Long Shot Gun Range - Geotech ReportEarthSolutionsNWLLC
EarthSolutions
NW LLC
Geotechnical Engineering
Construction Observation/Testing
Environmental Services
15365 N.E.90th Street,Suite 100 Redmond,WA 98052
(425)449-4704 Fax (425)449-4711
www.earthsolutionsnw.com
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED LONG SHOT INDOOR RANGE EXPANSION
16910 STATE ROUTE 507 SOUTHEAST
YELM,WASHINGTON
ES-8688
PREPARED FOR
PACLAND
July 26, 2022
_________________________
Steven K. Hartwig, G.I.T.
Staff Geologist
_________________________
Henry T. Wright, P.E.
Associate Principal Engineer
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED LONG SHOT INDOOR RANGE EXPANSION
16910 STATE ROUTE 507 SOUTHEAST
YELM, WASHINGTON
ES-8688
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 Northeast 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Phone: 425-449-4704 | Fax: 425-449-4711
www.earthsolutionsnw.com
07/26/2022
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning,
collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from
widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined
with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained
from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site
reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models
of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology
and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and
proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical
engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment
to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface
model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that
will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected
performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or
affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a
geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion
of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering
assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed
to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be
titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.
Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an
engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context
of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic
inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A
geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer
will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared
solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-
engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during
a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of
the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental
remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can
be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed
subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or
regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is
required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on
an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and
refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors
when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing
the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report
Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s
subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical
engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific
locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from
that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer,
who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about
subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface
conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in
this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer
to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain
informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are
Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or
alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not
final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily
on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize
the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions
exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical
engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist,
the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have
occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you
fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of
the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and
specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-
phase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes
only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that
“informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on
the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the
report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific
project requirements, including options selected from the report, only
from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors
that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to
allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in
a position to give constructors the information available to you, while
requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and
preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on
project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials
with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That
lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have
resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,”
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’
responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own
responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.
Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental
site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a
geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering
report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or
recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground
storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface
environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not
obtained your own environmental information about the project site,
ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find
environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s
services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent
migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil
through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where
it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s
recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent
moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by
including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.
Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of
GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.
Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
July 26, 2022
ES-8688
PACLAND
6814 Greenwood Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98103
Attention: Mr. Darian Murray
Dear Mr. Murray:
Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW), is pleased to present this geotechnical report to support the
proposed project. Based on the results of our investigation, construction of the proposed indoor
range expansion is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our field observations indicate the
site is primarily underlain by gravel glacial outwash deposits.
In our opinion, the proposed indoor range building can be supported on conventional continuous
and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new
structural fill placed and compacted on competent native soil. Based on our explorations,
competent bearing soil for new foundation support is expected to begin at depths of about one to
one and one-half feet below existing grades. Where encountered, loose or otherwise unsuitable
subgrade areas should be compacted or overexcavated and replaced with structural fill.
Stormwater infiltration into the native gravel deposits if feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.
ESNW should review final stormwater design plans and provided additional recommendations as
necessary.
Pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in this study. We appreciate the
opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call if you have any questions about
this report or if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Steven K. Hartwig, G.I.T.
