The URL can be used to link to this page

20-101386-Geotechnical (Soils) Report-05-07-2020-V2Earth Science + Technology Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project Federal Way, Washington for IRG, LLC March 9, 2017 Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project Federal Way, Washington for IRG, LLC March 9, 2017 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253.383.4940 March 9, 2017| Page i File No. 22247-001-02 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Surface Conditions............................................................................................................................................... 3 Mapped Geologic Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 4 General ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Site Development and Earthwork ....................................................................................................................... 5 General .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Stripping and Clearing .................................................................................................................................. 5 Subgrade Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Excavation ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Excavation Support ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Wet Weather Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 7 Fill Materials ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 On-site Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Select Granular Fill ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Pipe Bedding ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Crushed Rock ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Fill Placement and Compaction .......................................................................................................................... 9 General .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Area Fills and Bases ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Building Pad Subgrade .............................................................................................................................. 10 Trench Backfill ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Temporary and Permanent Slopes .................................................................................................................. 10 Groundwater and Drainage Considerations .................................................................................................... 11 Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 11 2015 IBC Seismic Design .......................................................................................................................... 11 Foundation Support .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Shallow Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 12 Bearing Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Footing Subgrade Preparation .................................................................................................................. 12 Foundation Settlement .............................................................................................................................. 12 Lateral Resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Building Pad and Floor Slabs .................................................................................................................... 13 Retaining Structures ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Pavement Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 14 Pavement Design ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 15 March 9, 2017| Page ii File No. 22247-001-02 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Existing Conditions Figure 3. Site Plan Proposed Conditions Figure 4. Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing Figure A-1 – Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 through A-7 – Logs of Borings Figures A-8 through A-20 – Logs of Test Pits Figures A-21 through A-24 – Sieve Analysis Results Appendix B. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use March 9, 2017| Page 1 File No. 22247-001-02 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the Proposed Greenline Warehouse A, to be located on a 19-acre parcel within the former Weyerhaeuser property in Federal Way, Washington. The proposed development site is bordered to the west by Weyerhaeuser Road, to the north and east by Weyerhaeuser Way, and to the south by forested ground. Figure 1 shows the site location. Figure 2 shows the approximate current layout of the site. The parcel is presently forested and mostly undeveloped. The site contains relatively flat ground in the east and west, separated by a low slope, which descends downward to the east. Two north-south oriented and one east-west oriented gravel-covered driveways/trails are located within the site. We understand that these features were access roads to a residential development that occupied the north part of the site until about 1978. Recently deposited fill soils and organic debris and concrete bunkers associated with a former landscaping operation are located in the east-central part of the site (Figure 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our understanding of the proposed project is based on information provided by ESM, Inc. and our project meetings. The information includes a preliminary site plan dated February 17, 2017 and two preliminary design cross sections through the site. We completed a geotechnical study in June 2016 for a previously considered warehouse development (Victory) on this parcel. The proposed Victory warehouse was to cover about 314,000 square feet. This included a 239,000-square-foot by 60-foot-high bay area of freezer rack storage We understand that the currently proposed development will comprise a new warehouse, asphalt-concrete (AC) pavement and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement in parking and access areas. We understand the building will cover about 225,950 square feet and will be about 44 feet in vertical height. Parking for up to 264 vehicles is planned for the development. The proposed building footprint is located within the approximate north 2/3 of the previously considered Victory structure footprint. The final floor slab is planned to be at about Elevation 403 feet. This will require cuts of up to 10 feet in height on the west side and up to 11 feet of fill in the southeast corner of the building pad. Cuts and fills will also be required for the parking areas. We understand that 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) cut slopes will be used to establish planned grade along the west site boundary. Similarly inclined fill slopes are planned for the east perimeter of the site. Structural retaining walls (maximum height of 8 feet) for fills are planned for the site entrance at the southeast project corner. The wall types had not been specified at the time of this report. The proposed Greenline Warehouse A project layout is shown in Figure 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our services is to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned development, based primarily on subsurface explorations completed for a previous study at the site. Our services have been provided in general accordance with the confirming agreement dated March 9, 2017. Specifically, GeoEngineers scope includes: March 9, 2017| Page 2 File No. 22247-001-02 1. Reviewing proposed Greenline project plans provided by the design team. This includes a proposed clearing and grading plan and site cross sections. 2. Comparing the Greenline project plans with the June 2016 Victory plans. 3. Performing a brief geologic reconnaissance to evaluate current (March 2017) surface conditions at accessible portions of the site. 4. Reviewing subsurface data from explorations completed by us during the Victory phase of the project. Logs of these explorations and laboratory data are attached to this report. 5. Describing site conditions based on our site observations, review of published maps/aerial photographs and laboratory test results, and on the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings and test pits. 6. Developing recommendations for site preparation and earthwork based on the data and our understanding of the proposed site development. This includes an evaluation of the suitability of on- site soil for use as fill including structural fill beneath the building and pavement areas, and gradations criteria for imported fill. A discussion of possible adverse effects of weather on construction activities and suitability of on-site soil during wet weather conditions is also provided. 7. Providing recommendations for temporary and permanent slopes. 8. Providing recommendations for shallow foundation support, including footing size, allowable soil bearing pressure and estimated post-construction settlements. 9. Discussing footing construction considerations including excavation, bearing surface preparation, material requirements and compaction requirements. 10. Providing subgrade preparation recommendations and modulus of subgrade reaction for design of slabs-on-grade. 11. Evaluating lateral earth pressures for design of below-grade structures, such as, dock-high walls and stormwater vault walls. 12. Providing recommendations for seismic design in accordance with 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and local standards. This includes an assessment and discussion of liquefaction potential and estimated ground settlement, and a discussion of potential remedial measures, as applicable. 13. Providing recommendations for pavement subgrade preparation and AC pavement design sections for both automobile and truck traffic areas. 