 50/6" - 12 13 7 19 26 - 27 22 14 30 46 50 50 LOG OF BORING No. Date Drilled: Location: Water Level: Logged By: Project: Ground Elevation: Hammer Type:Manual Automatic Other Drilling Method: Krazan & Associates, Inc. De p t h ( f t ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N o . /T y p e 1s t 6 " 2n d 6 " 3r d 6 " N V a l u e N VALUE GRAPH (Last 12") 10 20 30 40 50 Notes: LEGEND SAMPLER TYPE SS - Split Spoon NQ - Rock Core, 1-7/8" ST - Shelby Tube CU - Cuttings- AWG - Rock Core, 1-1/8" CT - Continuous Tube DRILLING METHOD HSA - Hollow Stem Auger RW - Rotary Wash CFA - Continuous Flight Augers RC - Rock Core D C - Driving Casing B-2 8/28/23 Port Townsend, WA Not encountered. AG Jefferson County Early Learning Center ~190 ft. HSA Ground Surface Grayish brown to gray, silty sand with gravel and cobbles (SM) (moist, very dense) -Becomes gray. Gray, sand (SP) (moist, very dense) -0.3' silty sand lens was encountered. End of Exploratory Boring S1/GB S2/SS S3/SS S4/SS S5/SS S6/SS - 50/6" 50/6" 23 50/6" 28 - 25 50/6" - 50/5" - 50 50 50 50 50 LOG OF BORING No. Date Drilled: Location: Water Level: Logged By: Project: Ground Elevation: Hammer Type:Manual Automatic Other Drilling Method: Krazan & Associates, Inc. De p t h ( f t ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N o . /T y p e 1s t 6 " 2n d 6 " 3r d 6 " N V a l u e N VALUE GRAPH (Last 12") 10 20 30 40 50 Notes: LEGEND SAMPLER TYPE SS - Split Spoon NQ - Rock Core, 1-7/8" ST - Shelby Tube CU - Cuttings- AWG - Rock Core, 1-1/8" CT - Continuous Tube DRILLING METHOD HSA - Hollow Stem Auger RW - Rotary Wash CFA - Continuous Flight Augers RC - Rock Core D C - Driving Casing B-3 8/28/23 Port Townsend, WA Not encountered. AG Jefferson County Early Learning Center ~190 ft. HSA Ground Surface Gray, silty sand with gravel (SM) (moist, very dense) End of Exploratory Boring S1/SS S2/SS S3/SS 50/6" 50/6" 50/6" 50 50 50 LOG OF BORING No. Date Drilled: Location: Water Level: Logged By: Project: Ground Elevation: Hammer Type:Manual Automatic Other Drilling Method: Krazan & Associates, Inc. De p t h ( f t ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N o . /T y p e 1s t 6 " 2n d 6 " 3r d 6 " N V a l u e N VALUE GRAPH (Last 12") 10 20 30 40 50 Notes: LEGEND SAMPLER TYPE SS - Split Spoon NQ - Rock Core, 1-7/8" ST - Shelby Tube CU - Cuttings- AWG - Rock Core, 1-1/8" CT - Continuous Tube DRILLING METHOD HSA - Hollow Stem Auger RW - Rotary Wash CFA - Continuous Flight Augers RC - Rock Core D C - Driving Casing B-4 8/28/23 Port Townsend, WA Not encountered. AG Jefferson County Early Learning Center ~190 ft. HSA Ground Surface Gray, silty sand with gravel (SM) (moist, very dense) End of Exploratory Boring S1/GB S2/SS S3/SS S4/SS - 19 18 50/3" - 50/6" 50/6" - - - - - - 50 50 50 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:PAGE: 1 of 1 DATE: SURFACE ELEV.:CONTRACTOR: SAMPLE METHOD:LOCATION: Water Observations: Notes:Logged By: DE P T H ( f t ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 US C S Y M B O L WA T E R L E V E L MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E N o . SA M P L E T Y P E Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits 10 20304050607080 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Water Level Initial: # Final: $ TP-1 JCELC 102-23021 8/28/23 ~191 ft.Bull's Eye Excavation Grab Port Townsend, WA Brown to gray, silty sand with gravel and cobbles (SM) (moist, very dense) -Becomes gray at 1.5 ft. -15" boulder noted at 2.0 ft. -Refusal at 7.5 ft. End of Exploratory Test Pit S1 S2 S3 S4 Groundwater seepage was not encountered. Caving was not encountered. Pilot Infiltration Test performed at 2.0 ft.EA LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:PAGE: 1 of 1 DATE: SURFACE ELEV.:CONTRACTOR: SAMPLE METHOD:LOCATION: Water Observations: Notes:Logged By: DE P T H ( f t ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 US C S Y M B O L WA T E R L E V E L MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E N o . SA M P L E T Y P E Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits 10 20304050607080 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Water Level Initial: # Final: $ TP-2 JCELC 102-23021 8/28/23 ~191 ft.Bull's Eye Excavation Grab Port Townsend, WA Brown to gray, silty sand with gravel and cobbles (SM) (moist, very dense) -Becomes gray at 1.5 ft. -Refusal at 6.0 ft. End of Exploratory Test Pit S1 S2 S3 Groundwater seepage was not encountered. Caving was not encountered.EA Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T C O A R S E R 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 9 8 4 32 19 28 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D 1140) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: TP-1 Depth: 2.0' Date Sampled: Sample Number: 1049 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Gray Silty Sand with Gravel 3 2 1.5 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 95 95 94 91 89 87 83 79 73 47 31 30 28 NP NV SM A-2-4(0) 15.9353 6.4387 0.5721 0.4514 0.1930 Sample Location: TP1 - S2 Moisture Content: 3.4% 8/29/23 8/30/23 AC Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 8/28/23 Olympic Peninsula YMCA Jefferson County Early Learning Center 10223021 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided) Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T C O A R S E R 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 4 9 4 34 14 35 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D 1140) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: TP-1 Depth: 7.5' Date Sampled: Sample Number: 1048 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Gray Silty Sand 1.5 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 98 96 93 92 87 83 77 49 42 36 35 NP NV NP SM A-2-4(0) 7.3633 2.9312 0.5650 0.4407 Sample Location: TP1 - S4 Moisture Content: 6.4% 8/29/23 8/30/23 JP Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 8/28/23 Olympic Peninsula YMCA Jefferson County Early Learning Center 10223021 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided) Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T C O A R S E R 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 8 5 20 38 29 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D2216) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 5.0' Date Sampled:Sample Number: 1050 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Grayish Brown Silty Sand .