Staff Geologist
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 • Redmond, WA 98052 •(425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711
Earth Solutions NW LLC
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction
Observation/Testing and Environmental Services
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Table of Contents
ES-8688
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
General .................................................................................... 1
Project Description ................................................................. 1
SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 2
Surface ..................................................................................... 2
Subsurface .............................................................................. 2
Topsoil .......................................................................... 2
Native Soil ..................................................................... 3
Geologic Setting ........................................................... 3
Groundwater ................................................................. 3
Geologically Hazardous Areas Review ................................. 3
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 4
General .................................................................................... 4
Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................. 4
Temporary Erosion Control ......................................... 4
Excavations and Slopes .............................................. 5
In-situ and Imported Soil ............................................. 5
Structural Fill ................................................................ 6
Foundations ............................................................................ 6
Seismic Design ....................................................................... 7
Slab-on-Grade Floors ............................................................. 7
Retaining Walls ....................................................................... 8
Preliminary Pavement Sections ............................................. 8
Drainage................................................................................... 9
Infiltration Feasibility ................................................... 9
Discussion .................................................................... 10
LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................... 10
Additional Services ................................................................. 11
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Table of Contents
Cont’d
ES-8688
GRAPHICS
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail
APPENDICES
Appendix A Subsurface Exploration
Test Pit Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED LONG SHOT INDOOR RANGE EXPANSION
16910 STATE ROUTE 507 SOUTHEAST
YELM, WASHINGTON
ES-8688
INTRODUCTION
General
This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed Long Shot Indoor Range
expansion to be constructed at 16910 State Route 507 Southeast, in Yelm, Washington. To
complete this study, ESNW performed the following services:
Test pits to characterize soil and near-surface groundwater conditions.
Laboratory testing of soil samples collected at the test pit locations.
Engineering analyses.
The following documents, maps, and codes were reviewed as part of our report preparation:
Topographic and Boundary Survey, prepared by Terrane, dated June 6, 2022.
Geologic Map of the Centralia Quadrangle, Washington, compiled by H.W. Schasse,
dated 1987.
Online Web Soil Survey (WSS), provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) Chapter 18.21.100 – Geologically Hazardous Areas.
Thurston County Liquefaction Susceptibility Map, endorsed by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, dated September 2004.
2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2019 SWMMWW).
Project Description
The subject site is located at 16910 State Route 507 Southeast in Yelm, Washington. We
understand an expansion of the Long Shot Indoor Range facility is proposed by constructing a
new building and parking area to the north of the existing facility.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 2
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
At the time of report submission, specific building load plans were not available for review;
however, based on our experience with similar developments, the proposed structure will likely
be two to three stories and constructed using relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on
conventional foundations. Perimeter footing loads will likely be about 2 to 3 kips per linear foot.
Slab-on-grade loading is anticipated to be approximately 150 pounds per square foot (psf).
If the above design assumptions either change or are incorrect, ESNW should be contacted to
review the recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should review final designs to
confirm that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The subject site is located at 16910 State Route 507 Southeast in Yelm, Washington. The
approximate location of the property is illustrated on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map). The site consists of
two tax parcels (Thurston County Parcel No. 64303100-800 and -801), totaling about 8.9 acres.
Per the referenced topographic survey, the existing topography is relatively level, with an
estimated three to four feet of elevation change across the site. At the time of the June 2022
fieldwork, the subject site contained an undeveloped field to the north with vegetation consisting
of grass and light brush, and the Long Shot Indoor Range building and parking lot area to the
south.
Subsurface
An ESNW representative observed, logged, and sampled seven test pits on June 23, 2022. The
test pits were excavated within accessible areas of the subject lots using a mini trackhoe and
operator retained by ESNW. The test pits were completed to evaluate soil conditions, classify
site soils, and characterize shallow groundwater conditions across the subject site.
The approximate locations of the test pits are depicted on Plate 2 (Test Pit Location Plan). Please
refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of subsurface
conditions. Representative soil samples collected at the test pit locations were analyzed in
general accordance with both Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and USDA methods and
procedures.
Topsoil
Topsoil was generally encountered in the upper 12 inches of existing grades at the test pit
locations. Deeper or shallower pockets of topsoil may be locally encountered across the site.
The topsoil was characterized by a dark brown color, minor root intrusions, and trace organic
matter. Vegetation roots generally extended to depths of 10 to 24 inches.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 3
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Native Soil
Underlying topsoil, the native soil was classified primarily as medium dense well-graded and
poorly graded gravel with sand (USCS: GW and GP, respectively). The moisture content at the
time of exploration was characterized primarily as damp to moist. Native soil extended to the
maximum exploration depth at each test pit location, which occurred between about 6.5 and 10
feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).