14. Discussing drainage considerations for construction based on the conditions encountered in our explorations. 15. Developing a preliminary opinion regarding feasibility of stormwater infiltration based on the soils encountered in our prior explorations. Our opinion is based on empirical relationships between the laboratory data and soil permeability and our experience. March 9, 2017| Page 3 File No. 22247-001-02 SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The site occupies two relatively level areas, which are separated by a slope that descends downward to the east. The slope is located in the approximate center of the site and is oriented generally north to south. Existing ground surface ranges from about Elevation 419 feet in the northwest to about Elevation 380 feet in the southeast. The existing site layout is shown in Figure 2. The site is currently vegetated with a thick stand of second or third growth fir, cedar and deciduous trees with a moderate to thick understory of brush. Isolated small wetland areas are mapped in the east portion of the site, in a general north-south line, as shown in Figure 2. We observed evidence of a north-south oriented drainage in the area of the wetlands during our site visits. Surface water was not observed in the drainage areas during our April-May 2016 site visits. We observed surface water in some of these areas during our March 2017 site reconnaissance. We observed dark, organic-rich soils exposed at the ground surface within the wetland and drainage areas at the time of our site visits. Stockpiles of soil fill, organic materials and concrete bunkers associated with a former landscaping operation were observed in the east-central portion of the site. The fill soils appeared to have been end- dumped from dump trucks. Evidence of older fill stockpiles were also observed in this area. We observed remnants of downed trees in this area during our March 2017 site reconnaissance. The approximate location and extent of these features are shown in Figure 2. Former residential street access roads were observed at the site, as also shown in Figure 2. The roadways appeared to be surfaced in gravel, however, it also appeared that asphalt-concrete pavement underlies the gravel in some places. We understand that a residential development occupied the north part of the site from between 1943 and about 1978, based on a review of aerial photos. Mapped Geologic Conditions General geologic conditions in the site vicinity were evaluated by reviewing “Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, 2004” prepared for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Native geologic materials mapped at and in the site vicinity consist of Vashon- age Glacial Till (map symbol Qvt). Vashon till was deposited by and directly beneath the advancing Vashon- age glacier as it moved south through the site area. The deposit typically consists of a dense to very dense mixture of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and some boulders. Subsurface Conditions Six borings and 16 test pit explorations were completed at the site between May 24 through May 27, 2016 as part of our study for the originally planned Victory development concept. Additional explorations were not considered necessary based on the proposed location of the Greenline Warehouse, relative to the previously completed borings/test pits. Details of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs completed for the previous Victory development study are summarized in Appendix A. The exploration logs and results of the laboratory testing program are also presented in Appendix A. The approximate locations of all the explorations are shown in Figures 2 and 3. March 9, 2017| Page 4 File No. 22247-001-02 Fill, consisting of brown to black silty sand with wood and plastic debris was encountered in test pit TP-13 to a depth of about 5.5 feet. A thin layer of gravel fill was encountered at ground surface in borings B-3, B-4 and B-5 to a depth of 1.5 to 2 feet. Varying thicknesses of forest duff and/or topsoil and sod were encountered from ground surface in the other explorations. The organic material/duff layer ranged from about 6 inches to about 2.5 feet thick in the explorations. All explorations encountered and were terminated in glacial deposits. Dense to very dense glacial till was encountered beneath loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff weathered till and/or fill in the explorations. The unweathered glacial till, where present, was encountered to depths ranging from about 2.5 feet to about 8 feet below existing ground surface (bgs) in the explorations. The glacial till deposits typically consist of a mixture of silty gravel and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and occasional cobbles and boulders. Layers or lenses of stiff to hard silt with sand and gravel are occasionally present within the weathered and unweathered glacial till at some locations. Laboratory testing on select samples of the glacial soils yielded fines contents (material passing the U.S. #200 sieve) ranging from 18 to 72 percent. In-place moisture contents ranged from 6 to 35 percent. Groundwater Groundwater was observed in B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-6 at depths ranging between about 6 feet and 19 feet bgs. Minor groundwater seepage was observed in TP-3, TP-7, TP-8 and TP-9 at depths ranging between about 1.5 and 10 feet bgs. A seasonal, perched groundwater table often forms in glacial deposits. Based on the site geologic conditions, our experience and recent observations, we expect groundwater seepage amounts and the depths at which it occurs will vary with season and precipitation. Larger zones of perched groundwater should be expected/ anticipated during the wetter winter and early spring months. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and testing program, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development. A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations for the proposed warehouse facility is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the detailed recommendations presented in this report. ■ The native soils contain a moderate to high percentage of fines and are very sensitive to small changes in moisture content. These soils are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic when the moisture content is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content for compaction. These soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to work or compact when wet or if earthwork is performed in wet weather. Therefore, it is more economical to perform earthwork during the normally drier periods of the year. Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to obtain the required compaction. ■ We anticipate that the native soils and existing site fill will only be suitable for use as structural fill during extended periods of dry weather. We recommend imported granular soils be used for structural fill if construction occurs during periods of wet weather. March 9, 2017| Page 5 File No. 22247-001-02 ■ Some cutting and filling is planned to establish site grades. We recommend graded areas be protected before the onset of rainy weather because of the highly moisture sensitive character of much of the on- site soil. ■ We recommend constructing temporary haul roads underlain by quarry spalls or coarse crushed ballast material to help protect subgrades from disturbance and degradation under construction traffic. ■ The proposed warehouse structure may be satisfactorily supported on continuous and isolated shallow foundations supported on native soils or compacted structural fill that extends to undisturbed native soil. We recommend a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for design of footings. ■ Floor slabs may be supported on-grade. We recommend floor slabs be underlain by a capillary break layer consisting of a 4-inch thickness of well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch and less than 5 percent fines (portion passing the U.S. Standard #200 sieve). Site Development and Earthwork General Site development work will include removing existing trees and vegetation, stripping of forest duff, topsoil and root layer, cutting in the west part of the site and placing fill in the east/southeast portions of the site to achieve a level building pad. The site soils are highly moisture sensitive due to high fines content. Grading and reuse of the on-site soils is more practical during the dry season (typically July through September). Moisture conditioning necessary to obtain proper compaction of on-site soil will likely not be practical during the cooler and wetter winter months, and may still present challenges during the normally dry summer months. We recommend a contingency be included in the project budget and schedule for export of unsuitable wet on-site soil and import of select granular soil if earthwork will be performed during periods of wet weather, which normally occurs in the winter months. The following sections provide our recommendations for earthwork, site development, and fill materials. Stripping and Clearing The existing trees, shrubs, topsoil, unsuitable native soils and unsuitable fill soils should be stripped and removed from all proposed building and pavement areas. Based on our explorations, the depth of stripping to remove unsuitable surface organic materials should generally vary between 6 and 24 inches. Greater stripping depths will be required to remove localized zones of loose or organic rich soil and tree roots. The primary roots systems for trees and shrubs should be completely removed. Required stripping depths should be evaluated based on observations