The URL can be used to link to this page

RPT Drainage Design - Tahoma Retail 05.19.23 TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 23-028 Preliminary Drainage Report Prepared for: Tahoma Terra Holdings, LLC PO Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373 (253) 820-7835 evan@soundbuilthomes.com Report Date: May 19, 2023 Prepared by: Augustus Brinckmeyer, EIT Reviewed by: Chloe McIntyre, PE HATTON GODAT PANTIER 3910 Martin Way E., Suite B Olympia, WA 98506 (360) 943-1599 Project No: 23-028 Project Name: TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL H:\Office\JOBS\2023\23-028 Tahoma Commercial\PERMIT\Reports & Calculations\DRAINAGE\REPORT\RPT Drainage Design - 05.08.23.docx I hereby state that this Preliminary Drainage Control Plan for, Tahoma Terra Retail located at 14788 Berry Valley Rd SE, Yelm, 98597, Thurston County, WA, has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise which is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that the CITY OF YELM does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me. Signature Date Seal 05/19/2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 – Project Description ................................................................................... 1 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Basin Map ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans ............................................... 6 Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention .................................. 6 Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution ................................................................ 6 Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls ................... 6 Minimum Requirement #5: On-Site Stormwater Management ..................................................... 6 Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment ............................................................................... 7 Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control ....................................................................................... 8 Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection .......................................................................... 8 Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance .............................................................. 8 Minimum Requirement #10: Financial Liability ............................................................................. 8 Minimum Requirement #11: Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation ....................................................... 8 Section 2 – Existing Conditions Description .............................................................. 9 Section 2.1 Topography ................................................................................................................ 9 Section 2.2 Ground Cover............................................................................................................. 9 Section 2.3 Drainage ..................................................................................................................... 9 Section 2.4 Soils ........................................................................................................................... 9 Section 2.5 Critical Areas ............................................................................................................ 10 Section 2.6 Adjacent Areas ......................................................................................................... 10 Section 2.8 Reports and Studies ................................................................................................ 10 Section 2.9 – Wells and Septic Systems ....................................................................................... 10 Section 2.10 – Fuel Tanks ............................................................................................................. 10 Section 2.11 – Analysis of 100-Year Flood .................................................................................... 10 Existing Conditions Map................................................................................................................. 11 Section 3 – Vicinity Analysis and Sub-Basin Description ....................................... 12 Section 4 – Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Sizing .................................... 13 Water Quality Treatment Facility Sizing ......................................................................................... 13 Flow Control Facility Sizing ............................................................................................................ 13 Section 5 – Aesthetic Considerations for Facilities ................................................. 13 Section 6 – Conveyance System Analysis and Design ............................................ 14 Section 7 – Covenants, Dedications and Easement ................................................. 14 Section 8 – Agreements and Guarantees .................................................................. 14 Section 9 – Other Permits or Conditions Place on the Project ............................... 14 APPENDIX 1 – Design Calculations ........................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 2 – Soil Management Plan ....................................................................... 16 Soil Management Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 17 Soil Management Plan Worksheet ................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX 3 – Supplemental Reports and Information ........................................... 19 TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 1 DRAINAGE REPORT Section 1 – Project Description The Tahoma Terra Retailproject is located northwest of Tahoma Blvd SE and west of Berry Valley Rd. The project is bordered on the west by Thompson Creek in the City of Yelm in in Section 24, Township 17, Range 1 East, Quarter NW SW on tax parcel number 78640000010. The project proposes to construct two, buildings for a total of 7,010 square feet. The site also features 18,395 square foot permeable pavement parking lot and drive aisle to serve as access for the site. Additionally, the project proposes required drainage, landscaping, sewer, and water service improvements. See proposed Site Plan on page 3. The proposed project will require grading, encroachment, building, and utility permits. Water and sewer will be provided via city of Yelm. Zoning for the property is R-14, High Density Residential. Stormwater design was completed following the guidelines in the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Stormwater runoff from the development will be conveyed from the impervious surfaces to the permeable pavement for infiltration. The permeable pavement is sized for 100% infiltration using WWHM2012 continuous runoff modeling software. The site consists of one basin for stormwater modeling, the Permeable Pavement Basin. The Permeable Pavement Basin includes 0.16 acres of roof, 0.1 acres of concrete, 0.36 acres of landscaping, and 0.42 acres of permeable pavement asphalt. See attached Basin Map on page 4. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 2 Table 1.1 - Area Summary All areas measured in acres Pre-Developed Total Site Pasture (A/B Flat) 1.05 Total 1.05 100-Year Pre- Developed Flow Rate 0.184 Developed Permeable Pavement Basin Total Site Roof 3.90 3.90 Roads Sidewalk 0.45 0.45 Driveway Permeable Pavement 3.63 3.63 Pasture (A/B) 2.19 4.74 Forest (A/B Flat) Total 12.71 100-Year Developed Flow Rate 0.0 PERMEABLEPAVEMENT(TYP)TYPE 1 CATCHBASIN (TYP)ROOF DRAIN (TYP)SITE PLANROOF DRAINCLEANOUT (TYP)ROOF DRAINS TO PERMEABLEPAVEMENT (TYP) T+OMA BLVD SE YELM :A TA+OMA TE55A COMME5CIALNHATTONGODATPANTIERN.T.S.BERRYVALLEYRD SET A H OM A B L V D S ETAHOMA COMMERCIALPARCEL # 78640000012 PERMEABLE PAVEMENT BASINBASIN MAP T+OMA BLVD SE YELM :A TA+OMA TE55A COMME5CIALNHATTONGODATPANTIERN.T.S.BERRYVALLEYRD SET A H OM A B L V D S ETAHOMA COMMERCIALPARCEL # 78640000012 TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 5 The 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington summarizes the thresholds which determine the applicability of the minimum requirements for each project. All new development projects are required to comply with Minimum Requirement #2; Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Minimum Requirement #4; Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls . Table 1.2 summarizes the thresholds which trigger compliance with the remaining minimum requirements. Table 1.2 – Thresholds for Minimum Requirement Applicability Required to comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 & #11 Required to comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #11 ≥ 2,000 ft2 of new, replaced, or new + replaced hard surface area X ≥ 7,000 ft2 land disturbing activity X ≥ 5,000 ft2 new + replaced hard surface area X Converts ≥ 0.75 acre of vegetation to lawn or landscape X Coverts ≥ 2.5 acres of native vegetation to pasture X This project adds 11,325 square feet of impervious area; therefore, all minimum requirements apply. The applicable minimum requirements are: • Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans • Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention • Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution • Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls • Minimum Requirement #5: On-Site Stormwater Management • Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment • Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control • Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection • Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance • Minimum Requirement #10: Financial Liability • Minimum Requirement #11: Off-Site Analysis Addressing these eleven minimum requirements, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have little or no adverse effects on the downstream and surrounding hydrology. Each of the minimum requirements is discussed below. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 6 Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The main components of Stormwater Site Planning are Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planning and Permanent Stormwater Control Planning. This Drainage Report, a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Soils Report, Maintenance and Source Control Manual, and copy of the proposed Maintenance Covenant for stormwater facilities will be submitted as part of the Tahoma Terra RetailDrainage Control Plan to meet this requirement. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (C-SWPPP) will be developed to address erosion and sediment control anticipated during construction. A Construction NPDES permit will be obtained prior to construction. The C-SWPPP will address all thirteen elements as required by the Department of Ecology. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution Source control BMPs are used to prevent stormwater from coming in contact with pollutants and are used as a cost-effective means of reducing pollutants in stormwater. The selection of permanent source control BMPs is based on the activities likely to occur on the site and the pollutants associated with those activities. Methods to address source control of pollution from the post-developed project site are provided in the Maintenance and Source Control Manual that will be submitted as part of the Final Drainage Control Plan for this project. Construction source control BMPs are addressed in the C-SWPPP. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Low-impact development techniques will be used to preserve existing site runoff patterns to the maximum extent feasible. In the existing condition, stormwater runoff from the project site sheet flows to the west toward Thompson Creek. Runoff generated from proposed roof areas will be infiltrated onsite via the permeable pavement sized per BMP T5.15. Soil in the disturbed lawn/landscape areas will be amended per BMP T5.13 to increase treatment and infiltration capacity and to reduce runoff from the site. Minimum Requirement #5: On-Site Stormwater Management The 2022 DDECM summarizes the requirements for employing on-site stormwater management BMPs, providing treatment, and flow control in decision charts. This project proposes to satisfy Minimum Requirement #5 by meeting the LID Performance Standard as defined in the 2022 DDECM. This project proposes to implement Postconstruction Soil Quality and Depth (BMP T5.13) in all new and disturbed lawn/landscape areas to retain greater stormwater functions, including increased infiltration potential and treatment of pollutants and sediments resulting from development. Permeable pavement (BMP T 5.15) will be employed to infiltrate 100% of tributary stormwater runoff from the remainder of the proposed improvements. The combination of stormwater BMPs used for this project results in the site meeting the Low Impact Development Performance Standard as illustrated on Page 20 of the Tahoma Terra Commercial WWHM report. See attached report in Appendix 1. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 7 Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment Table 1.3 – Thresholds for Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment Required to Comply < 5,000 sf of total effective pollution-generating hard surface (PGHS) ≥ 5,000 sf of total effective pollution-generating hard surface (PGHS) X < ¾ acres of pollution-generating pervious surface (PGPS) from which there will be a surface discharge in a natural or artificial conveyance system from the site ≥ ¾ acres of pollution-generating pervious surface (PGPS) from which there will be a surface discharge in a natural or artificial conveyance system from the site X Table 1.3 above summarizes the thresholds for construction of stormwater treatment facilities. This project will add 18,395 sf of PGHS; therefore, treatment is required. This project proposes to provide enhanced treatment by infiltrating 100% of stormwater through the Permeable Pavement treatment facility with subgrade soils meeting the site suitability criteria. See further explanation of water quality facility sizing in Section 4 of this Drainage Report. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 8 Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control Table 1.4 – Thresholds for Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control Required to Comply < ¾ acres of native vegetation converted to lawn/landscape or < 2.5 acres converted to pasture from which there is a surface discharge in a natural or artificial conveyance system from the site ≥ ¾ acres of native vegetation converted to lawn/landscape or ≥ 2.5 acres converted to pasture from which there is a surface discharge in a natural or artificial conveyance system from the site X < 10,000 sf of effective impervious area ≥ 10,000 sf of effective impervious area X ≥ 0.10 cfs increase in the 100-year storm flow frequency using 1-hour time steps or ≥ 0.15 cfs increase in the 100-year storm flow frequency using 15-minute time steps X Table 1.4 above summarizes the thresholds for achievement of the standard flow control requirement for Western Washington. This project will add 11,492 sf of effective impervious surface. Flow control is required. This project proposes to provide flow control through the use of permeable pavement treatment facility. See further explanation of flow control facility sizing in Section 4 of this Drainage Report. Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection The project will infiltrate all project-related runoff onsite and therefore does not discharge stormwater to a wetland. Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance Proper operation and maintenance of proposed stormwater facilities is a vital component to the success of stormwater mitigation. A Maintenance and Source Control Manual and Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be prepared are included as part of the Drainage Control Plan for the Tahoma Terra Retailproject. Minimum Requirement #10: Financial Liability Financial guarantees will be provided to ensure that: 1. The project will operate according to the design approved by the project engineer. 2. Operation of erosion control facilities will provide protection against si ltation of surface water, erosion, damage to permanent stormwater BMPs, and damage to adjacent properties. Minimum Requirement #11: Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation An off-site analysis was conducted to determine any potential water quality, erosion, slope stability, or drainage impacts that may be caused or aggravated by the proposed improvements. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 9 The project proposes to use retention BMPs and post-construction soil enhancement to decrease overall site runoff from the pre-developed condition. A portion of onsite runoff will be conveyed via catch basins and piping to onsite stormwater facilities for treatment and flow control. All stormwater will be conveyed to the permeable pavement facility fully infiltrating tributary runoff. This project will reduce overall runoff from the site from 0.18 cfs to 0 cfs, improving any existing capacity or flooding issues that may exist. No adverse downstream drainage impacts are expected due to development of the site. All runoff is to be treated in the soils beneath the permeable pavement prior to infiltration, so no adverse water quality effects are anticipated. The site will be stabilized with vegetation and hardscaping, and conveyance and dispersion facilities reduce the potential for erosion, so no adverse impacts to erosion or slope stability are anticipated. See detailed analysis of off-site impacts in Section 3 of this report. Section 2 – Existing Conditions Description Section 2.1 Topography The site naturally slopes from east to west with slopes varying from 1% coming down from Tahoma Blvd SE, and 5% at the lower western portion of the site at Thompson creek. The elevation ranges from 338 feet at the east portion of the site and down to 336 feet on the west portion of the site. Section 2.2 Ground Cover The site in its existing condition is an undeveloped and a sparsely forested lot with an open space consisting of native grass, shrubs, and a few trees. Section 2.3 Drainage In the current condition stormwater runoff flows from the east to the west. The majority of projects upslope from the site are developed and there is no stormwater runoff from off-site to the property. The other adjacent and undeveloped properties currently drain away from the project site. Section 2.4 Soils The Soil survey of Thurston County by NRCS indicates onsite soils are Nisqually loamy fine sand with 3 to 15 percent slopes, these types of soils are in hydrologic soils group, B. Insight Geologic, Inc conducted a geotechnical and stormwater evaluation of the site with findings summarized in a report dated June 24, 2021. Test pits generally indicated course sands and gravels with cobbles onsite to depth of 5 to 12 feet below existing ground surface (BGS). Groundwater was encountered in 3 borings and 3 test pits throughout the site from depths of 4 to 12 feet BGS. Test pits were conducted in April after the time associated with peak high groundwater reference the associated report in Appendix 2. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 10 Section 2.5 Critical Areas The site is bordered on the west by parcel 78640000012 that includes Thompson creek Commercial. The project is within a category one critical aquifer recharge area. The site also experiences high ground water, but no landslide hazard, wetland, or wellhead protection areas are found on site. Section 2.6 Adjacent Areas The site is bound by Tahoma Blvd. SE to the south and east, Berry Valley Rd SE to the west. The north of the site is parcel used by a single-family resident. Section 2.8 Reports and Studies The site has developments to the west as Tahoma Terra Commercial, east of Tahoma Blvd, and north of the site has a residential home. These subdivisions provide drainage reports, and geotechnical reports that include soil logs, design infiltration rate, and test data. Section 2.9 – Wells and Septic Systems Records at Thurston County and the Department of Ecology were searched in order to locate the presence of wells and septic systems that may be located within the setback distances from the permeable pavement stormwater facility. In addition, the Project Engineer, or someone under his/her direct supervision, has visited the site to verify the presence or absence of wells and septic systems as best can be done visually without trespassing onto other properties. All wells and septic systems found to be located within the setback distances from the permeable pavement stormwater facility have been shown on the plans. Section 2.10 – Fuel Tanks Records at Thurston County and the Department of Ecology were searched in order to locate the presence of above and below ground fuel storage tanks that may be located within the setback distances from the permeable pavement permeable pavement facility. In addition, the Project Engineer, or someone under his/her direct supervision, has visited the site to verify the presence or absence of fuel tanks as best can be done visually without trespassing onto other properties. All fuel tanks found to be located within the setback distances from the permeable pavement facility have been shown on the plans. Section 2.11 – Analysis of 100-Year Flood The Federal Emergency Management Agency prepares maps for all areas within Thurston County, including the incorporated cities therein. Panel #53067C0335E depicts the areas, if any, subjected to flooding in the vicinity of this proposal. By inspection of this map, this proposal appears to be located in Zone A, an area of minimal flooding. This area, therefore, is not located within the 100-year flood plain. EXISTING FIREHYDRANT (TYP)EXISTING TYPE ICATCH BASIN (TYP)BERRYVALLEYRD SELOT T+OMA BLVD SE YELM :A TA+OMA TE55A COMME5CIALNHATTONGODATPANTIERN.T.S.EXISTING CONDITIONS MAPT A H OM A B L V D S EEXISTINGAIR/VACUUMRELEASEEXISTINGTREE BOX(TYP)EXISTING EDGE OFPAVEMENTEXISTING BLDGFOUNDATION TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 12 Section 3 – Vicinity Analysis and Sub-Basin Description The site was analyzed as one basin used for modeling purposes. These basins accept water from the 1.05 acres in total and is conveyed into the Permeable Pavement Basin. This area includes roofs, sidewalks, landscaping, and all other surfaces within the basin boundary. See basin map on page 4 of this report. All offsite areas will either have been collected or shall not flow across the site, therefore an off-site drainage flow shall not be analyzed. Existing conditions were analyzed to locate critical aquifer recharge areas, wellhead protection areas, drinking water wells, and septic systems. The Permeable Pavement Facility is sized to infiltrate 100% of all water conveyed for the 100-year storm. In the case of an extreme storm event stormwater will discharge to Thompson Creek in the west, matching existing conditions. Due to facility sizing and performance, downstream erosion will not be a concern for this project. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 13 Section 4 – Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Sizing Table 4.1 – Permeable Pavement Facility Stage-Storage Table Storm Recurrence Interval Stage (ft) Storage (ac-ft) Depth Elevation 2-Year 0.013 334.18 0.0056 5-Year 0.021 334.19 0.0087 10-Year 0.027 334.20 0.0114 25-Year 0.038 334.21 0.0158 50-Year 0.047 334.22 0.0198 100-Year 0.058 334.23 0.0245 Water Quality Treatment Facility Sizing This project generates more than 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating hard surfaces and is therefore required to provide stormwater runoff treatment. Pollution generation surfaces make up 49% of the total site. This includes the pavement and parking lots, the sidewalks. Enhanced treatment is required due to the proximity of fresh water at Thompson Creek, and a commercial development. Enhanced treatment will be provided by infiltration into soils meeting the suitability criteria for treatment. If testing of native soils during construction indicates soils do not meet the site suitability criteria, a sand treatment layer meeting the specifications of sand medium specifications (Table V-6.1) will be installed beneath the storage layer of the permeable pavement. Flow Control Facility Sizing This project generates more than 10,000 square feet of effective hard surfaces and is therefore required to provide flow control. Using WWHM continuous flow control modeling software to size the Permeable Pavement Facility provides flow control for the site. Permeable Pavement: The permeable pavement was sized to infiltrate 100% of tributary onsite tributary area. An Infiltration rate of 1 in/hr was used to provide a conservative design, however, calculated design infiltration rates indicate an average rate of approximately 1.09 in/hr. Refer to design infiltration rate calculations and WWHM sizing indicating 100% infiltration of the 100 -year storm in Appendix 1. The areas used to size the permeable pavement are provided in Table 1.1 and in Appendix 1. Section 5 – Aesthetic Considerations for Facilities All above ground stormwater facilities will be hydroseeded upon completion. Additional landscaping shall also be provided throughout the project in conformance with the approved landscaping and tree restoration plan, as applicable, and as otherwise required by the approving authority. TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 14 Signage provided by the City of Yelm will be installed for all aboveground stormwater facilities and stormwater facilities located within any development tracts. Section 6 – Conveyance System Analysis and Design The conveyance system includes roof drains connected to downspouts which will convey stormwater through the site. Catch basins will collect runoff from the paved surfaces. Storm pipes will convey runoff from all hard surface to stormwater facilities located throughout the site. Pipes have been designed to convey the 25-year, 24-hour peak flow rate. Pipes were designed using Manning’s Equation and flow frequency outputs from WWHM for the entire site. Roof drains were sized and their slopes to convey all tributary roof runoff. Storm pipe will be sloped at a minimum of 0.005 ft/ft and will vary in size from 6” to 8” diameter. See Conveyance Sizing Calculations provided in Appendix 1. For an extreme storm event greater than the 100-year storm the permeable pavement layer will overflow through curb cuts in the low points of the pavement. These curb cuts will allow the permeable pavement surface water to discharge to adjacent landscaping area and ultimately flow to natural drainage point, matching existing conditions. Section 7 – Covenants, Dedications and Easement All stormwater facilities located on private property shall be owned, operated and maintained by the property owners, their heirs, successors and assigns. The property owners shall enter into an agreement with the governing body, a copy of which agreement is included in the Maintenance and Source Control Manual of the Drainage Control Plan. The agreement requires maintenance of the stormwater facilities in accordance with the maintenance