Geologic Setting
The referenced geologic map resource indicates the site is underlain by Vashon outwash gravel
deposits (Qdvg). The referenced WSS resource identifies Spanaway gravelly sandy loam as the
primary underlying soil unit of the subject site. The Spanaway series soils are typically
excessively drained soils that formed in glacial outwash plains. Based on the soil conditions
encountered during the fieldwork, native soil on the subject site is consistent with the geologic
setting of gravel glacial outwash as locally mapped.
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was not observed in the test pits excavated during the June 2022
subsurface exploration. Nevertheless, groundwater may be encountered depending on the time
of year earthwork activities occur and depth of excavations. Groundwater flow rates and
elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the
time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the winter,
spring, and early summer months.
Geologically Hazardous Areas Review
To evaluate the presence of geologically hazardous areas, ESNW reviewed YMC Chapter
18.21.100 (Geologically Hazardous Areas). ESNW also reviewed the City of Yelm Critical Areas
Map and the Thurston County GeoData resources to identify mapped critical areas with respect
to geologic hazards. Geologically hazardous areas recognized by the YMC include erosion,
landslide, and seismic hazard areas.
Based on our review, the site does not contain geologically hazardous areas as defined in
Chapter 18.21.100 of the YMC or as mapped using the previously mentioned resources. The
referenced liquefaction susceptibility map indicates the site maintains a very low susceptibility to
liquefaction and, in our opinion, does not meet the definition of a seismic hazard area per the
YMC. The subject site also does not meet the qualifications of erosion hazard areas or landslide
hazard areas according to the definitions set forth in the YMC.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 4
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our investigation, construction of the proposed project is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations for the proposal are
associated with structural fill placement and compaction, utility trench support and backfill,
drainage, foundation support, and temporary excavation support.
In our opinion, the proposed indoor range building can be supported on conventional continuous
and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new
structural fill placed and compacted on competent native soil. Based on our explorations,
competent bearing soil for new foundation support is expected to begin at depths of about one to
one and one-half feet below existing grades. Where encountered, loose or otherwise unsuitable
subgrade areas should be compacted or overexcavated and replaced with structural fill.
Stormwater infiltration into the native gravel deposits if feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.
ESNW should review final stormwater design plans and provided additional recommendations as
necessary.
Site Preparation and Earthwork
Initial site preparation activities will consist of installing temporary erosion control measures,
establishing grading limits, and performing clearing and site stripping. Subsequent earthwork
activities will involve mass site grading and related infrastructure improvements. If earthwork
activities occur during wet weather, additional drainage measures, cement treatment of native
soil (where allowed by the presiding jurisdiction), and/or the use of select fill material will likely be
necessary during construction.
Temporary Erosion Control
The following temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are offered:
Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least six inches of
quarry spalls, should be considered to both minimize off-site soil tracking and provide a
stable access entrance surface. Placement of a geotextile fabric beneath the quarry spalls
will provide greater stability, if needed.
Silt fencing should be placed around the site perimeter.
When not in use, soil stockpiles should be covered or otherwise protected.
Temporary measures for controlling surface water runoff, such as interceptor trenches,
sumps, or interceptor swales, should be installed prior to beginning earthwork activities.
Dry soils disturbed during construction should be wetted to minimize dust.
When appropriate, permanent planting or hydroseeding will help to stabilize site soils.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 5
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Additional TESC BMPs, as specified by the project civil engineer and indicated on the plans,
should be incorporated into construction activities. TESC BMPs should be upkept and modified
during construction as site conditions require and as approved by the site erosion control lead.
Excavations and Slopes
Based on the soil conditions observed at the test pit locations, the following allowable temporary
slope inclinations, as a function of horizontal to vertical (H:V) inclination, may be used. The
applicable Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration and Washington Industrial
Safety and Health Act soil classifications are also provided:
Areas exposing groundwater seepage 1.5H:1V (Type C)
Loose soil 1.5H:1V (Type C)
Medium dense soil 1H:1V (Type B)
The presence of groundwater (if encountered) may cause localized sloughing of temporary
slopes. An ESNW representative should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm
the slope inclinations are suitable for the exposed soil conditions and to provide additional
excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. If the recommended temporary slope
inclinations cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations.