during the stripping operation. Stripped organic material should be transported off site for disposal or processed and used as fill in landscaping areas. Unsuitable existing fill materials were encountered in some of our explorations. Unsuitable fills should be anticipated in the north part of the site where residential development formerly existed. The contractor could encounter debris, septic tanks and other unsuitable materials in these areas. We recommend that these materials be removed. The contractor might also encounter domestic water wells in this area and should be prepared to abandon these features in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulations. March 9, 2017| Page 6 File No. 22247-001-02 Unsuitable organic-rich native soils should be expected in wetland areas and within the drainage area within the east part of the site. These soils may contain a high percentage of organic materials and must be removed where present in areas of the site where fills, pavements or structures are planned. The stockpiled fill soils and organic-rich materials within the landscape materials storage area should also be removed from the site. Asphalt concrete within existing trail areas should also be removed. Abandoned subgrade utilities beneath these trail areas should be anticipated and removed as necessary. Subgrade Evaluation After stripping, and excavation to planned subgrade is complete we recommend the exposed soil be proofrolled or probed and then compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. If dry weather conditions persist, we recommend that the subgrade be evaluated by proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or similar heavy rubber-tired construction equipment to identify soft, loose or unsuitable areas. Proofrolling must be conducted prior to placing fill. If the subgrade is prepared during or exposed to wet weather, we recommend that it be evaluated by probing with a steel probe rod. The proofrolling/probing should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer, who will evaluate the suitability of the subgrade and identify any areas of yielding, which are indicative of soft or loose soil. If soft or otherwise unsuitable areas revealed during proofrolling cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly firm condition, we recommend that: (1) the subgrade soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or a farmer’s disc), aerated and recompacted; or (2) the unsuitable soils be excavated to firm soil and replaced with structural fill, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Excavation We anticipate large dozers with rippers may be required for mass grading where the subgrade comprises unweathered glacial till. Conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working order should be capable of making necessary excavations for utilities and footings. We recommend that footing and trench excavations be performed using a smooth-blade bucket to prevent excessive disturbance of the excavation base. Boulders and large cobbles are often present in glacial till deposits in the area and will likely be encountered during grading and/or utility excavations. Accordingly, the contractor should be prepared to remove boulders, if encountered. Boulders may be removed from the site or buried in landscape areas. Voids caused by boulder removal must be backfilled with structural fill. Excavation Support Shallow excavations (4 feet or less) in dense glacial deposits should stand at near vertical inclinations, provided groundwater seepage is not present in the cut face. Excavations deeper than 4 feet must be shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are required to enter. Shoring for utility excavations must conform with the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” Regardless of the soil type encountered in the excavation, shoring, trench boxes or sloped sidewalls will be required under Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA). While this report describes certain approaches to excavation and dewatering, the contract documents should specify that the contractor is responsible for selecting excavation and March 9, 2017| Page 7 File No. 22247-001-02 dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect personnel and adjacent structures. Wet Weather Recommendations Trafficability of the on-site soils will be severely limited during wet weather, or if the subgrade moisture content is more than a few percentage points above optimum. When wet, the on-site soils are susceptible to disturbance and generally will not provide adequate support for construction equipment. The on-site soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to adequately work or compact during periods of wet weather. Site Grading If site grading and fill placement occurs during wet weather conditions the following recommendations should be included in the development plan. Stripping and site preparation should be accomplished using track-mounted equipment and subgrade protection measures should be used. For example, a track- mounted excavator equipped with a smooth-edged bucket could be used working from a developed surface or a granular pad and loading into trucks supported on granular haul roads or working outward from the stripped surface. If the site subgrade is wet, it should be evaluated by probing with a steel rod, rather than by proofrolling. Soil that is disturbed during site preparation activities during wet conditions, as well as soft or loose zones identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Granular Haul Roads and Working Blankets Wet weather construction in the silty native or fill soils will require granular haul roads and granular pads under the building structures to protect the subgrade. If the pavement areas are constructed during wet weather, they will also require a granular working blanket. The use of granular haul roads will be necessary for support of construction traffic during the rainy season (typically from October through June). Based on our experience, 18 to 24 inches of sand and gravel (which could be gravel base or fill material), crushed rock or quarry spalls with little to no fines will be necessary to provide support for construction equipment. Use of a geotextile fabric can reduce mixing of the subgrade and road support materials. It also may reduce the thickness of surfacing required. If gravel base material is used, the temporary roads could be constructed above the finished subgrades and extra material bladed onto other areas of the site when the roads are no longer necessary. Wet-Weather Fill We recommend fill placed during wet weather be select granular fill (pit run) or crushed rock as described in the “Fill Materials” section of this report. Erosion and Sedimentation Control The site will be susceptible to erosion during wet weather conditions, particularly if large segments of exposed subgrades are exposed to rainfall. Development, implementation and adherence to an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan should reduce the project impact on erosion-prone areas. The Plan should be designed in accordance with applicable city, county and/or state standards. The Plan should incorporate basic planning principles, including: ■ Scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure. ■ Re-vegetating or mulching denuded areas. ■ Directing runoff away from exposed soils. March 9, 2017| Page 8 File No. 22247-001-02 ■ Reducing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils. ■ Decreasing runoff velocities. ■ Preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff. ■ Confining sediment to the project site. ■ Inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently. Some sloughing erosion and raveling of exposed or disturbed soil on slopes should be expected, particularly if the work is completed during the wet season. We recommend that disturbed soil be restored promptly so that surface runoff does not become channeled. Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce erosion and transport of sediment to adjacent areas and receiving waters. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by paving, structure construction or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring may be required by qualified personnel who will evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and recommend repairs and/or modifications as appropriate. Provision for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Fill Materials The workability of material used as structural fill depends on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing the U.S. #200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible to achieve. We recommend that select granular fill or crushed rock be used as structural fill during the rainy season. The following paragraphs summarize the material requirements for fill and backfill. On-site Soils The native glacial till soils may be considered for use as structural fill during periods of extended dry weather, provided they can be properly moisture conditioned. The native soils may require moisture conditioning even during dry weather conditions. The on-site soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to work or adequately compact during periods of wet weather or if the in-place moisture condition of these soils is over optimum. On-site materials used as structural fill must be free of roots, organic matter and other deleterious materials and particles larger than 3 inches in diameter. Select Granular Fill Select granular fill (pit run) must consist of imported well-graded sand, sandy gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing a U.S. #200 sieve. Organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material must not be present. Granular fill used during periods of prolonged dry weather may have up to 12 percent passing a U.S. #200 sieve. March 9, 2017| Page 9 File No. 22247-001-02 Pipe Bedding Trench backfill for the bedding and pipe zone must consist of well-graded granular material with a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. #200 sieve. The material must be free of roots, debris, organic matter, and other deleterious material. Crushed Rock Crushed rock fill must consist of clean, durable, crushed angular rock that has a maximum particle size of 4 inches, is well graded between coarse and fine sizes, and has less than 5 percent fines (material finer than a U.S. #200 sieve). A smaller maximum particle size will be required for some applications as discussed in other sections of this report. Gravel materials should be crushed to have at least two fractured faces. Organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material must not be present. Fill Placement and Compaction General Fill soils should be compacted at a moisture content near optimum. The maximum allowable moisture content varies with the soil gradation, and should be evaluated during construction. Clayey soils and other fine granular soils may be difficult or impossible to compact during persistent wet conditions. Fill and backfill material should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts, and uniformly densified with vibratory compaction equipment. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material and compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness. We recommend that density testing of the placed structural fill be completed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to check that the structural fill compaction requirements presented in this report are achieved. Relatively thin lifts will likely be required to adequately compact excavated native material, if used for structural fill. Loose-lift thicknesses on the order of 3 to 4 inches should be expected to adequately compact the native materials. Thicker lifts can generally be used when the structural fill comprises select granular fill as described earlier in this report. Area Fills and Bases General Fill placed to raise site grades and aggregate base materials under foundations, slabs, and pavements should be placed on a prepared subgrade that consists of firm, inorganic native soils or compacted fill. Fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) determined by ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 (modified Proctor). During wet weather or in areas that are particularly sensitive to subgrade disturbance, we recommend placing a woven geotextile between the subgrade and the first lift of fill. For this application, the first lift must comprise select granular fill. We recommend a 10-inch lift thickness and densification by static rolling for the initial lift. Slope Fill Placement Based on our review of preliminary grading plans, it appears that earth fills are to be placed on the eastern portion of property on and adjacent to slopes inclined up to about 15 percent. The east and southeast March 9, 2017| Page 10 File No. 22247-001-02 portions of the proposed structure will be supported by the earth fill. The fill material should be placed and compacted using hillside grading techniques, as provided below. It is critical that the constructed fill is benched into the existing slope face. Bench excavations should be level and extend into the slope face until a vertical step of about 3 feet is constructed. The upper 1- to 3-foot thick layer of organic soil beneath the existing slope face should be removed and wasted. The remaining soil excavated from each bench can be spread into the next lift of structural fill. A typical cross- sectional drawing of slope fill is shown on Figure 4. Building Pad Subgrade The building pad will transition from cut to fill. In order to limit differential settlement to within 1/2 inch in 50 feet and provide uniform slab support we recommend the upper 1 foot of the pad subgrade be constructed with select import fill (granular soil with less than 5 percent fines). The select granular fill must be underlain by properly compacted on-site soil or undisturbed native soil prepared as recommended herein. Trench Backfill Backfill in the bedding and pipe zone should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557, or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. In nonstructural areas, trench backfill above the pipe zone should be compacted to at least 85 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Suitable native soils or select granular soils should be acceptable in non-structural areas. Within structural areas, trench backfill placed above the pipe zone must be compacted to at least 92 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 at depths greater than 2 feet below the finished subgrade, and to 95 percent within 2 feet of finished subgrade. Trench backfill in structural areas should consist of select granular fill or crushed rock as described in the previous sections. Temporary and Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Flatter cut slopes may be necessary in areas where persistent groundwater seepage or zones of soft or loose soils are encountered. Temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 1-1/2H:1V. Surface loads should be kept at a minimum distance of at least one-half the depth of the cut away from the top of temporary slopes. As previously stated, temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Title 296 WAC, Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” The contractor performing the work must have the primary responsibility for protection of workmen and adjacent improvements, determining whether shoring is required, and for establishing the safe inclination for open-cut slopes. Fill slopes should be carefully compacted on the slope face. Alternatively, the fill embankment can be over- built and cut back to the design inclination. To reduce the potential for erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected until the March 9, 2017| Page 11 File No. 22247-001-02 vegetation is established. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior matting should be used to protect unvegetated slopes during periods of rainfall. Groundwater and Drainage Considerations We recommend that pavement surfaces be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the building. We recommend that all roof drains be collected in tightlines and routed into the storm drain system. Perched groundwater will likely develop on top of the very dense glacial till in unpaved areas during the rainy season. Seismic Design Considerations 2015 IBC Seismic Design General We recommend the parameters in Table 1 for use in seismic design in accordance with 2015 IBC. TABLE 1: SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2015 IBC Seismic Design Parameters Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SS) 1.28g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (S1) 0.49g Site Class C Design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.50g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDS) 0.85g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (SD1) 0.43g Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in development of excess pore pressures in loose, saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength in the deposit of soil so affected. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to medium dense sands to silty sands that are below the water table. Based on the soil type, and relative density of the soils encountered, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this site is low. Lateral Spreading Potential Lateral spreading related to seismic activity typically involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of non-liquefied soil when a layer of underlying soil loses strength during seismic shaking. Lateral spreading usually develops in areas where sloping ground or large grade changes (including retaining walls) are present. Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions and current site topography, it is our opinion that the risk of lateral spreading is low. Ground Rupture Because of the anticipated infrequent seismic event recurrence, the site location with respect to the nearest known active crustal faults and the presence of thick glacial deposits overlying bedrock, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site due to crustal faulting is low. March 9, 2017| Page 12 File No. 22247-001-02 Foundation Support Shallow Foundations The proposed warehouse building can be supported on continuous wall or isolated column footings established on undisturbed native soils or structural fill placed over undisturbed native soils. Isolated column and continuous wall footings should have minimum widths of 24 and 18 inches, respectively. The exterior footings should be established at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The recommended minimum footing depth is greater than the anticipated frost depth. Interior footings can be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of the floor slab. Bearing Capacity We recommend that footings founded as recommended be proportioned using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. This bearing pressure applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering earthquake or wind loads. This is a net bearing pressure. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes. Footing Subgrade Preparation Footing excavations should be performed using a smooth-edged bucket to limit bearing surface disturbance. Loose or disturbed materials present at the base of footing excavations should be removed or compacted. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. If water infiltrates and pools in the excavation, it must be removed and the bearing surface reevaluated before placing structural fill or reinforcing steel. We recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer observe all foundation excavations before placing reinforcing steel in order to confirm that adequate bearing surfaces have been achieved and that the soil conditions are as anticipated. Unsuitable foundation subgrade soils must be removed and replaced with structural fill as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. It may be prudent to place a thin mud mat of lean concrete to protect the bearing surface if footing excavations are to remain open in wet weather. Foundation Settlement We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 3/4 inch, for the anticipated loading conditions. Differential settlements between comparably loaded isolated column footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing will be less than 1/2 inch. Settlement is expected to occur rapidly as loads are applied Lateral Resistance The ability of the soil to resist lateral loads is a function of frictional resistance which can develop on the base of footings and slabs and the passive resistance which can develop on the face of below-grade elements of the structure as these elements tend to move into the soil. For footings and floor slabs founded in accordance with the recommendations presented above, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance on the face of footings, grade beams or other embedded foundation elements may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for undisturbed on-site soils or structural March 9, 2017| Page 13 File No. 22247-001-02 fill extending out from the face of the foundation element a distance at least equal to two and one-half times the depth of the element. The passive earth pressure and friction components may be combined provided that the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The passive earth pressure value is based on the assumptions that the adjacent grade is level and that groundwater remains below the base of the footing throughout the year. The top foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive lateral earth pressures unless the foundation area is covered with pavement or is inside a building. The lateral resistance values include a safety factor of approximately 1.5. Building Pad and Floor Slabs A modulus of subgrade reaction of 300 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used for designing the building floor slab provided that the subgrade consists of structural fill that has been prepared in accordance with the “Building Pad Subgrade” section. Settlements for the floor slab designed and constructed as recommended are estimated to be less than 3/4 inch for a floor load of 1,200 psf. We estimate that differential settlement of the floor slabs, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet providing that the fill below the slab is compacted as specified. The subgrade soils are non-expansive, so heave is not anticipated beneath the floor slab. We recommend that on-grade slabs be underlain by a minimum 4-inch-thick capillary break layer to reduce the potential for moisture migration into the slab. The capillary break material should consist of a well- graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch and have less than 5 percent fines. The material should be placed as recommended in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section. A vapor retarder should be used as necessary to control moisture penetration through the slab. This is especially important in areas where floor coverings, adhesives or tiles are planned. Retaining Structures Retaining structures for loading docks or other building walls that are free to rotate slightly around the base should be designed for active earth pressures using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf. This value is based on the following assumptions: 1. The walls will not be restrained against rotation when the backfill is placed. 2. The backfill is level. 3. The backfill for a distance of at least 12 inches behind the wall consists of free-draining granular materials. 4. Hydrostatic pressures will be controlled by a back drain. If retaining walls are restrained against rotation during backfilling, they should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf. Surcharge loads applied closer than one-half of the wall height should be considered as uniformly distributed horizontal pressures equal to one-third of the distributed vertical surcharge pressure. Footings for retaining walls should be designed as recommended for shallow foundations. March 9, 2017| Page 14 File No. 22247-001-02 Backfill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section of this report. The backfill should include drainage provisions to prevent hydrostatic pressures from developing behind walls. Measures should be taken to prevent overcompaction of the backfill behind the wall. This can be done by placing the zone of backfill located within 5 feet of the wall in lifts not exceeding 6 inches in loose thickness and compacting this zone with hand-operated equipment such as a vibrating plate compactor or jumping jack. Settlement of up to 1 percent of the wall height commonly occurs immediately adjacent to the wall as the wall rotates and develops active lateral earth pressures. Consequently, we recommend that flat work adjacent to retaining walls be postponed until settlement is complete. We understand that the fill walls on the east perimeter of the site will reach heights up to about 8 feet. Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls may be used for fill applications. However, structural foundations should not be located on the wall. They should be set back about 0.9h where h is the height of the wall. If on-site soil is used to construct the MSE wall, a friction angle of 27 degrees and a dry density of 125 pcf should be used in design. Higher strength values will result in excessive wall strain after construction. We understand that rockery retaining walls may be used to protect cuts in the west part of the site. If requested, GeoEngineers can assist in retaining wall selection and design once the grading plan is finalized. Pavement Recommendations Pavement Design General Based on our experience, we provide typical AC and PCC pavement sections below. These pavement sections are typical for commercial facilities in this area but may not be adequate for heavy construction traffic loads such as those imposed by concrete transit mixers, dump trucks or cranes or for unusual design traffic conditions. Additional pavement thickness may be necessary to prevent pavement damage during construction or if anticipated truck traffic for this facility is higher than typical. We can provide a specific design if detailed truck traffic loading information is provided. The recommended sections assume that final improvements surrounding the pavement will be designed and constructed such that stormwater or excess irrigation water from landscape areas does not accumulate below the pavement section or pond on pavement surfaces. Pavement subgrade must be prepared as previously described. Crushed surfacing base course and subbase must be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1577). Crushed surfacing base course must conform to applicable sections of 4-04 and 9-03.9(3) of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications. Hot mix asphalt must conform to applicable sections of 5-04, 9-02 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. PCC must conform to applicable sections of 5-05, 9-01 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications Standard-Duty ACP – Automobile Driveways and Parking Areas ■ 2 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58-22 ■ 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course March 9, 2017| Page 15 File No. 22247-001-02 ■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide uniform grading and pavement support, to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared in accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork” section Heavy-Duty ACP – Areas Subject to Truck Traffic ■ 3 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58-22 ■ 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course ■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide a uniform grading surface and pavement support, to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork” section PCC Pavement – Areas Subject to Heavy Truck Traffic ■ 6 inches of PCC pavement (28-day compressive strength of 6,000 pound per square inch [psi] and a modulus of rupture of 600 psi) ■ 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork” section Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation As previously described the site soils generally consist of weathered till over unweathered till. Grain-size distribution analyses of these soils indicate fines contents ranging between about 18 and 72 percent. The unweathered till is typically in a dense to very dense condition and has very low permeability with respect to the vertical flow of water. Based on the soil gradation data, and our experience, it is our opinion there is very limited infiltration potential at this site. Because of these factors we recommend that stormwater detention be used for site development. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this geotechnical report for use by Federal Way Campus LLC and their agents for the Proposed Greenline Warehouse A project in Federal Way, Washington. The project agents may distribute copies of this report to authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project. The intent of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions and provide a brief summary of the primary geotechnical considerations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions express or implied should be understood. Please refer to Appendix B titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information pertaining to use of this report. µ SITE Vicinity Map Figure 1 Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project Federal Way, Washington 2,000 2,0000 Feet Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2016 Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N P:\22\22247001\GIS\MXDs\2224700102_F01_VM.mxd Date Exported: 03/08/17 by cchelf B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6Test Pit 1Test Pit 2Test Pit 3Test Pit 4Test Pit 5Test Pit 6Test Pit 7Test Pit 8Test Pit 9Test Pit 10Test Pit 11Test Pit 12Test Pit 13B-6 TP-6 B-1 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-2 TP-5 TP-4 TP-13 TP-11 TP-10 TP-12 TP-3 TP-2 TP-1 TP-8 TP-7 TP-9 Figure 2 Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project Federal Way, Washington P:\22\22247001\CAD\01\Geologic-Hydrogeologic Evaluation\2224700101_F02_Site Plan.dwg TAB:F02 Date Exported: 03/06/17 - 10:12 by hmaraSite Plan Existing Conditions WENSLegend Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Background PDF from ESM Consulting Engineers, dated 05/05/16.Feet 0120 120 B-1 TP-1 Loop Road Weyerhaeuser Way S(Future Public Road)S 336th StreetBoring Number and Approximate Location Test Pit Number and Approximate Location Site Boundary Wetlands Mapped by Others Area of Soil Piles/ Organic Debris B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6Test Pit 1Test Pit 2Test Pit 3Test Pit 4Test Pit 5Test Pit 6Test Pit 7Test Pit 8Test Pit 9Test Pit 10Test Pit 11Test Pit 12Test Pit 13B-6 TP-6 B-1 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-2 TP-5 TP-4 TP-13 TP-11 TP-10 TP-12 TP-3 TP-2 TP-1 TP-8 TP-7 TP-9 Figure 3 Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project Federal Way, Washington Site Plan Proposed ConditionsW ENSFeet 0150 150 P:\22\22247001\CAD\01\Geologic-Hydrogeologic Evaluation\02224700101_F03_Site Plan Proposed Conditions.dwg TAB:F03 Date Exported: 03/01/17 - 18:15 by hmaraLegend Boring Number and Approximate Location Test Pit Number and Approximate Location Site Boundary Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Base CAD files provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, dated 02/14/2017. Projection: WA State Plane, North Zone, NAD83, US Foot Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Water Quality and Detention Pond Loop Road Weyerhauser Way SWeyerhauser Way S Loop Road B-1 TP-1 Bench Drain Not to Scale Not to Scale Backfill: Freedraining Sand and/or Rock. Minimum 1' Enclosure of Pipe, Balance of Backfill Below Cap Should be Sand or Rock. Native Soil Cap Ground Surface 6"Ø Pipe HDPE or PVC Perforated Variable 2' Final Fill Surface Profile 8' MIN. Keyway Conceptual Arrangement of Bench Cuts Into Native Soil. If Seepage Encountered During Benching, Place Drain At This Location. Drain Detail is Shown Above. Native Building Subgrade Pre-development Ground Surface Fill Soil Native Soil Figure 4 P:\22\22247001\CAD\01\Geologic-Hydrogeologic Evaluation\2224700101_F04_Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill.dwg TAB:F4 Date Exported: 03/06/17 - 10:18 by hmaraSchematic Drawing Hillside Fill Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Drawing created from sketch provided by GeoEngineers' personnel. Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project Federal Way, Washington APPENDIX A Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing March 9, 2017| Page A-1 File No. 22247-001-02 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations Subsurface conditions at the site were previously explored by drilling a total of 6 borings and excavating 13 test pits. The explorations were completed between May 24 and 27, 2016. Borings were drilled to depths of 20 to 21.5 feet. Test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 8.5 to 11.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The site explorations were continuously monitored by a member of GeoEngineers geotechnical staff. Our representative maintained a detailed log of the soils encountered, obtained soil samples and observed groundwater conditions. Figures 2 and 3 show the approximate locations of the explorations. Explorations were mapped using commercial-grade GPS equipment and should be considered accurate only to the extent implied by the method used. Soil samples were obtained from the borings using Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) performed in general conformance with ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1586. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or other indicated distance, into the soils is shown adjacent to the sample symbols on the boring logs. Disturbed samples were obtained from the split barrel for subsequent classification and index testing. Bulk soil samples from the test pits were collected directly from the trackhoe bucket and placed in plastic bags. Soils encountered in the borings were classified in the field in general accordance with ASTM Standard Practice D 2488, the Standard Practice for the Classification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), which is described in Figure A-1. Soil classifications and sampling intervals are shown on the exploration logs. Inclined lines at the material contacts shown on the logs indicate uncertainty as to the exact contact elevation, rather than the inclination of the contact itself. Figures A-2 through A-20 present the exploration logs. Laboratory Testing Soil samples obtained from the explorations were brought to our laboratory to confirm field classifications. Selected samples were tested to determine their moisture content and grain-size distribution in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The moisture content of selected samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216. The test results are presented in the respective exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain-size distribution (sieve analyses) was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422. The results of the grain-size sieve analyses are presented in Figures A-21 through A-24. AC Cement ConcreteCC Asphalt Concrete No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tested NS SS MS HS NT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Log Contact Groundwater Contact Material Description Contact Laboratory / Field Tests Sheen Classification Sampler Symbol Descriptions NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. GRAPH Topsoil/ Forest Duff/Sod Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls FIGURE A-1 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel SYMBOLS TYPICAL KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS CR DESCRIPTIONSLETTER TS GC PT OH CH MH OL GM GP GW DESCRIPTIONS TYPICAL LETTER (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) MAJOR DIVISIONS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS CLEAN SANDS GRAVELS WITH FINES CLEAN GRAVELS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS SAND AND SANDY SOILS GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) FINE GRAINED SOILS COARSE GRAINED SOILS SW MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE CL WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 SANDS WITH FINES SP (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ML SC SM NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY SOILS ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS GRAPH SYMBOLS Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Shelby tube Piston Direct-Push Bulk or grab Continuous Coring Distinct contact between soil strata Approximate contact between soil strata Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same geologic unit %F %G AL CA CP CS DS HA MC MD OC PM PI PP PPM SA TX UC VS Percent fines Percent gravel Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Direct shear Hydrometer analysis Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Plasticity index Pocket penetrometer Parts per million Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. A "WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. Rev. 02/16 1 2 3 SA 4 5 4 18 10 17 18 74 54 43 50/4" 55 Dark brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and organic matter (loose, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Grades to very dense Brown/gray silt with sand, organic matter (wood fibers) and occasional gravel (hard, moist) SM SM SM ML Groundwater observed at approximately 18 feet during drilling 236 Total Depth (ft) Hammer Data System Datum Start End Checked By Logged By SWHDrilled Notes: CDL Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Driller Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft) Easting (X) Northing (Y) Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa Holt Drilling Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger21.5 Autohammer 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment 5/24/20165/24/2016 See Remarks 468 NAVD88 1277850.15 111995.64 WA State Plane,North NAD83 (feet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. FIELD DATA Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 IntervalElevation (feet)465460455450Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-1 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-2 Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 SA 3 SA 4 5 16 17 12 10 5 62 48 60 50/4" 100/5" Gray silty sand with occasional gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) SM SM SM Water/moisture on sampler at approximately 5 feet during drilling Increasing