plan provided and shall grant easement for access to the governing body to inspect the stormwater facilities. The agreement also makes provisions for the governing body to make repairs, after due notice is given to the owners, if repairs are necessary to ensure proper performance of the stormwater system and if the owners fail to make the necessary repairs. The cost of said repairs shall be borne by the property owners, their heirs, successors and assigns. Proposed utilities for the project are shown on the site plan and have been designed to accommodate the drainage design. Section 8 – Agreements and Guarantees The property owner is required to enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement to maintain stormwater facilities and implement a Pollution Source Control Plan. A copy of the maintenance agreement is included in the Maintenance and Source Control Manual. The owner is required to provide a financial guarantee to the Administrator to ensure satisfactory maintenance of drainage facilities for a minimum of 2 years from final plat acceptance or acceptance of the project, whichever is later. The guarantee shall be 15 percent of the construction cost of the drainage facilities. Section 9 – Other Permits or Conditions Place on the Project City of Yelm Right-of-Way Access Permit TAHOMA TERRA RETAIL 05.19.2023 PAGE 15 APPENDIX 1 – Design Calculations Onsite Total Onsite Total Pasture (B/Flat) 1.05 1.05 0.36 0.36 Onsite Bypass Total Roof 0.16 0.16 0.26 0.00 0.26 Sidewalk (Flat)0.10 0.10 25% 0% 25% Permeable Pavement 0.42 0.42 Total 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.79 0.00 0.79 75% 0% 75% Pervious Impervious Area Summary Pre-Developed Developed Developed Summary Assumptions: Water landing on porous asphalt will infiltrate and will not be a calculated surface for runoff TP-1 @ 4ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 SP 0.26 0.70 3.40 0.01 208.89 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 208.89 1.71 0.0127 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 208.89 0.0127 2.6499 2.6499 838 18 1.4 0.9 1.67 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 208.89 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-2 @ 0.5ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GP 0.22 17.00 30.00 0.04 123.20 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 123.20 1.62 0.0134 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 123.20 0.0134 1.6476 1.6476 838 18 1.4 0.9 1.04 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 123.20 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-2 @ 2.5ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GP 0.37 15.00 28.00 0.02 260.20 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 260.20 1.74 0.0124 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 260.20 0.0124 3.2290 3.2290 838 18 1.4 0.9 2.03 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.0 0.0 260.20 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-3 @ 0.5-4ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 SP 0.16 3.00 29.00 0.05 57.66 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 57.66 1.50 0.0144 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 57.66 0.0144 0.8320 0.8320 838 18 1.4 0.9 0.52 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.2 0.2 57.66 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-4 @ 0.5-4.5ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 SP 0.15 1.00 23.00 0.05 60.19 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 60.19 1.51 0.0144 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 60.19 0.0144 0.8647 0.8647 838 18 1.4 0.9 0.54 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.2 0.2 60.19 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-4 @ 4.5-6ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GW 0.51 16.00 31.00 0.01 467.50 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 467.50 1.85 0.0117 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 467.50 0.0117 5.4714 5.4714 838 18 1.4 0.9 3.45 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.0 0.0 467.50 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-5 @ 0.5ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 SP-SM 0.14 0.37 0.80 0.05 108.51 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 108.51 1.60 0.0135 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 108.51 0.0135 1.4697 1.4697 838 18 1.4 0.9 0.93 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 108.51 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-7 @ 0.5-4ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GP 0.18 20.50 31.00 0.04 111.12 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 111.12 1.60 0.0135 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 111.12 0.0135 1.5015 1.5015 838 18 1.4 0.9 0.95 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 111.12 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) TP-7 @ 4-5ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GP 0.37 14.00 28.00 0.01 258.69 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 258.69 1.74 0.0124 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 258.69 0.0124 3.2122 3.2122 838 18 1.4 0.9 2.02 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.0 0.0 258.69 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft) TP-9 @ 0.5-3ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GP 0.24 16.00 29.00 0.04 134.49 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 134.49 1.63 0.0133 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 134.49 0.0133 1.7829 1.7829 838 18 1.4 0.9 1.12 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 134.49 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) MW-2 @ 0-4ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GP 0.18 8.00 24.00 0.05 86.88 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 86.88 1.56 0.0138 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 86.88 0.0138 1.2031 1.2031 838 18 1.4 0.9 0.76 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 86.88 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) MW-2 @ 4-8ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 GP 0.2 9.50 25.00 0.05 95.99 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 95.99 1.58 0.0137 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 95.99 0.0137 1.3162 1.3162 838 18 1.4 0.9 0.83 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 95.99 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) MW-2 @ 8-11ft Step 1:Step 3: Soil Layer USCS D10 (mm) D60 (mm) D90 (mm) ffines (g/g) Ksat (ft/day) Dwt (ft) Dpond (ft) Apond (ac)CFsize Kequiv (ft/day) K0.1 (ft/day)i Layer 1 SP 0.23 5.00 17.00 0.03 127.31 2.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 127.31 1.62 0.0133 Layer 2 Dwt is the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the water table Layer 3 Dpond is the depth of water in the facility. Use a ponded depth of 1/4 of the maximum depth Layer 4 K is the saturated hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 Layer 5 CFsize is the correction for pond size Layer 6 Layer 7 Step 4:Step 5: Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 127.31 0.0133 1.6969 1.6969 838 18 1.4 0.9 1.07 D10, D60, and D90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 10%, 60%, and 90% of the sample is more fine i is the hydraulic gradient from Step 3 ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes the US #200 sieve K is hydraulic conductivity from Step 2 f is the infiltration rate Step 2: Soil Layer d (in) di (in)di/Ksat Σ di/Ksat Kequiv (ft/day) Layer 1 12 0.1 0.1 127.31 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 d is the depth of the soil column below the pond di is the thickness of layer "i" in the soil column Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer "i" in the soil column from Step 1 above Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity (Kequiv) 12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)Steady State Hydraulic Gradient (i ) Infiltration Rate Design Infiltration Rate Kequiv (ft/day) i (ft/ft) f (ft/day) f (ft/day) Pond L (ft) Pond W (ft)CFaspect CFsilt/bio fdesign (in/hr) WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 2 General Model Information WWHM2012 Project Name:23-028 Permeable Pavement Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:5/3/2023 Gage:Eaton Creek Data Start:1955/10/01 Data End:2011/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2023/01/27 Version:4.2.19 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Predeveloped Site Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Pasture, Mod 1.05 Pervious Total 1.05 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.05 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Roofs Bypass:No Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.16 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 5 Sidewalks Bypass:No Impervious Land Use acre SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.1 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 6 Pasture Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Pasture, Mod .36 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 7 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 8 Mitigated Routing Permeable Pavement 1 Pavement Area:0.4219 acre.Pavement Length: 919.00 ft. Pavement Width: 20.00 ft. Pavement slope 1:0.0015 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.333 Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2 Material thickness of second layer: 0.1666 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.4 Material thickness of third layer: 0.5 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0.4 Infiltration On Infiltration rate:1 Infiltration safety factor:1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.):122.318 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.):0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.):122.318 Percent Infiltrated:100 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total Evap From Facility:5.475 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 2:58:11 PM Page 9 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:1.05 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.36 Total Impervious Area:0.681947 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.004026 5 year 0.014601 10 year 0.029878 25 year 0.066261 50 year 0.112887 100 year 0.184567 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1956 0.033 0.000 1957 0.010 0.000 1958 0.004 0.000 1959 0.006 0.000 1960 0.009 0.000 1961 0.027 0.000 1962 0.001 0.000 1963 0.064 0.000 1964 0.007 0.000 1965 0.019 0.000 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:18 PM Page 10 1966 0.001 0.000 1967 0.028 0.000 1968 0.005 0.000 1969 0.001 0.000 1970 0.003 0.000 1971 0.045 0.000 1972 0.103 0.000 1973 0.002 0.000 1974 0.009 0.000 1975 0.003 0.000 1976 0.005 0.000 1977 0.001 0.000 1978 0.020 0.000 1979 0.001 0.000 1980 0.003 0.000 1981 0.018 0.000 1982 0.008 0.000 1983 0.004 0.000 1984 0.007 0.000 1985 0.001 0.000 1986 0.013 0.000 1987 0.027 0.000 1988 0.001 0.000 1989 0.005 0.000 1990 0.001 0.000 1991 0.194 0.000 1992 0.001 0.000 1993 0.001 0.000 1994 0.001 0.000 1995 0.004 0.000 1996 0.022 0.000 1997 0.005 0.000 1998 0.009 0.000 1999 0.008 0.000 2000 0.001 0.000 2001 0.001 0.000 2002 0.001 0.000 2003 0.001 0.000 2004 0.001 0.000 2005 0.001 0.000 2006 0.002 0.000 2007 0.020 0.000 2008 0.001 0.000 2009 0.003 0.000 2010 0.002 0.000 2011 0.002 0.000 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.1941 0.0000 2 0.1026 0.0000 3 0.0635 0.0000 4 0.0447 0.0000 5 0.0328 0.0000 6 0.0282 0.0000 7 0.0271 0.0000 8 0.0266 0.0000 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:18 PM Page 11 9 0.0215 0.0000 10 0.0204 0.0000 11 0.0201 0.0000 12 0.0186 0.0000 13 0.0176 0.0000 14 0.0132 0.0000 15 0.0098 0.0000 16 0.0091 0.0000 17 0.0088 0.0000 18 0.0087 0.0000 19 0.0083 0.0000 20 0.0082 0.0000 21 0.0075 0.0000 22 0.0066 0.0000 23 0.0060 0.0000 24 0.0054 0.0000 25 0.0053 0.0000 26 0.0050 0.0000 27 0.0048 0.0000 28 0.0040 0.0000 29 0.0037 0.0000 30 0.0037 0.0000 31 0.0034 0.0000 32 0.0031 0.0000 33 0.0031 0.0000 34 0.0025 0.0000 35 0.0021 0.0000 36 0.0021 0.0000 37 0.0021 0.0000 38 0.0017 0.0000 39 0.0014 0.0000 40 0.0011 0.0000 41 0.0011 0.0000 42 0.0009 0.0000 43 0.0008 0.0000 44 0.0008 0.0000 45 0.0008 0.0000 46 0.0008 0.0000 47 0.0008 0.0000 48 0.0008 0.0000 49 0.0008 0.0000 50 0.0008 0.0000 51 0.0008 0.0000 52 0.0008 0.0000 53 0.0008 0.0000 54 0.0008 0.0000 55 0.0007 0.0000 56 0.0005 0.0000 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:18 PM Page 12 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0020 369 0 0 Pass 0.0031 214 0 0 Pass 0.0043 147 0 0 Pass 0.0054 100 0 0 Pass 0.0065 73 0 0 Pass 0.0076 60 0 0 Pass 0.0087 50 0 0 Pass 0.0099 37 0 0 Pass 0.0110 33 0 0 Pass 0.0121 31 0 0 Pass 0.0132 29 0 0 Pass 0.0143 28 0 0 Pass 0.0155 25 0 0 Pass 0.0166 23 0 0 Pass 0.0177 19 0 0 Pass 0.0188 18 0 0 Pass 0.0199 18 0 0 Pass 0.0211 14 0 0 Pass 0.0222 13 0 0 Pass 0.0233 13 0 0 Pass 0.0244 13 0 0 Pass 0.0255 12 0 0 Pass 0.0267 11 0 0 Pass 0.0278 9 0 0 Pass 0.0289 8 0 0 Pass 0.0300 8 0 0 Pass 0.0311 7 0 0 Pass 0.0323 6 0 0 Pass 0.0334 5 0 0 Pass 0.0345 4 0 0 Pass 0.0356 4 0 0 Pass 0.0367 4 0 0 Pass 0.0379 4 0 0 Pass 0.0390 4 0 0 Pass 0.0401 4 0 0 Pass 0.0412 4 0 0 Pass 0.0423 4 0 0 Pass 0.0435 4 0 0 Pass 0.0446 4 0 0 Pass 0.0457 3 0 0 Pass 0.0468 3 0 0 Pass 0.0479 3 0 0 Pass 0.0491 3 0 0 Pass 0.0502 3 0 0 Pass 0.0513 3 0 0 Pass 0.0524 3 0 0 Pass 0.0535 3 0 0 Pass 0.0547 3 0 0 Pass 0.0558 3 0 0 Pass 0.0569 3 0 0 Pass 0.0580 3 0 0 Pass 0.0591 3 0 0 Pass 0.0602 3 0 0 Pass 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:18 PM Page 13 0.0614 3 0 0 Pass 0.0625 3 0 0 Pass 0.0636 2 0 0 Pass 0.0647 2 0 0 Pass 0.0658 2 0 0 Pass 0.0670 2 0 0 Pass 0.0681 2 0 0 Pass 0.0692 2 0 0 Pass 