Permanent slopes should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion
and should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V or flatter.
In-situ and Imported Soil
In general, our field observations indicate on-site soils likely to be encountered during
construction may be considered feasible for use as structural fill if the soil moisture content is at
(or slightly above) the optimum level when compaction achievement is required. Successful use
of on-site soils as structural fill will largely be dictated by the moisture content at the time of
placement and compaction.
On-site soils that are dry of the optimum moisture content at the time of placement will require
moisture conditioning (typically achieved by adding water) prior to compaction. Soils that are
excessively over the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning (typically
achieved through soil aeration) prior to compaction. It should be emphasized that soils should
never be placed and compacted dry of the optimum moisture content.
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well-graded, granular soil with
a moisture content that is at (or slightly above) the optimum level. During wet weather conditions,
imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well-graded, granular soil with
a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the
Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter-inch fraction).
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 6
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Structural Fill
Structural fill placed and compacted during site grading activities should meet the following
specifications and guidelines:
Structural fill material Granular soil
Moisture content At or slightly above optimum
Relative compaction (minimum) 95 percent (Modified Proctor)
Loose lift thickness (maximum) 12 inches
The on-site soil may not be suitable for use as structural fill, unless the soil is at (or slightly above)
the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Soil shall not be placed
dry of the optimum moisture content and should be evaluated by ESNW during construction.
With respect to underground utility installations and backfill, local jurisdictions may dictate the soil
type(s) and compaction requirements. ESNW recommends removing any unsuitable material or
debris from structural areas, if encountered.
Foundations
In our opinion, the proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous and spread
footing foundations bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural
fill placed on competent native soil. Based on the conditions encountered during the subsurface
exploration, competent bearing soil for new foundation support is expected beginning at depths
of about one and one-half to two and one-half feet bgs. Where encountered, loose or otherwise
unsuitable subgrade areas should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with structural
fill.
Provided foundations will be supported as prescribed, the following parameters may be used for
design:
Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf
Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid)
Coefficient of friction 0.40
Footing width (minimum) 18 inches (continuous)
24 inches (isolated)
Footing depth (minimum) 18 inches (exterior)
12 inches (interior)
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 7
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity may be assumed for short-term wind
and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor-
of-safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and
differential settlement of approximately one-half inch is anticipated. Most of the anticipated
settlement should occur during construction when dead loads are applied.
Seismic Design
The 2018 International Building Code (2018 IBC) recognizes the most recent edition of the
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual (ASCE 7-16) for seismic
design, specifically with respect to earthquake loads. Based on the soil conditions encountered
at the test pit locations, the parameters and values provided below are recommended for seismic
design per the 2018 IBC.
Parameter Value
Site Class D*
Mapped short period spectral response acceleration, SS (g) 1.278
Mapped 1-second period spectral response acceleration, S1 (g) 0.461
Short period site coefficient, Fa 1.0
Long period site coefficient, Fv 1.839**
Adjusted short period spectral response acceleration, SMS (g) 1.278
Adjusted 1-second period spectral response acceleration, SM1 (g) 0.848**
Design short period spectral response acceleration, SDS (g) 0.852
Design 1-second period spectral response acceleration, SD1 (g) 0.565**
* Assumes medium dense native soil conditions, encountered to a maximum depth of 10 feet bgs during the June
2022 field exploration, remain medium dense to dense to at least 100 feet bgs.
** Values assume Fv may be determined using linear interpolation per Table 11.4-2 in ASCE 7-16.
Slab-on-Grade Floors
Slab-on-grade floors for the proposed structure should be supported on competent, firm, and
unyielding subgrades comprised of competent native soil, compacted native soil, or compacted
structural fill. Unstable or yielding subgrade areas should be recompacted or overexcavated and
replaced with suitable structural fill prior to slab construction.
A capillary break consisting of at least four inches of free-draining crushed rock or gravel should
be placed below each slab. The free-draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent
or less (percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction).