amount of silt/fines Gravel stuck in sampler Groundwater observed at approximately 19 feet during drilling 42 32 11 10 Total Depth (ft) Hammer Data System Datum Start End Checked By Logged By SWHDrilled Notes: CDL Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Driller Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft) Easting (X) Northing (Y) Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa Holt Drilling Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.8 Autohammer 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment 5/24/20165/24/2016 See Remarks 448 NAVD88 1277673.44 112111.02 WA State Plane,North NAD83 (feet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. FIELD DATA Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 IntervalElevation (feet)445440435430Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-2 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-3 Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 SA 2 3 SA 4 5 14 10 12 8 8 42 54 39 50/4" 50/5" Brown gravel with cobbles (loose, moist) (fill) Brown/gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) GP SM SM SM Possible cobbles Possible groundwater observed at approximately 9½ feet during drilling 30 35 9 9 Total Depth (ft) Hammer Data System Datum Start End Checked By Logged By SWHDrilled Notes: CDL Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Driller Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft) Easting (X) Northing (Y) Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa Holt Drilling Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.9 Autohammer 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment 5/24/20165/24/2016 See Remarks 464 NAVD88 1277734.72 111818.94 WA State Plane,North NAD83 (feet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. FIELD DATA Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 IntervalElevation (feet)460455450445Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-3 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-4 Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 SA 3 4 5 16 12 18 18 5 36 52 28 53 65/6" Brown gravel with cobbles (loose, moist) (fill) Gray silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty sand with gravel (medium dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Grades to medium dense Grades to moist Gray silty fine sand with gravel and fractured cobble (very dense, moist) GP SM SM SM Possible groundwater observed at 5 feet Gravel in end of sampler Hard drilling at approximately 19 feet; possible cobbles/boulder 4212 Total Depth (ft) Hammer Data System Datum Start End Checked By Logged By SWHDrilled Notes: CDL Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Driller Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft) Easting (X) Northing (Y) Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa Holt Drilling Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.5 Autohammer 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment 5/25/20165/25/2016 See Remarks 474 NAVD88 1277753.63 111713.67 WA State Plane,North NAD83 (feet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. FIELD DATA Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 IntervalElevation (feet)470465460455Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-4 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-5 Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 SA 2 3 4 5 14 6 18 9 10 59 50/4" 64 50/5" 100/10" Gray gravel with organics (loose, moist) (fill) Gray silty sand with occasional gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty gravel with sand (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) GP SM GM SM Possible cobbles Gravel in end of sampler Possible cobbles 37 39 7 8 Total Depth (ft) Hammer Data System Datum Start End Checked By Logged By SWHDrilled Notes: CDL Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Driller Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft) Easting (X) Northing (Y) Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa Holt Drilling Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger21 Autohammer 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment 5/25/20165/25/2016 See Remarks 472 NAVD88 1277676.09 111517.75 WA State Plane,North NAD83 (feet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. FIELD DATA Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 IntervalElevation (feet)470465460455Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-5 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-6 Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 4 5 0 14 18 9 10 13 29 83 50/3" 75/4" Gray silt with sand, gravel and organic matter (topsoil?) Gray silty sand with gravel and organics (medium dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty gravel with sand (medium dense, wet) (weathered till/outwash) Gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (very dense, wet) (glacial till) TS SM GM SM No recovery Harder drilling below 5 feet Groundwater encountered at approximately 6 feet during drilling Hard drilling at 13 feet Total Depth (ft) Hammer Data System Datum Start End Checked By Logged By SWHDrilled Notes: CDL Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Driller Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft) Easting (X) Northing (Y) Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa Holt Drilling Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.8 Autohammer 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment 5/25/20165/25/2016 See Remarks 410 NAVD88 1278027.56 111879.51 WA State Plane,North NAD83 (feet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. FIELD DATA Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 IntervalElevation (feet)405400395390Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-6 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-7 Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 SA 2 3 4 ML SM Brown sandy silt with gravel and organic matter (roots down to 2 feet) (medium stiff, moist) (weathered till) Gray/brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (dense, moist) (glacial till) Becoming moist to wet at 10½ feet; no visible water Test pit completed at 11½ feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed 20 55 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-1 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-8 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.5 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)472471470469468467466465464463462Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 4 SA SM SM GM Brown silty sand with gravel, roots and organic matter (fill) (loose, moist) Brown-gray silty sand with gravel and cobbles (weathered till) (medium dense, moist) Gray silty gravel with sand and cobbles (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Pockets of silt with sand and gravel; large cobbles (dense) Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed 10 30 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-2 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-9 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)470469468467466465464463462461460Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 #200 Wash 3 4 TS SM ML ML ML 6 inches topsoil/forest duff Brown silty sand with gravel (pockets of silt) (loose to medium dense, moist) (weathered till) Brown silt with sand (stiff, moist) (glacial till) Brown/gray silt (stiff, moist) (glacial till) Brown/gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles (hard, moist to wet) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 8½ feet Slow groundwater seepage at 7 feet No caving observed Roots at 2 feet1272 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-3 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-10 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 8.5 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)406405404403402401400399Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 4 SA TS SM GM Topsoil/roots/forest duff Brown silty sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) Gray/brown silty gravel with sand and cobbles (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Becomesg moist to wet at 8 feet Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed Metal pipe observed in pit sidewall Roots to 2 feet 9 20 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-4 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-11 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)430429428427426425424423422421420Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 SA 4 SM SM SM Brown-red silty sand with organic matter (coal/charcoal) (loose, moist) (topsoil) Brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (medium dense to dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty sand with gravel and cobbles (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed Roots to 1½ feet 9 18 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-5 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-12 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)414413412411410409408407406405404Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 4 TS SM SM Brown silty sand with organic matter (roots) (loose, medium dense, moist) (forest duff/topsoil) Brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (medium dense to dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty sand with gravel and occasional cobbles (dense to very dense, moist to wet) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-6 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-13 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)418417416415414413412411410409408Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 -200 Wash TS GP-GM ML GM Topsoil/roots (forest