0.0703 2 0 0 Pass 0.0714 2 0 0 Pass 0.0726 2 0 0 Pass 0.0737 2 0 0 Pass 0.0748 2 0 0 Pass 0.0759 2 0 0 Pass 0.0770 2 0 0 Pass 0.0782 2 0 0 Pass 0.0793 2 0 0 Pass 0.0804 2 0 0 Pass 0.0815 2 0 0 Pass 0.0826 2 0 0 Pass 0.0838 2 0 0 Pass 0.0849 2 0 0 Pass 0.0860 2 0 0 Pass 0.0871 2 0 0 Pass 0.0882 2 0 0 Pass 0.0894 2 0 0 Pass 0.0905 2 0 0 Pass 0.0916 2 0 0 Pass 0.0927 2 0 0 Pass 0.0938 2 0 0 Pass 0.0950 2 0 0 Pass 0.0961 2 0 0 Pass 0.0972 2 0 0 Pass 0.0983 2 0 0 Pass 0.0994 2 0 0 Pass 0.1006 2 0 0 Pass 0.1017 2 0 0 Pass 0.1028 1 0 0 Pass 0.1039 1 0 0 Pass 0.1050 1 0 0 Pass 0.1062 1 0 0 Pass 0.1073 1 0 0 Pass 0.1084 1 0 0 Pass 0.1095 1 0 0 Pass 0.1106 1 0 0 Pass 0.1118 1 0 0 Pass 0.1129 1 0 0 Pass 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:18 PM Page 14 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:19 PM Page 15 LID Report 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:32 PM Page 16 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:32 PM Page 17 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:33 PM Page 18 Mitigated Schematic 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 19 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1955 10 01 END 2011 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 23-028 Permeable Pavement.wdm MESSU 25 Pre23-028 Permeable Pavement.MES 27 Pre23-028 Permeable Pavement.L61 28 Pre23-028 Permeable Pavement.L62 30 POC23-028 Permeable Pavement1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 5 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Predeveloped Site MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 5 A/B, Pasture, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 20 PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 5 0 5 1.5 400 0.1 0.3 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 5 0.15 0.5 0.3 0 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 5 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATE1 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 21 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Predeveloped Site*** PERLND 5 1.05 COPY 501 12 PERLND 5 1.05 COPY 501 13 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 22 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 END MASS-LINK END RUN 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 23 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1955 10 01 END 2011 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 23-028 Permeable Pavement.wdm MESSU 25 Mit23-028 Permeable Pavement.MES 27 Mit23-028 Permeable Pavement.L61 28 Mit23-028 Permeable Pavement.L62 30 POC23-028 Permeable Pavement1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 IMPLND 17 IMPLND 18 PERLND 38 IMPLND 16 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Permeable Pavement 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 38 A/B, Pasture, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 38 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 24 <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 38 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 38 0 5 1.5 400 0.1 0.3 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 38 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 38 0.15 0.5 0.3 0 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 38 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 17 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 18 SIDEWALKS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 16 Porous Pavement 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 17 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 25 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 17 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 18 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 16 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 17 0 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 17 0 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Roofs*** IMPLND 17 0.3792 IMPLND 16 53 Pasture *** PERLND 38 0.8532 IMPLND 16 54 PERLND 38 0.8532 IMPLND 16 55 Sidewalks*** IMPLND 18 0.237 IMPLND 16 53 IMPLND 16 0.4219 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** IMPLND 17 0.16 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 18 0.1 COPY 1 15 PERLND 38 0.36 COPY 1 12 PERLND 38 0.36 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 17 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Permeable Paveme-004 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 26 # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 90 5 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.421947 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.020362 0.421947 0.003437 0.000000 0.425463 0.040724 0.421947 0.006873 0.000000 0.425463 0.061087 0.421947 0.010310 0.000000 0.425463 0.081449 0.421947 0.013747 0.000000 0.425463 0.101811 0.421947 0.017184 0.000000 0.425463 0.122173 0.421947 0.020620 0.000000 0.425463 0.142536 0.421947 0.024057 0.000000 0.425463 0.162898 0.421947 0.027494 0.000000 0.425463 0.183260 0.421947 0.030930 0.000000 0.425463 0.203622 0.421947 0.034367 0.000000 0.425463 0.223984 0.421947 0.037804 0.000000 0.425463 0.244347 0.421947 0.041241 0.000000 0.425463 0.264709 0.421947 0.044677 0.000000 0.425463 0.285071 0.421947 0.048114 0.000000 0.425463 0.305433 0.421947 0.051551 0.000000 0.425463 0.325796 0.421947 0.054987 0.000000 0.425463 0.346158 0.421947 0.058424 0.000000 0.425463 0.366520 0.421947 0.061861 0.000000 0.425463 0.386882 0.421947 0.065297 0.000000 0.425463 0.407244 0.421947 0.068734 0.000000 0.425463 0.427607 0.421947 0.072171 0.000000 0.425463 0.447969 0.421947 0.075608 0.000000 0.425463 0.468331 0.421947 0.079044 0.000000 0.425463 0.488693 0.421947 0.082481 0.000000 0.425463 0.509056 0.421947 0.085918 0.000000 0.425463 0.529418 0.421947 0.089354 0.000000 0.425463 0.549780 0.421947 0.092791 0.000000 0.425463 0.570142 0.421947 0.096228 0.000000 0.425463 0.590504 0.421947 0.099665 0.000000 0.425463 0.610867 0.421947 0.103101 0.000000 0.425463 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 27 0.631229 0.421947 0.106538 0.000000 0.425463 0.651591 0.421947 0.109975 0.000000 0.425463 0.671953 0.421947 0.111693 0.000000 0.425463 0.692316 0.421947 0.113411 0.000000 0.425463 0.712678 0.421947 0.115130 0.000000 0.425463 0.733040 0.421947 0.116848 0.000000 0.425463 0.753402 0.421947 0.118566 0.000000 0.425463 0.773764 0.421947 0.120285 0.000000 0.425463 0.794127 0.421947 0.122003 0.000000 0.425463 0.814489 0.421947 0.123722 0.000000 0.425463 0.834851 0.421947 0.125440 0.000000 0.425463 0.855213 0.421947 0.127158 0.000000 0.425463 0.875576 0.421947 0.128877 0.000000 0.425463 0.895938 0.421947 0.130595 0.000000 0.425463 0.916300 0.421947 0.132313 0.000000 0.425463 0.936662 0.421947 0.134032 0.000000 0.425463 0.957024 0.421947 0.135750 0.000000 0.425463 0.977387 0.421947 0.137468 0.000000 0.425463 0.997749 0.421947 0.139187 0.000000 0.425463 1.018111 0.421947 0.147778 0.000000 0.425463 1.038473 0.421947 0.156370 0.000000 0.425463 1.058836 0.421947 0.164962 0.000000 0.425463 1.079198 0.421947 0.173554 0.000000 0.425463 1.099560 0.421947 0.182146 0.000000 0.425463 1.119922 0.421947 0.190737 0.000000 0.425463 1.140284 0.421947 0.199329 0.000000 0.425463 1.160647 0.421947 0.207921 0.000000 0.425463 1.181009 0.421947 0.216513 0.028798 0.425463 1.201371 0.421947 0.225104 0.107955 0.425463 1.221733 0.421947 0.233696 0.215544 0.425463 1.242096 0.421947 0.242288 0.345379 0.425463 1.262458 0.421947 0.250880 0.494146 0.425463 1.282820 0.421947 0.259472 0.659683 0.425463 1.303182 0.421947 0.268063 0.840437 0.425463 1.323544 0.421947 0.276655 1.035221 0.425463 1.343907 0.421947 0.285247 1.243087 0.425463 1.364269 0.421947 0.293839 1.463260 0.425463 1.384631 0.421947 0.302430 1.695086 0.425463 1.404993 0.421947 0.311022 1.938007 0.425463 1.425356 0.421947 0.319614 2.191536 0.425463 1.445718 0.421947 0.328206 2.455248 0.425463 1.466080 0.421947 0.336798 2.728763 0.425463 1.486442 0.421947 0.345389 3.011742 0.425463 1.506804 0.421947 0.353981 3.303879 0.425463 1.527167 0.421947 0.362573 3.604894 0.425463 1.547529 0.421947 0.371165 3.914534 0.425463 1.567891 0.421947 0.379756 4.232563 0.425463 1.588253 0.421947 0.388348 4.558768 0.425463 1.608616 0.421947 0.396940 4.892947 0.425463 1.628978 0.421947 0.405532 5.234915 0.425463 1.649340 0.421947 0.414123 5.584497 0.425463 1.669702 0.421947 0.422715 5.941533 0.425463 1.690064 0.421947 0.431307 6.305869 0.425463 1.710427 0.421947 0.439899 6.677362 0.425463 1.730789 0.421947 0.448491 7.055876 0.425463 1.751151 0.421947 0.457082 7.441285 0.425463 1.771513 0.421947 0.465674 7.833465 0.425463 1.791875 0.421947 0.474266 8.232303 0.425463 1.812238 0.421947 0.482858 8.637689 0.425463 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 28 END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1001 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR O 2 1 1 WDM 1002 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1003 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 17 MASS-LINK 53 IMPLND IWATER SURO IMPLND EXTNL SURLI END MASS-LINK 53 MASS-LINK 54 PERLND PWATER SURO IMPLND EXTNL SURLI END MASS-LINK 54 MASS-LINK 55 PERLND PWATER IFWO IMPLND EXTNL SURLI END MASS-LINK 55 END MASS-LINK END RUN 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 29 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 30 Mitigated HSPF Message File 23-028 Permeable Pavement 5/3/2023 3:00:35 PM Page 31 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2023; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com TAHOMA TERRA COMMERCIAL 05.01.2023 PAGE 17 APPENDIX 2 – Soil Management Plan   June 24, 2021 Tahoma Terra Holdings, LLC P.O. Box 73790 Puyallup, Washington 98373 Attention: Evan Mann Report Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Tahoma Terra Commercial 9955 Tahoma Boulevard SE Yelm, Washington Project No. 362-05-01 INTRODUCTION Insight Geologic is pleased to present our report of subsurface conditions at the location of your proposed commercial development to be located at 9955 Tahoma Boulevard, Yelm, Washington. The location of the site is shown relative to surrounding physical features in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The project site consists of a single parcel of land comprising approximately 12.7 acres, located adjacent to Thompson Creek to the west. The site is currently undeveloped and vegetated with grass and brush. A number of large soil stockpiles are located onsite. We understand that the proposed development will include commercial and residential buildings with appurtenant parking and drive areas. Stormwater runoff for the development is to be infiltrated on-site. SCOPE OF SERVICES The objective of our services was to evaluate subsurface conditions as they pertain to stormwater infiltration and geotechnical parameters for the proposed project. Our specific scope of services included the following tasks: Geotechnical Investigation 1. Provided for the location of subsurface utilities on the site. We performed this task by notifying the “One Call” system. 2. Excavated a series of exploratory test pits in the area of the proposed buildings and parking areas using a track-mounted excavator provided by Johnson & Maddox. The test pits were excavated to a depth of between 5 and 12 feet below ground surface and backfilled at the end of the day. 3. Collected representative soil samples from the test pits for laboratory analysis. 4. Logged the soils exposed in the test pits in general accordance with ASTM D2487-06. Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   2  5. Provided for laboratory testing of the soils. We performed gradation analyses to evaluate bearing capacity and maximum dry density. 6. Prepared a report summarizing our field activities including our recommendations for site preparation and grading, bearing capacity, seismic class, temporary and final cut slopes, earth pressures, suitability of the on-site soils for use as fill. Stormwater Investigation 8. Drilled exploratory boreholes in the area of the proposed infiltration structure and building locations to evaluate soils for infiltration and depth to groundwater. Borings were drilled using a truck- mounted drilling rig. We installed three groundwater monitoring wells in accordance with Ecology’s 2019 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington as adopted by the City of Yelm. 9. Maintained logs of the soil encountered in the boreholes. Soils were described in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and presented on the field logs. 10. Conducted grain-size analyses on selected soil samples from the borings to determine design stormwater infiltration rates for the project using the grain-size method described in the Manual. 11. Provided for the analysis of cation exchange capacity of the soils to evaluate the treatment capability for stormwater disposal. 