If relatively clean native gravel is exposed or used for backfill in the slab subgrade, additional
capillary break material may not be warranted and can be evaluated by the geotechnical
engineering during construction. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a
vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If a vapor barrier is to be utilized, it should
be a material specifically designed for use as a vapor barrier and should be installed in
accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 8
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The
following parameters may be used for design:
Active earth pressure (unrestrained condition) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid)
At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf
Traffic surcharge* (passenger vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution)
Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid)
Coefficient of friction 0.40
Seismic surcharge 8H psf**
* Where applicable.
** Where H equals the retained height (in feet).
The above design parameters are based on a level backfill condition and level grade at the wall
toe. Revised design values will be necessary if sloping grades are to be used above or below
retaining walls. Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other
loads should be included in the retaining wall design.
Retaining walls should be backfilled with free-draining material that extends along the height of
the wall and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper 12 inches of the wall
backfill may consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drainpipe should be placed
along the base of the wall and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining
wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressure
should be considered in the wall design.
Preliminary Pavement Sections
The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade.
To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding
condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement
areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork
section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may
still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions may
require remedial measures such as overexcavation and replacement with structural fill or thicker
crushed rock sections prior to pavement.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 9
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic, the
following sections can be considered for preliminary design:
Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) placed over four inches of CRB, or;
Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB).
Heavier traffic areas generally require thicker pavement sections depending on site usage,
pavement life expectancy, and site traffic. For preliminary design purposes, the following
pavement sections can be considered for areas subject to occasional truck traffic:
Three inches of HMA placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or;
Three inches of HMA placed over four-and-one-half inches of ATB.
The HMA, CRB and ATB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The City of Yelm
minimum pavement requirements may supersede our recommendations and may require thicker
pavement sections.
Installation of pavement subgrade drainage should be considered in areas where inverted crown
pavements are used and where unweathered glacial till is exposed at the pavement subgrade
elevation. Such drainage measures can consist of finger drains at catch basin locations. A lack
of subgrade drainage under the conditions described above will likely result in extremely
accelerated distress to pavements in low areas.
Drainage
Groundwater seepage was not observed in the test pits excavated during the June 2022
subsurface exploration. Nevertheless, groundwater may be encountered depending on the time
of year earthwork activities occur and depth of excavations. Temporary measures to control
surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve interceptor
trenches, interceptor swales, infiltration trenches, and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during
preliminary grading to both identify areas of seepage and provide recommendations to reduce
the potential for seepage-related instability.
Finish grades must be designed to direct surface drain water away from structures and slopes.
Water must not be allowed to pond adjacent to structures or slopes. In our opinion, foundation
drains should be installed along building perimeter footings. A typical foundation drain detail is
provided on Plate 4.
Infiltration Feasibility
We understand on-site stormwater infiltration is being considered for the proposed project. An
evaluation of infiltration feasibility and pertinent design recommendations are provided in this
section.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 10
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Because the site is underlain by soil that was not consolidated by glacial advance, we used the
Soil Grain Size Analysis Method outlined in the referenced 2019 SWMMWW, adopted by the City
of Yelm, to determine infiltration design parameters. The following equation was utilized to
determine an initial, uncorrected infiltration rate:
logଵ ሺ𝐾௦௧ ሻ ൌെ1.57 1.90𝐷ଵ 0.015𝐷 െ 0.013𝐷ଽ െ 2.08𝑓௦
The lowest initial uncorrected rate from the test pit samples was used and must be reduced by
the correction factors outlined in the 2019 SWMMWW. Accordingly, the following parameters
are recommended for infiltration design:
Initial Ksat 175.8 inches per hour
CFv (site variability; number of locations tested) 0.33
CFt (test method) 0.40
CFm (degree of influent control) 0.90
Design Ksat 20.0 inches per hour
Discussion
Based on our field observations and analysis, the native soil is feasible for infiltration design from
a geotechnical standpoint. We acknowledge that final site layouts and/or designs may affect
infiltration feasibility, concerning maximum allowable setbacks from structures and property lines.