duff) Brown sandy gravel with silt (medium dense to dense, moist to wet) (weathered till) Brown/gray silt with sand and gravel (stiff, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty gravel with sand (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11 feet Slow groundwater seepage observed at approximately 1½ feet Caving observed above 6 feet 35 67 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-7 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-14 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)452451450449448447446445444443442Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 SM/OH SM SM Dark brown silty sand and organic silt (loose/soft, moist) (forest duff) Brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (medium dense to dense, moist) (weathered till/) Gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and occasional cobbles (very dense, moist to wet) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11 feet Slow groundwater seepage observed at approximately 8½ feet No caving observed Wet at 8 feet Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-8 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-15 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/26/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)450449448447446445444443442441440Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 SA 4 OH SM GM Brown organic silt and with sand (topsoil/forest duff) Brown silty sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty gravel with sand (dense to very dense, moist to wet) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11 feet Groundwater seepage observed at approximately 10 feet No caving observed Boulder at 2 feet Hard at 6 feet Gravel lenses 6 8 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-9 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-16 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/27/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)439438437436435434433432431430429Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 4 OH ML SM Organic silt with sand (medium stiff, moist) Orange/gray silt (stiff, moist) (glacial till) Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-10 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-17 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/27/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)420419418417416415414413412411410Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 -200 Wash 3 TS SM SM Topsoil/forest duff, organic matter (roots) Brown silty fine sand with gravel and occasional organic matter/roots (medium dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and occasional cobbles (very dense, moist) (glacial til) Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed Metal pipe and electrical line at 1.5 feet 10 39 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-11 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-18 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/27/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)448447446445444443442441440439438Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 3 4 SOD SM ML SM Sod Brown silty sand, occasional gravel with organic matter (loose, moist) (topsoil) Brown/gray silt with sand and gravel (stiff, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11½ feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-12 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-19 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/27/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.5 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)429428427426425424423422421420419Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 1 2 SA 3 4 SM SM SM SM Brown silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) (fill) Black silty sand with debris (wood/plastic infill) (dense, moist) (fill) Becomes brown Brown/gray silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed 28 50 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-13 Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington 21644-001-00 Project: Project Location: Project Number:Figure A-20 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: Equipment: Logged By:5/27/2016 Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.0 Testing SampleDepth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE Graphic LogElevation (feet)406405404403402401400399398397396Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE Exploration Number Depth (feet)Soil Description B-2 B-3 5 2.5 Silty sand with gravel (SM) Silty sand with gravel (SM) Symbol Moisture (%) 11 9 3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-21Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16 Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes. The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913. #200 Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE Exploration Number Depth (feet)Soil Description B-3 B-4 B-5 B-5 10 5 3 10 Silty sand with gravel (SM) Silty sand with gravel (SM) Silty sand with gravel (SM) Silty gravel with sand (GM) Symbol Moisture (%) 9 12 7 9 3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-22Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16 Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes. The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913. #200 Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE Exploration Number Depth (feet)Soil Description TP-1 TP-2 TP-4 TP-5 1.5 8 8 4 Sandy silt with gravel (ML) Silty gravel with sand (GM) Silty gravel with sand (GM) Silty sand with gravel (SM) Symbol Moisture (%) 20 10 9 9 3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-23Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16 Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes. The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913. #200 Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE Exploration Number Depth (feet)Soil Description TP-9 TP-13 5 3 Silty gravel with sand (GM) Silty sand (SM) Symbol Moisture (%) 6 28 3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-24Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16 Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes. The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913. #200 Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington APPENDIX B Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use March 9, 2017| Page B-1 File No. 22247-001-02 APPENDIX B REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist. To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers includes the following explanatory “limitations” provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to know more how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for Federal Way Campus LLC and for the Greenline Warehouse A project specifically identified in the report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects. GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No party other than the party to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with Federal Way Campus LLC dated March 9, 2017 and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible for, the use of this report for any purposes or projects other than those identified in the report. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors This report has been prepared for Proposed Federal Way Campus, Greenline Warehouse A project located in Federal Way, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, ■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or ■ completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ■ the function of the proposed structure; 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. March 9, 2017| Page B-2 File No. 22247-001-02 ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; ■ composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. If changes occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Environmental Concerns are Not Covered Unless environmental services were specifically included in our scope of services, this report does not provide any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, including but not limited to, the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied its professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions at other locations. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not Final We have developed the following recommendations based on data gathered from subsurface investigation(s). These investigations sample just a small percentage of a site to create a snapshot of the subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site. Such sampling on its own cannot provide a complete and accurate view of subsurface conditions for the entire site. Therefore, the recommendations included in this report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform construction observation. March 9, 2017| Page B-3 File No. 22247-001-02 We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. If another party performs field observation and confirms our expectations, the other party must take full responsibility for both the observations and recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project- specific knowledge and resources. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers recommends giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, including these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal that: ■ advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its accuracy is limited; and ■ encourages contractors to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. Contractors are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties. March 9, 2017| Page B-4 File No. 22247-001-02 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field.