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 99 97 92 87 81 67 51 36 29 NP NV SM A-2-4(0) 3.4682 1.4782 0.3368 0.2446 0.0847 Sample Location: B1-S3 Moisture Content: 3.5% 8/29/23 8/30/23 AC Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 8/28/23 Olympic Peninsula YMCA Jefferson County Early Learning Center 10223021 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided) Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T C O A R S E R 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 3 0 34 53 10 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D2216) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 15.0' Date Sampled: Sample Number: 1051 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Light Brown Poorly Graded Sand w/ Silt .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 99 98 97 97 93 63 28 14 9.8 NP NV SP-SM A-3 0.7458 0.6456 0.4054 0.3510 0.2578 0.1644 0.0856 4.74 1.91 Sample Location: B1-S5 Moisture Content:4.7% 8/30/23 8/30/23 AC Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 8/28/23 Olympic Peninsula YMCA Jefferson County Early Learning Center 10223021 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided) Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T C O A R S E R 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 1 2 64 30 3 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D2216) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 20.0' Date Sampled:Sample Number: 1052 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Gray Poorly Graded Sand .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 100 99 97 76 33 24 8 2.7 NP NV SP A-1-b 1.2200 1.0376 0.6649 0.5754 0.3811 0.1892 0.1632 4.08 1.34 Sample location: B2-S6 Moisture Content:7.5% 8/30/23 8/30/23 AC Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 8/28/23 Olympic Peninsula YMCA Jefferson County Early Learning Center 10223021 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided) Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T C O A R S E R 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 4 10 6 21 32 27 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Test Results (ASTM D 6913 & ASTM D 2216) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: B-3 Depth: 5.0' Date Sampled: Sample Number: 1053 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Gray Silty Sand 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 96 93 91 86 80 74 59 44 33 27 NP NV SM A-2-4(0) 7.9287 4.3373 0.4396 0.3104 0.1211 Sample Location: B3-S2 Moisture Content:5.5% 8/30/23 9/5/23 AC Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 8/28/23 Olympic Peninsula YMCA Jefferson County Early Learning Center 10223021 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided) Appendix B Page B.1 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States APPENDIX B EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. SCOPE OF WORK:These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE:The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified to by the project Civil Engineer.Both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer are the Owner’s representatives. If the contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner of the Engineers. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:All compacted materials shall be densified to a density not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 as specified in the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Geotechnical Engineer. SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS:The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the soil report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report,and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. Appendix B Page B.2 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States DUST CONTROL:The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor’s operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including Court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparations of foundation materials for receiving fill. CLEARING AND GRUBBING:The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter determined by the Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots larger than 1 inch. Tree root removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Geotechnical Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted. SUBGRADE PREPARATION:Subgrade should be prepared as described in our site preparation section of this report. EXCAVATION:All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor’s expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL:No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Geotechnical Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetable or other deleterious matter as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION:The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Geotechnical Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to final acceptance. SEASONAL LIMITS:No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill are as specified. Appendix C Page C.1 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS 1. DEFINITIONS –The term “pavement” shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term “subgrade” is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. 2. SCOPE OF WORK –This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for and reasonable incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically noted as “Work Not Included.” 3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE –The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans and as per the pavement design section of this report. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by test method ASTM D1557. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement of additional pavement courses. 4. AGGREGATE BASE –The aggregate base shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base should conform to WSDOT Standard Specification for Crushed Surfacing Base Course or Top Course (Item 9- 03.9(3)). The base material shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95 percent as determined by ASTM D1557. Each layer of subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 5. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING –Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to WSDOT Specifications. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to WSDOT Specifications, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with combination steel- wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in WSDOT Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 6. TACK COAT –The tack (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of WSDOT Specifications.