Infiltration facilities should extend through the upper organic topsoil and at least one foot into the
clean gravel and sand at depth. Clean gravel and sand should be encountered beginning at a
depth of roughly one to two feet bgs across most of the site.
ESNW can provide further evaluation and recommendations for site BMPs as plans develop.
ESNW should review final stormwater management plans to provide supplementary
recommendations, as needed.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of PACLAND and their representatives. The
recommendations and conclusions provided in this study are professional opinions consistent
with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing
under similar conditions in this area. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Variations in the
subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations may exist and may not become evident
until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this study if variations
are encountered.
PACLAND ES-8688
July 26, 2022 Page 11
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Additional Services
ESNW should have an opportunity to review final project plans with respect to the geotechnical
recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and
consultation services during construction. Provided that ESNW is retained during construction,
we can provide supplementary recommendations for subgrade preparation, as necessary, where
differing soil conditions are encountered.
Drwn.CAM
Checked SKH Date July 2022
Date 07/20/2022 Proj.No.8688
Plate 1
Geotechnical Engineering,Construction
Observation/Testing and Environmental Services
Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC
EarthSolutions
NW LLC
Vicinity Map
Long Shot Indoor Range
Yelm,Washington
Reference:
Thurston County,Washington
OpenStreetMap.org
NORTH
NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate.
Yelm SITE
Drwn.CAM
Checked SKH Date July 2022
Date 07/20/2022 Proj.No.8688
Plate 2
Geotechnical Engineering,Construction
Observation/Testing and Environmental Services
Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC
EarthSolutions
NW LLC
TP-1
TP-2
TP-3
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7groveroads.e.
wa-507 (E.yelm avenue)
Existing Parking
Existing Parking
P ro p o s e d P a rk in g
Future Building
Expansion
Future Parking
Expansion
Test Pit Location Plan
Long Shot Indoor Range
Yelm,Washington
NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate.
NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design
purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the
approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of
existing and /or proposed site features.The information illustrated
is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our
study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes
or interpretation of the data by others.
LEGEND
Approximate Location of
ESNW Test Pit,Proj.No.
ES-8688,June 2022
Subject Site
Proposed Building
Existing Building
TP-1
NOT -TO -SCALE
NORTH
Geotechnical Engineering,Construction
Observation/Testing and Environmental Services
Drwn.CAM
Checked SKH Date July 2022
Date 07/20/2022 Proj.No.8688
Plate 3
Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC
EarthSolutions
NW LLC
NOTES:
Free-draining Backfill should consist
of soil having less than 5 percent fines.
Percent passing No.4 sieve should be
25 to 75 percent.
Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu
of Free-draining Backfill,per ESNW
recommendations.
Drain Pipe should consist of perforated,
rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1-inch
Drain Rock.
LEGEND:
Free-draining Structural Backfill
1-inch Drain Rock
18"Min.
Structural
Fill
Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe
(Surround in Drain Rock)
SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAW ING
Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
Long Shot Indoor Range
Yelm,Washington
Geotechnical Engineering,Construction
Observation/Testing and Environmental Services
Drwn.CAM
Checked SKH Date July 2022
Date 07/20/2022 Proj.No.8688
Plate 4
Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC
EarthSolutions
NW LLC
Slope
Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe
(Surround in Drain Rock)
18"Min.
NOTES:
Do NOT tie roof downspouts
to Footing Drain.
Surface Seal to consist of
12"of less permeable,suitable
soil.Slope away from building.
LEGEND:
Surface Seal:native soil or
other low-permeability material.
1-inch Drain Rock
SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAW ING
Footing Drain Detail
Long Shot Indoor Range
Yelm,Washington
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Appendix A
Subsurface Exploration
Test Pit Logs
ES-8688
ESNW explored on-site soil and groundwater conditions on June 23, 2022. Seven test pits were
excavated using a mini-trackhoe and operator retained by ESNW. The test pits were completed
within accessible areas of the subject site. The approximate locations of the test pits are
illustrated on Plate 2 of this study. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The test pits
were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet bgs.
The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses.
The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In
actuality, the transitions may be more gradual.
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
LETTERGRAPH
SYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications.
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
Earth Solutions NW LLC
280.0
272.5
GB
GB
GB
MC = 3.6%
Fines = 1.1%
MC = 3.9%
MC = 5.9%
TPSL
GW
Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18"
Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp
[USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND]
-slight caving to BOH
Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater
encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 2.5 feet to BOH.
LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not
surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on
this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a
complete understanding of subsurface conditions.
1.0
8.5SAMPLE TYPENUMBERDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
PAGE 1 OF 1
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating
DATE STARTED 6/23/22 COMPLETED 6/23/22
GROUND WATER LEVEL:
GROUND ELEVATION 281 ft
LATITUDE 46.93459 LONGITUDE -122.58279
LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY HTW
NOTES
SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass
AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION
AFTER EXCAVATION
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 8688.GPJ - GRAPHICS TEMPLATE WITH LAT AND LONG.GDT - 7/26/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
TESTS
U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHICLOG
279.0
272.5
271.0
GB
GB
GB
MC = 4.2%
MC = 5.2%
MC = 8.8%
TPSL
GW
SP
Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12"
Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp
-slight caving to BOH
Brown poorly graded SAND, medium dense, damp to moist
Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during
excavation. Caving observed from 2.0 feet to BOH.
LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not
surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on
this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a
complete understanding of subsurface conditions.
1.0
7.5
9.0SAMPLE TYPENUMBERDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
PAGE 1 OF 1
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating
DATE STARTED 6/23/22 COMPLETED 6/23/22
GROUND WATER LEVEL:
GROUND ELEVATION 280 ft
LATITUDE 46.93424 LONGITUDE -122.58218
LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY HTW
NOTES
SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass
AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION
AFTER EXCAVATION
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 8688.GPJ - GRAPHICS TEMPLATE WITH LAT AND LONG.GDT - 7/26/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
TESTS
U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHICLOG
280.0
274.5
GB
GB
GB
MC = 5.6%
MC = 7.1%
Fines = 2.3%
MC = 4.6%
TPSL
GP
Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 24"
Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp
-moderate to severe caving to BOH
[USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND]
Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater
encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 2.5 feet to BOH.
LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not
surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on
this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a
complete understanding of subsurface conditions.
1.0
6.5SAMPLE TYPENUMBERDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
PAGE 1 OF 1
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating
DATE STARTED 6/23/22 COMPLETED 6/23/22
GROUND WATER LEVEL:
GROUND ELEVATION 281 ft
LATITUDE 46.93387 LONGITUDE -122.58223
LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY HTW
NOTES
SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass
AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION
AFTER EXCAVATION
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 8688.GPJ - GRAPHICS TEMPLATE WITH LAT AND LONG.GDT - 7/26/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
TESTS
U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHICLOG
279.0
271.0
GB
GB
GB
GB
MC = 3.1%
MC = 3.6%
Fines = 0.7%
MC = 22.9%
MC = 5.7%
TPSL
GP
Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18"
Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp
-slight caving to BOH
[USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND]
-becomes moist to wet
-becomes damp
Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during
excavation. Caving observed from 2.0 feet to BOH.
LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not
surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on
this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a
complete understanding of subsurface conditions.
1.0
9.0SAMPLE TYPENUMBERDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
PAGE 1 OF 1
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating
DATE STARTED 6/23/22 COMPLETED 6/23/22
GROUND WATER LEVEL:
GROUND ELEVATION 280 ft
LATITUDE 46.93409 LONGITUDE -122.58169
LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY HTW
NOTES
SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass
AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION
AFTER EXCAVATION
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 8688.GPJ - GRAPHICS TEMPLATE WITH LAT AND LONG.GDT - 7/26/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
TESTS
U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHICLOG
278.0
269.0
GB
GB
GB
MC = 4.2%
MC = 4.9%
Fines = 0.7%
MC = 3.6%
TPSL
GP
Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12"
Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp
-slight caving to BOH
[USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND]
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during
excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH.
LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not
surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on
this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a
complete understanding of subsurface conditions.
1.0
10.0SAMPLE TYPENUMBERDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
PAGE 1 OF 1
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating
DATE STARTED 6/23/22 COMPLETED 6/23/22
GROUND WATER LEVEL:
GROUND ELEVATION 279 ft
LATITUDE 46.93431 LONGITUDE -122.58157
LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY HTW
NOTES
SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass
AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION
AFTER EXCAVATION
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 8688.GPJ - GRAPHICS TEMPLATE WITH LAT AND LONG.GDT - 7/26/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
TESTS
U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHICLOG
278.5
271.5
270.5
GB
GB
GB
MC = 5.0%
MC = 5.1%
Fines = 1.2%
MC = 4.4%
TPSL
GW
SP
Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 10"
Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp
-slight caving to BOH
[USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND]
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, medium dense, damp
Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during
excavation. Caving observed from 2.5 feet to BOH.
LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not
surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on
this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a
complete understanding of subsurface conditions.
1.5
8.5
9.5SAMPLE TYPENUMBERDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
PAGE 1 OF 1
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating
DATE STARTED 6/23/22 COMPLETED 6/23/22
GROUND WATER LEVEL:
GROUND ELEVATION 280 ft
LATITUDE 46.9339 LONGITUDE -122.58146
LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY HTW
NOTES
SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass
AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION
AFTER EXCAVATION
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 8688.GPJ - GRAPHICS TEMPLATE WITH LAT AND LONG.GDT - 7/26/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
TESTS
U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHICLOG
280.0
273.0
GB
GB
GB
MC = 17.6%
MC = 4.8%
MC = 5.3%
TPSL
GW
Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18"
Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist to wet
-slight caving to BOH
-becomes damp
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during
excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH.
LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not
surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on
this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a
complete understanding of subsurface conditions.
1.0
8.0SAMPLE TYPENUMBERDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
PAGE 1 OF 1
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating
DATE STARTED 6/23/22 COMPLETED 6/23/22
GROUND WATER LEVEL:
GROUND ELEVATION 281 ft
LATITUDE 46.93371 LONGITUDE -122.5817
LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY HTW
NOTES
SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass
AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION
AFTER EXCAVATION
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 8688.GPJ - GRAPHICS TEMPLATE WITH LAT AND LONG.GDT - 7/26/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
TESTS
U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHICLOG
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
ES-8688
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
3
D100
140
Specimen Identification
1
fine
6
HYDROMETER
304
1.1
2.3
0.7
0.7
1.2
101/2
COBBLES
Specimen Identification
4
coarse
20 401.5 8 14
USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GW with Sand.
USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GP with Sand.
USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GP with Sand
USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GP with Sand
USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GW with Sand
6 60
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTD10
5.962
1.7
2.253
1.85
5.137
26.395
13.149
11.831
20.493
19.059
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
100
47.28
28.02
15.26
41.64
29.04
LL
TP-01
TP-03
TP-04
TP-05
TP-06
0.558
0.469
0.775
0.492
0.656
3/4
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
GRAVEL SAND
75
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
%Silt
2.41
0.47
0.55
0.34
2.11
TP-01
TP-03
TP-04
TP-05
TP-06
2 2003
Cc CuClassification
%Clay
16
PID60 D30
coarse SILT OR CLAYfinemedium
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
3/8 50
2.0ft.
4.5ft.
6.0ft.
4.5ft.
7.0ft.
2.00ft.
4.50ft.
6.00ft.
4.50ft.
7.00ft.
PL
PROJECT NUMBER ES-8688 PROJECT NAME Long Shot Indoor Range
GRAIN SIZE USDA ES-8688 LONG SHOT INDOOR RANGE.GPJ GINT US LAB.GDT 7/1/22Earth Solutions NW, LLC
15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425-449-4711
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Report Distribution
ES-8688
EMAIL ONLY PACLAND
6814 Greenwood Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98103
Attention: Mr. Darian Murray