12. Prepared a report for review by the City of Yelm summarizing our design infiltration rates and estimated high groundwater elevations for the site. FINDINGS Surface Conditions The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel situated at an elevation of approximately 327 to 336 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and is currently undeveloped. The property is bounded by Tahoma Boulevard SE to the southeast, Berry Valley Road to the east, a residential property to the north and Thompson Creek to the west. The site gently slopes down to the west with an elevation drop of approximately 9 feet across the site. The subject site is vegetated with grasses, scotch broom, and isolated stands of low growing trees and other shrubs. In addition, two stockpiles of sands and gravels are present on the central portion of the site. Geology Based on our review of available published geologic maps, Vashon age glacial recessional outwash gravel deposits underlie the project site. This material is described as poorly-sorted gravel and sand. This material was deposited by outwash rivers during the waning stages of the most recent glacial period in the Puget Sound region and is not glacially consolidated. Subsurface Explorations We explored subsurface conditions at the site on April 12, and 13, 2021, by excavating fifteen test pits and advancing seven borings in the locations as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The test pits were excavated by Johnson & Maddox using a track-mounted excavator. The borings were completed by Standard Environmental Probe using a Geoprobe 5400 direct push sampling rig. A geologist from Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   3  Insight Geologic monitored the explorations and maintained a log of the conditions encountered. The test pits were completed to depths of 5 to 12 feet bgs, and the borings were completed to depths of between 8 and 12 feet bgs. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the system described in ASTM D2487-06. A copy of the explorations is contained in Attachment A. Soil Conditions The explorations were generally consistent across the site. Underlying approximately 6 inches of thinly developed topsoil, we encountered up to 5 feet of dark brown, poorly graded gravels and sands with cobbles (GP, SP), in a loose to medium dense and moist condition. Underlying the dark brown unit, we encountered brown poorly- to well-graded gravels with sand and cobbles (GP, GW) to poorly graded sands with gravels and cobbles (SP), in a loose medium dense and moist to wet condition to the base of the explorations. The soils encountered are consistent with Nisqually loamy fine sand that is mapped for the site. These soils are generally formed from sandy and gravely glacial outwash and generally has restrictive layers occurring greater than 7 feet below grade. Percolation is generally high, with rates between 1.98 and 5.95 inches per hour, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in three of the borings located closest to Thompson Creek (MW-1 to MW-3) at a depth of between 4.8 and 7.7 feet bgs. Groundwater was also encountered three of the test pits completed on-site (TP-3, TP-10 and TP-12) at a depth of between 4 and 12 feet bgs. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining explorations on site due to insufficient depth to reach the groundwater table. The explorations were completed in April, after the time associated with peak winter high groundwater. In addition, no evidence of high groundwater was encountered within the explorations at the site. Laboratory Testing We selected thirteen soil samples for gradation analyses in general accordance with ASTM D422 to define soil class and obtain parameters for stormwater infiltration calculations. Our laboratory test results are provided in Attachment B. Cation Exchange Capacity Evaluation According to the Ecology’s 2019 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington (2019 Manual), soils used in bioretention facilities must have a minimum Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of 5 milliequivalents (meq) per 100 grams of soil. CEC is an intrinsic characteristic of soils, which depends on the soil’s grain size, pH, organic, and moisture content. The CEC of a soil is also a proportional measure of the soil’s ability to chemically bind with negatively charged ions in pollutants and remove them from infiltrated stormwater. Seven samples were selected from the infiltration areas for CEC analysis. The samples were delivered to Soiltest Farm Consultants, Inc., in Moses Lake, Washington, and analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the 2016 Manual using EPA method 9081, Cation Exchange Capacity of Soils (Sodium Acetate) and for organic content. The laboratory analysis indicated that the samples Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   4  analyzed had CECs of between 23.2 and 9.7 meq/100g and organic contents of between 6.5 and 3.4 percent. The laboratory results are provided in Attachment B and summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Cation Exchange Capacity Results Test Pit Depth (feet bgs) CEC (meq/100g) Organic Content (percent) TP-5 0.5 – 3.0 9.7 3.4 TP-6 0.5 – 5.0 15.2 6.5 TP-8 0.5 – 4.5 9.8 4.5 TP-9 0.5 – 3.0 15.9 6.4 TP-11 0.5 – 3.0 23.2 6.5 TP-14 0.5 – 6.0 12.4 5.4 TP-15 0.5 – 2.5 11.3 5.4 STORMWATER INFILTRATION We completed a stormwater infiltration rate evaluation in general accordance with the 2019 Manual as adopted by the City of Yelm. For the purposes of this evaluation, we selected Method 3 “Soil Grain Size Analysis Method”. The 2019 Manual utilizes the relationship between the D10, D60, and D90 results of the ASTM grain-size distribution analyses, along with site specific correction factors to estimate long-term design infiltration rates of each infiltration facility. Based on our gradation analyses, we estimate that the long-term design infiltration rate (Fdesign) for the proposed stormwater infiltration is between 0.2 and 3.5 inches per hour, after applying the appropriate correction factors. The range of infiltration rates is the result of variations in the depth to groundwater in proximity to Thompson Creek on the west side of the site. Our calculations assume that the stormwater infiltration will occur at a depth of 1-foot bgs underlying pervious pavement and that high groundwater is located approximately 3 feet above the elevation encountered in our explorations. Changes to these infiltration rates are possible depending on the depth to groundwater during winter months. In general, calculated infiltration rates will increase away from Thompson Creek. Table 1. Design Infiltration Rates – Detailed Method Exploration Unit Depth Range (feet) D10 Value D60 Value D90 Value Long Term Design Infiltration Rate (Inches per hour) MW-2 GP 0.5 – 4.0 0.18 8.0 24.0 0.2 TP-2 GP 0.5 – 2.5 0.22 17.0 30.0 3.5 GP 2.5 – 5.0 0.37 15.0 28.0 TP-4 SP 0.5 – 4.5 0.15 1.0 23.0 2.1 GW 4.5 – 6.0 0.51 16.0 31.0 TP-7 GP 0.5 – 4.0 0.18 20.5 31.0 1.5 GP 4.0 – 5.0 0.37 14.0 28.0 Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   5  SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS General We understand that seismic design will likely be performed using the 2018 IBC standards. The following parameters may be used in computing seismic base shear forces: Table 2. 2018 IBC Seismic Design Parameters Spectral Response Accel. at Short Periods (SS) = 1.294 Spectral Response Accel. at 1 Second Periods (S1) = 0.469 Site Class = D Site Coefficient (FA) = 1.0 Site Coefficient (FV) = 1.831 Ground Rupture Because of the location of the site with respect to the nearest known active crustal faults, and the presence of a relatively thick layer of glacial outwash deposits, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site due to surface faulting is low. Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore water pressures in saturated soils, and a subsequent loss of stiffness in the soil occurs. Liquefaction also causes a temporary reduction of soil shear strength and bearing capacity, which can cause settlement of the ground surface above the liquefied soil layers. In general, soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction include saturated, loose to medium dense, clean to silty sands and non-plastic silts within 50 feet of ground surface. Based on our review of the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Thurston County (Palmer, 2004), the project site is identified to have a very low potential risk for soil liquefaction. Based on our experience with detailed seismic studies in the Yelm area, including areas that are mapped within the same recessional outwash soil deposits as the project site, we concur with the reviewed map. It is our opinion that there is a low risk for soil liquefaction at the site. Seismic Compression Seismic compression is defined as the accrual of contractive volumetric strains in unsaturated soils during strong shaking from earthquakes (Stewart et al., 2004). Loose to medium dense clean sands and non-plastic silts are particularly prone to seismic compression settlement. Seismic compression settlement is most prevalent on slopes, but it can also occur on flat ground. It is our opinion that the upper 15 feet of the soil profile at the site has a moderate risk for seismic compression settlement. Seismic Settlement Discussion Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   6  Based on the materials encountered in our explorations, it is our preliminary opinion that seismic settlements (liquefaction-induced plus seismic compression) could potentially total a few inches at the site as the result of an IBC design level earthquake. We are available upon request to perform deep subsurface explorations and detailed seismic settlement estimates during the design phase. Seismic Slope Instability The maximum inclination of the site is approximately 2 percent and we did not observe signs of slope instability during our site work. In our opinion, there is a very low risk of seismic slope instability at the project site under current conditions. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of non-liquefied soil when an underlying soil layer liquefies. Lateral spreading generally develops in areas where sloping ground or large grade changes are present. Based on our limited understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site, it is our opinion that there is a low risk for the development of lateral spreading as a result of an IBC design level earthquake. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. We recommend that the proposed structures be supported on shallow concrete foundations that are designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The soils encountered in our explorations are typically in a loose condition near ground surface. To limit the potential for structure settlement, we recommend that shallow foundations and slabs-on-grade be established on a minimum 1-foot thick layer of structural fill. Depending on final grading plans and the time of year earthwork is performed; it could be practical to reuse the on-site soils as structural fill under the foundations/slabs. Stormwater infiltration at the site is feasible. We calculate a design infiltration rate of between 0.2 and 3.5 inches per hour for the stormwater infiltration systems, based on the infiltration location and depth on the site. We assumed that winter groundwater is approximately 3 feet higher than the elevation observed within our explorations. It may be possible to increase the infiltration rate with additional testing such as a Pilot Infiltration Test in the location of the proposed infiltration facility. It is likely that the City of Yelm will require a groundwater mounding analysis for the proposed site stormwater improvements based on the shallow depths to groundwater. Insight Geologic will be pleased to provide these services as needed. Earthwork General We anticipate that site development earthwork will include removing the existing vegetation, stripping sod/topsoil materials, preparing subgrades, excavating for utility trenches, and placing and compacting Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   7  structural fill. We expect that the majority of site grading can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working order. Our explorations did not encounter appreciable amounts of debris or unsuitable soils associated with past site development. Still, it is possible that concrete slabs, abandoned utility lines or other development features could be encountered during construction. The contractor should be prepared to deal with these conditions. Clearing and Stripping Clearing and stripping should consist of removing surface and subsurface deleterious materials including sod/topsoil, trees, brush, debris and other unsuitable loose/soft or organic materials. Stripping and clearing should extend at least 5 feet beyond all structures and areas to receive structural fill. We estimate that a stripping depth of about 0.5 feet will be required to remove the sod/topsoil encountered in our explorations. Deeper stripping depths may be required if additional unsuitable soils are exposed during stripping operations. We recommend that trees be removed by overturning so that the majority of roots are also removed. Depressions created by tree or stump removal should be backfilled with structural fill and properly compacted. Subgrade Preparation After stripping and excavating to the proposed subgrade elevation, and before placing structural fill or foundation concrete, the exposed subgrade should be thoroughly compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The exposed subgrade should then be proof-rolled using loaded, rubber-tired heavy equipment. We recommend that Insight Geologic be retained to observe the proof-rolling prior to placement of structural fill or foundation concrete. Areas of limited access that cannot be proof-rolled can be evaluated using a steel probe rod. If soft or otherwise unsuitable areas are revealed during proof-rolling or probing, that cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly firm condition, we generally recommend that: 1) the subgrade soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or farmer’s disc), aerated and recompacted; or 2) the unsuitable soils be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Temporary Excavations and Groundwater Handling Excavations deeper than 4 feet should be shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are required to enter. Shoring and temporary slope inclinations must conform to 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 were required under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA). The contract documents should specify that the contractor is responsible for selecting excavation and dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect personnel and structures. In general, temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 1.5H:1V (horizontal: vertical). This guideline assumes that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one- half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope, and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes may be necessary where significant seepage occurs or if large voids Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   8  are created during excavation. Some sloughing and raveling of cut slopes should be expected. Temporary covering with heavy plastic sheeting should be used to protect slopes during periods of wet weather. We anticipate that if perched groundwater is encountered during construction can be handled adequately with sumps, pumps, and/or diversion ditches. Groundwater handling needs will generally be lower during the late summer and early fall months. We recommend that the contractor performing the work be made responsible for controlling and collecting groundwater encountered during construction. Permanent Slopes We do not anticipate that permanent slopes will be utilized for the proposed project. If permanent slopes are necessary, we recommend the slopes be constructed at a maximum inclination of 2H:1V. Where 2H:1V permanent slopes are not feasible, protective facings and/or retaining structures should be considered. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt and subsequently cut back to expose well-compacted fill. Fill placement on slopes should be benched into the slope face and include keyways. The configuration of the bench and keyway depends on the equipment being used. Bench excavations should be level and extend into the slope face. We recommend that a vertical cut of about 3 feet be maintained for benched excavations. Keyways should be about 1-1/2 times the width of the equipment used for grading or compaction. Erosion Control We anticipate that erosion control measures such as silt fences, straw bales and sand bags will generally be adequate during development. Temporary erosion control should be provided during construction activities and until permanent erosion control measures are functional. Surface water runoff should be properly contained and channeled using drainage ditches, berms, swales, and tightlines, and should not discharge onto sloped areas. Any disturbed sloped areas should be protected with a temporary covering until new vegetation can take effect. Jute or coconut fiber matting, excelsior matting or clear plastic sheeting is suitable for this purpose. Graded or disturbed slopes should be tracked in-place with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track marks provide a texture to help resist erosion. Ultimately, erosion control measures should be in accordance with local regulations and should be clearly described on project plans. Wet Weather Earthwork Some of the near surface soils contain up to about 5 percent fines. When the moisture content of the soil is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, the soil will become unstable and it may become difficult or impossible to meet the required compaction criteria. Disturbance of near surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather. The wet weather season in this area generally begins in October and continues through May. However, periods of wet weather may occur during any month of the year. If wet weather earthwork is unavoidable, we recommend that: Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   9  • The ground surface is sloped so that surface water is collected and directed away from the work area to an approved collection/dispersion point. • Earthwork activities not take place during periods of heavy precipitation. • Slopes with exposed soil be covered with plastic sheeting or otherwise protected from erosion. • Measures are taken to prevent on-site soil and soil stockpiles from becoming wet or unstable. Sealing the surficial soil by rolling with a smooth-drum roller prior to periods of precipitation should reduce the extent that the soil becomes wet or unstable. • Construction traffic is restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance. • A minimum 1-foot thick layer of 4- to 6-inch quarry spalls is used in high traffic areas of the site to protect the subgrade soil from disturbance. • Contingencies are included in the project schedule and budget to allow for the above elements. Structural Fill Materials General Material used for structural fill should be free of debris, organic material and rock fragments larger than 3 inches. The workability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. On-Site Soil We anticipate that the majority of the on-site soils encountered during construction will consist of gravels, cobbles and sands, located at or near the surface of the site. It is our opinion, that this material is a suitable source for structural fill during a significant portion of the year. On-site materials used as structural fill should be free of roots, organic matter and other deleterious materials and particles larger than 3 inches in diameter. Significant quantities of material greater than 3 inches in diameter were observed during our site explorations. This material will cause significand difficulties in soil grading and compaction efforts. We recommend that the material greater than 3 inches in diameter be screened and removed or crushed for reuse on-site. Select Granular Fill Select granular fill should consist of imported, well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing a U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve based on the minus ¾-inch fraction. Organic matter, debris or other deleterious material should not be present. In our experience, “gravel borrow” as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of the 2020 WSDOT Standard Specifications is typically a suitable source for select granular fill during periods of wet weather, provided that the percent passing a U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve is less than 5 percent based on the minus ¾-inch fraction. Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   10  Structural Fill Placement and Compaction General Structural fill should be placed on an approved subgrade that consists of uniformly firm and unyielding inorganic native soils or compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be compacted at a moisture content near optimum. The optimum moisture content varies with the soil gradation and should be evaluated during construction. Structural fill 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 the loose thicknesses provided on Table 3. Structural fill materials should be compacted in accordance with the compaction criteria provided in Table 4. Table 3. Recommended Uncompacted Lift Thickness Compaction Equipment Recommended Uncompacted Fill Thickness (inches) Granular Materials Maximum Particle Size  1 1/2 inch Granular Materials Maximum Particle Size > 1 1/2 inch Hand Tools (Plate Compactors and Jumping Jacks) 4 – 8 Not Recommended Rubber-tire Equipment 10 – 12 6 – 8 Light Roller 10 – 12 8 – 10 Heavy Roller 12 – 18 12 – 16 Hoe Pack Equipment 18 – 24 12 – 16 Note: The above table is intended to serve as a guideline and should not be included in the project specifications. Table 4. Recommended Compaction Criteria in Structural Fill Zones Fill Type Percent Maximum Dry Density Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 at ±3% of Optimum Moisture 0 to 2 Feet Below Subgrade > 2 Feet Below Subgrade Pipe Zone Imported or On-site Granular, Maximum Particle Size < 1-1/4-inch 95 95 ----- Imported or On-site Granular, Maximum Particle Size >1-1/4-inch N/A (Proof-roll) N/A (Proof-roll) ----- Trench Backfill1 95 92 90 Note: 1Trench backfill above the pipe zone in nonstructural areas should be compacted to at least 85 percent. Shallow Foundation Support General Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   11  We recommend that proposed structures be founded on continuous wall or isolated column footings, bearing on a minimum 1-foot thick over-excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill; or otherwise a foundation system recommended and designed by a structural engineer. The structural fill zone should extend to a horizontal distance equal to the over-excavation depth on each side of the footing. The actual over-excavation depth will vary, depending on the conditions encountered. We recommend that an experienced geotechnical owner-representative observe the foundation surfaces before over-excavation, and before placing structural fill in over-excavations. This representative should confirm that adequate bearing surfaces have been prepared and that the soil conditions are as anticipated. Unsuitable foundation bearing soils should be recompacted or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Bearing Capacity and Footing Dimensions We recommend an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for shallow foundations that are supported as recommended. This allowable bearing pressure applies to long-term dead and live loads exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. The allowable soil bearing pressure can be increased by one-third when considering total loads, including transient loads such as those induced by wind and seismic forces. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous wall footings and 2 feet for isolated column footings. For settlement considerations, we have assumed a maximum width of 4 feet for continuous wall footings and 6 feet for isolated column footings. Perimeter footings should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade where the ground is flat. Interior footings should be embedded a minimum of 6 inches below the nearest adjacent grade. Settlement We estimate that total settlement of footings that are designed and constructed as recommended should be less than 1 inch. We estimate that differential settlements should be ½ inch or less between comparably loaded isolated footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing. We anticipate that the settlement will occur essentially as loads are applied during construction. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads on shallow foundation elements may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of footings and by friction on the base of footings. Passive resistance may be estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 303 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming that the footings are backfilled with structural fill. Frictional resistance may be estimated using 0.3 for the coefficient of base friction. The lateral resistance values provided above incorporate a factor of safety of 1.5. The passive earth pressure and friction components can be combined, provided that the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The top foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance, unless the foundation perimeter area is covered by a slab-on-grade or pavement. Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   12  Slabs-On-Grade Slabs-on-grade should be established on a minimum 1-foot thick section of structural fill extending to an approved bearing surface. A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (subgrade modulus) can be used to design slabs-on-grade. The subgrade modulus varies based on the dimensions of the slab and the magnitude of applied loads on the slab surface; slabs with larger dimensions and loads are influenced by soils to a greater depth. We recommend a modulus value of 300 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for design of on-grade floor slabs with floor loads up to 500 psf. We are available to provide alternate subgrade modulus recommendations during design, based on specific loading information. We recommend that slabs-on-grade in interior spaces 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 containing less than 5 percent fines based on the fraction passing the ¾-inch sieve. The 4-inch thick capillary break layer can be included when calculating the minimum 1-foot thick structural fill section beneath the slab. If dry slabs are required (e.g., where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab), a waterproofing liner should be placed below the slab to act as a vapor barrier. Subsurface Drainage It is our opinion that foundation footing drains and underslab drains are likely unnecessary for the proposed structures. The majority of subsurface site soils are well draining and it is unlikely that subsurface drains would produce water. Conventional Retaining Walls General We do not anticipate that retaining walls will be utilized for the proposed project. We should be contacted during the design phase to review retaining wall plans and provide supplemental recommendations, if needed. Drainage Positive drainage is imperative behind any retaining structure. This can be accomplished by using a zone of free-draining material behind the wall with perforated pipes to collect water seepage. The drainage material should consist of coarse sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines based on the fraction of material passing the ¾-inch sieve. The wall drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 12 inches from the back of the wall. If a stacked block wall is constructed, we recommend that a barrier such as a non-woven geotextile filter fabric be placed against the back of the wall to prevent loss of the drainage material through the wall joints. A perforated smooth-walled rigid PVC pipe, having a minimum diameter of 4 inches, should be placed at the bottom of the drainage zone along the entire length of the wall. Drainpipes should discharge to a tightline leading to an appropriate collection and disposal system. An adequate number of cleanouts should be incorporated into the design of the drains in order to provide access for regular maintenance. Roof downspouts, perimeter drains or other types of drainage systems should not be connected to retaining wall drain systems. Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   13  Design Parameters We recommend an active lateral earth pressure of 37 pcf (equivalent fluid density) for a level backfill condition. This assumes that the top of the wall is not structurally restrained and is free to rotate. For restrained walls that are fixed against rotation (at-rest condition), an equivalent fluid density of 56 pcf can be used for the level backfill condition. For seismic conditions, we recommend a uniform lateral pressure of 14H psf (where H is the height of the wall) be added to the lateral pressures. This seismic pressure assumes a peak ground acceleration of 0.32 g. Note that if the retaining system is designed as a braced system but is expected to yield a small amount during a seismic event, the active earth pressure condition may be assumed and combined with the seismic surcharge. The recommended earth pressure values do not include the effects of surcharges from surface loads or structures. If vehicles were operated within one-half the height of the wall, a traffic surcharge should be added to the wall pressure. The traffic surcharge can be approximated by the equivalent weight of an additional 2 feet of backfill behind the wall. Other surcharge loads, such as construction equipment, staging areas and stockpiled fill, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. DOCUMENT REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION We recommend that we be retained to review the portions of the plans and specifications that pertain to earthwork construction and stormwater infiltration. We recommend that monitoring, testing and consultation be performed during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with our explorations and our stated design assumptions. Insight Geologic would be pleased to provide these services upon request. REFERENCES International Code Council, International Building Code, 2018. Seismic Compression of As-compacted Fill Soils with Variable Levels of Fines Content and Fines Plasticity, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, July 2004. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction Manual, 2020. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), Stormwater Management Manual of Western Washington, 2019. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this geotechnical and stormwater investigation report for the exclusive use of Tahoma Terra Holdings, LLC and their authorized agents, for the proposed commercial development to be located at 9955 Tahoma Boulevard SE, in Yelm, Washington. 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, expressed or implied, should be understood. Tahoma Terra Commercial Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report June 24, 2021   14  Please refer to Attachment D titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information pertaining to use of this report. __________________________ We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have questions or require additional information. Respectfully Submitted,  William E. Halbert, L.E.G., L.HG. Principal Attachments     FIGURES SITESITE YELM, WASHINGTON Figure 1 TAHOMA TERRA COMMERCIAL Vicinity Map McKENNA, WASHINGTON 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE Year 2020 TAHOMA BLVD S.E.BERRY VALLEY RD S.E.TP-5 TP-6 TP-4 TP-14 TP-7 TP-12TP-2 TP-11 TP-10 TP-9 TP-15 TP-1 TP-8 TP-3 B-4B-5B-6B-7 TP-13 MW-3/B-3 MW-2/B-2 MW-1/B-1 LEGEND: TP-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION APPROXIMATE PROJECT BOUNDARY B-1 MW-1 APPROXIMATE MONITORING WELL LOCATION YELM, WASHINGTON Figure 2 TAHOMA TERRA COMMERCIAL Site Plan     ATTACHMENT A EXPLORATION LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS GROUP NAME CC CEMENT CONCRETE OC ORGANIC COMPOUND G GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, CR GRAVEL CLEAN TS TOPSOIL/SOD/DUFF FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL TX TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION AND GRAVEL GP POORLY GRADED GRAVEL GRAVELLY <5% FINES SOILS MORE THAN 50% COARSE OF COARSE GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL GRAINED FRACTION WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ONNO. 4SIM 12% FINES WELL -GRADED SAND, SAND CLEAN SW FINE TO COARSE SAND MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON AND SAND NO. 200 SIEVE SANDY -5% FINES SP POORLY GRADED SAND SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE SAND SM SILTY SAND FRACTION WITH FINES PASSING NO.4 SIEVE >12% FINES SC CLAYEY SAND SILTS ML SILT AND INORGANIC CL CLAY FINE CLAYS GRAINED ORGANIC SILT, SOILS LIQUID LIMITOL LESS THAN 50 ORGANIC 1 1 1 1 1 1 ORGANIC CLAY SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, SILTS MH MORE THAN 50% AND INORGANIC ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE CLAYS FAT CLAY LIQUID LIMIT �� ORGANIC CLAY, 50 OR MORE ORGANIC ,�, � i OH ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT 70 60 k 50 W O 40 U 1= 30 Q J a 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: DRY - ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCH MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER WET - VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED, USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED BELOW WATER TABLE INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CC CEMENT CONCRETE OC ORGANIC COMPOUND AC ASPHALT CONCRETE COMPACTION TEST CR CRUSHED ROCK/ QUARRY SPALLS PP POCKET PENETROMETER TS TOPSOIL/SOD/DUFF GROUNDWATER EXPLORATION SYMBOLS MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN EXPLORATION, WELL, OR PIEZOMETER GROUNDWATER OBSERVED AT TIME OF EXPLORATION PERCHED WATER OBSERVED AT TIME OF EXPLORATION MEASURED FREE PRODUCT IN WELL OR PIEZOMETER STRATIGRAPHIC CONTACT APPROXIMATE CONTACT BETWEEN SOIL STRATA OR GEOLOGIC UNIT --- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SOIL STRATA CHANGE WITHIN GEOLOGIC SOIL UNIT APPROXIMATE GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN SOIL STRATA OR GEOLOGIC SOIL UNIT APPROXIMATE GRADUAL CHANGE OF SOIL STRATA WITHIN GEOLOGIC SOIL UNIT LABORATORY/ FIELD TEST CLASSIFICATIONS %F PERECENT FINES MD MOISTURE CONTENT AND AL ATTERBERG LIMITS DRY DENSITY CA CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OC ORGANIC COMPOUND CP LABORATORY PM PERMEABILITY OR COMPACTION TEST HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CS CONSOLIDATION TEST PP POCKET PENETROMETER DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS HA HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TX TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION MC MOISTURE CONTENT UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSION VS VANE SHEAR SAMPLER SYMBOLS 2.4 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL ® SHELBY TUBE DIRECT -PUSH ® PISTON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ® BULK OR GRAB SHEEN CLASSIFICATIONS NS NO VISIBLE SHEEN SS SLIGHT SHEEN MS MODERATE SHEEN HIS HEAVYSHEEN NT NOT TESTED Key to Exploration Logs 1❑ 5 10 15 Ol 25 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/12/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-006-01 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington MAMA MA TOTAL DEPTH: 12 LL 0 _ U) O a vi REMARKS AND WELL LU p SOIL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS CONSTRUCTION 0 :Sod < ti} rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrr � rrrrrrrr gravel, medium dense, moist U ???????? CU U ???????? U ami o_ rrrrrrrrILCl) ®rNerNerNeNeVe OVA^Aee rrrrrrrr Dark brown rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr .� rrrrrrrr � rrrrrrrr � rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr Red -brown, wet rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr �' o ML: Red -brown, silt, medium stiff, wet U J rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand, medium dense, wet Boring p leted at completed , TTTTTTTT 12 feet. Groundwater encountered at 6 feet. Monitoring well set at 12 feet Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-2 Logged By: Neal Graham 1❑ 5 10 15 ml 25 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/12/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-006-01 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington MW -21B-2 TOTAL DEPTH: 11 LL 0 _ U) O a vi REMARKS AND WELL LU p SOIL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS CONSTRUCTION Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-3 Logged By: Neal Graham Sod < �} */*/ GP: Dark brown, fine to coarse gravel with fine toa coarse sand, medium dense, moist m '0` w 1/1/ \ / U ami cD &/&/ Brown */*/ Wet � U � O TTTTTTTT rrrrrrrr SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse > a rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr gravel, dense, wet � co rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr Boring completed at ------ 11 feet. Groundwater encountered at 4.79 feet. Monitoring well set at 10 feet Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-3 Logged By: Neal Graham 1❑ 5 10 15 Ol 25 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/12/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-006-01 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington MW -31B-3 TOTAL DEPTH: 12 LL 0 _ U) O a vi REMARKS AND WELL LU p SOIL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS CONSTRUCTION Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-4 Logged By: Neal Graham rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr Sod < ti> SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr gravel, medium dense, moist U CU ???????? U ???????? U ami ???????? d \ Im / rrrrrrrr Wet rrrrrrrr TTTTTTTT � o TTTTTTTT (� N TTTTTTTT U o rrrrrrrr a rrrrrrrr - rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr Moist Boring completed at TTTTTTTT 12 feet. Groundwater encountered at 7.73 feet. Monitoring well set at 12 feet Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-4 Logged By: Neal Graham 1❑ 5 10 15 mil 25 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/12/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 d LOCATION: Yelm, Washington T TOTAL DEPTH: 8 O � U = LU D -j SOIL DESCRIPTION OTHEREMAR SAND TESTS OTHER TESTS Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-5 Logged By: Neal Graham Sod ???????? SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel, medium dense, moist co 0VVVVVV ???APAP? AAAAAAAA Boring completed at -------- 8 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-5 Logged By: Neal Graham 1❑ 5 10 15 mil 25 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/12/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington B-5 TOTAL DEPTH: 8 O � U = LU D -j SOIL DESCRIPTION OTHEREMAR SAND TESTS OTHER TESTS Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-6 Logged By: Neal Graham Sod ???????? SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel, medium dense, moist co 0VVVVVV ???APAP? AAAAAAAA Boring completed at -------- 8 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-6 Logged By: Neal Graham 1❑ 5 10 15 mil 25 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/12/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington 6 TOTAL DEPTH: 8 O � U = LU D -j SOIL DESCRIPTION OTHEREMAR SAND TESTS OTHER TESTS Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-7 Logged By: Neal Graham Sod ???????? SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel, medium dense, moist co 0VVVVVV ???APAP? AAAAAAAA Boring completed at -------- 8 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-7 Logged By: Neal Graham 1❑ 5 10 15 mil 25 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/12/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington 7 TOTAL DEPTH: 8 O � U = LU D -j SOIL DESCRIPTION OTHEREMAR SAND TESTS OTHER TESTS Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-8 Logged By: Neal Graham Sod ???????? SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel, medium dense, moist co 0VVVVVV ???APAP? AAAAAAAA Boring completed at -------- 8 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Drilling Contractor: Standard Environmental Probe INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Drilling Equipment: Geoprobe6410 A-8 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -1 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr � rrrrrrrrrr co ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr Fine to medium sand with fine loose Test pit compteted at 5 rrrrrrrrrr gravel, feet. No rrrrrrrrrr groundwater No rrrrrrrrrr encountered. caving TTTTTTTTTT observed. ?????????? ?????????? Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-9 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -2 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o . Sod GP: Dark brown, fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand, medium dense, moist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �0 * 0 Brown, with cobbles, loose 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test pit compteted at 5 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-11 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -3 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr � rrrrrrrrrr co ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr Wet Test pit compteted at 5 rrrrrrrrrr feet. Groundwater rrrrrrrrrr 4 feet. No rrrrrrrrrr encountered at rrrrrrrrrr caving observed. ?????????? Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -4 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 6 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o . Sod C/) rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr gravel, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr � rrrrrrrrrr co ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr GW: Brown, fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand 0I:0I0 and cobbles, loose, moist Test pit compteted at 6 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. •1::::1.:::1.::: Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -5 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o . Sod SP -SM: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with silt, medium dense, moist — — — CD rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr SP: Brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? � rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Test pit compteted at 5 rrrrrrrrrr feet. No groundwater rrrrrrrrrr encountered. No caving TTTTTTTTTT observed. ?????????? ?????????? Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -6 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 6 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel, rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr With cobbles Test pit compteted at 6 rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr feet. No groundwater rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr encountered. No caving rrrrrrrrrr observed. TTTTTTTTTT ?????????? ?????????? Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1, Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -7 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o . Sod GP: Dark brown, fine to coarse gravel with fine to medium sand and cobbles, medium dense, moist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Loose Test pit compteted at 5 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1.1 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 Tp_g LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 6 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Brown rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Test pit compteted at 6 rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr feet. No groundwater rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr encountered. No caving rrrrrrrrrr observed. TTTTTTTTTT ?????????? ?????????? Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1 E Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 Tp_g LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o . Sod GP: Dark brown, fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand and cobbles, medium dense, moist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (D 1 1 1 Brown 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test pit compteted at 5 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -10 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 6 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel, rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr Brown, with cobbles ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Test pit compteted at 6 rrrrrrrrrr feet. Groundwater rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr encountered at 6 feet. No rrrrrrrrrr caving observed. rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-141 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -11 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel, rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr � rrrrrrrrrr co ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Brown, with cobbles ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr Test pit compteted at 5 feet. No jjjjjjjjjj groundwater No encountered. caving observed. ?????????? ?????????? Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-1 ! Logged By: Neal Graham 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -12 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 12 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS U) . Sod ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Brown co ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? 0VVVVV VV ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Test pit compteted at 12 rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr feet. No groundwater rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr encountered. No caving rrrrrrrrrr observed. Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-2 Logged By: Neal Graham 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -13 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 12 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS U) . Sod ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Brown co ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? 0VVVVV VV ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Test pit compteted at 12 rrrrrrrrrr feet. Groundwater ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr encountered at 12 feet. No rrrrrrrrrr caving observed. Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-21 Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -14 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 7 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? co ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? Brown Test compteted at 7 rrrrrrrrrr pit feet. No rrrrrrrrrr groundwater rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr encountered. No caving 9 TTTTTTTTTT observed. ?????????? ?????????? Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-2, Logged By: Neal Graham 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 We 10 PROJECT: Tahoma Terra Commercial DATE: 4/13/2021 PROJECT NO.: 362-005-01 TP -15 LOCATION: Yelm, Washington TOTAL DEPTH: 5 c� O x 6 O U = a zi ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND LU J OTHER TESTS o C/) . Sod rrrrrrrrrr SP: Dark brown, fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse rrrrrrrrrr and cobbles, medium dense, moist rrrrrrrrrr gravel rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Brown co ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr Test pit compteted at 5 feet. No groundwater encountered. No caving observed. Operator Johnson & Maddox INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Equipment: Tracked Excavator Figure A-2, Logged By: Neal Graham     ATTACHMENT B LABORATORY ANALYSES RESULTS Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-1 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-1 4.0' - 5.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:4 - 5 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 7.7% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 0.0 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 8.7 3/4 in. (19.0)100.0 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)93.2 Coarse Sand 3.3 No. 4 (4.75-mm)91.3 Medium Sand 55.3 No. 10 (2.00-mm)88.0 Fine Sand 31.7 No. 20 (.850-mm)70.1 No. 40 (.425-mm)32.7 Fines 1.1 No. 60 (.250-mm)7.4 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)2.1 No. 200 (.075-mm)1.1 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.26 D30 0.40 D60 0.70 D90 3.40 Cc 0.88 Cu 2.69 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Sand Symbol:SP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-2 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-2 0.5' - 2.5' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:0.5 - 2.5 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 9.2% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 35.8 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 17.6 3/4 in. (19.0)64.2 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)53.6 Coarse Sand 5.6 No. 4 (4.75-mm)46.6 Medium Sand 17.3 No. 10 (2.00-mm)41.0 Fine Sand 20.1 No. 20 (.850-mm)35.4 No. 40 (.425-mm)23.6 Fines 3.6 No. 60 (.250-mm)12.0 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)6.5 No. 200 (.075-mm)3.6 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.22 D30 0.60 D60 17.00 D90 30.00 Cc 0.10 Cu 77.27 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-2 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-2 2.5' - 5.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:2.5 - 5 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 4.9% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 26.6 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 34.3 3/4 in. (19.0)73.4 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)47.1 Coarse Sand 6.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm)39.1 Medium Sand 20.8 No. 10 (2.00-mm)33.2 Fine Sand 10.9 No. 20 (.850-mm)24.9 No. 40 (.425-mm)12.4 Fines 1.5 No. 60 (.250-mm)5.9 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)3.2 No. 200 (.075-mm)1.5 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.37 D30 1.40 D60 15.00 D90 28.00 Cc 0.35 Cu 40.54 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-3 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-3 0.5' - 4.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:0.5 - 4 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 14.6% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 27.8 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 9.6 3/4 in. (19.0)72.2 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)67.8 Coarse Sand 5.2 No. 4 (4.75-mm)62.6 Medium Sand 21.8 No. 10 (2.00-mm)57.4 Fine Sand 31.1 No. 20 (.850-mm)51.7 No. 40 (.425-mm)35.6 Fines 4.5 No. 60 (.250-mm)17.9 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)9.2 No. 200 (.075-mm)4.5 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.16 D30 0.35 D60 3.00 D90 29.00 Cc 0.26 Cu 18.75 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel Symbol:SP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-4 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-4 0.5' - 4.5' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:0.5 - 4.5 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 14.1% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 14.8 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 16.8 3/4 in. (19.0)85.2 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)73.5 Coarse Sand 4.2 No. 4 (4.75-mm)68.4 Medium Sand 23.3 No. 10 (2.00-mm)64.2 Fine Sand 35.8 No. 20 (.850-mm)57.8 No. 40 (.425-mm)40.8 Fines 5.0 No. 60 (.250-mm)20.4 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)9.9 No. 200 (.075-mm)5.0 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.15 D30 0.31 D60 1.00 D90 23.00 Cc 0.64 Cu 6.67 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel Symbol:SP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-4 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-4 4.5' - 6.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:4.5 - 6 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 3.7% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 35.1 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 33.0 3/4 in. (19.0)64.9 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)41.2 Coarse Sand 7.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm)31.9 Medium Sand 17.4 No. 10 (2.00-mm)24.8 Fine Sand 6.5 No. 20 (.850-mm)17.0 No. 40 (.425-mm)7.4 Fines 0.9 No. 60 (.250-mm)3.2 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)1.7 No. 200 (.075-mm)0.9 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.51 D30 4.80 D60 16.00 D90 31.00 Cc 2.82 Cu 31.37 ASTM Classification Group Name:Well Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GW Moisture Content (%) Gradation Analysis Summary Data Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-5 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-5 0.5' - 3.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:0.5 - 3 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 16.0% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 0.0 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 4.4 3/4 in. (19.0)100.0 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)98.5 Coarse Sand 1.6 No. 4 (4.75-mm)95.6 Medium Sand 23.0 No. 10 (2.00-mm)93.9 Fine Sand 65.7 No. 20 (.850-mm)91.1 No. 40 (.425-mm)70.9 Fines 5.2 No. 60 (.250-mm)27.1 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)11.7 No. 200 (.075-mm)5.2 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.14 D30 0.26 D60 0.37 D90 0.80 Cc 1.31 Cu 2.64 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Sand with Silt Symbol:SP-SM Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-7 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-7 0.5' - 4.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:0.5 - 4 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 10.3% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 44.2 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 16.6 3/4 in. (19.0)55.8 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)43.0 Coarse Sand 3.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm)39.2 Medium Sand 11.6 No. 10 (2.00-mm)36.2 Fine Sand 20.7 No. 20 (.850-mm)32.6 No. 40 (.425-mm)24.7 Fines 4.0 No. 60 (.250-mm)14.4 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)7.6 No. 200 (.075-mm)4.0 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.18 D30 0.65 D60 20.50 D90 31.00 Cc 0.11 Cu 113.89 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-7 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-7 4.0' - 5.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:4 - 5 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 5.0% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 28.4 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 31.6 3/4 in. (19.0)71.6 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)48.9 Coarse Sand 7.8 No. 4 (4.75-mm)39.9 Medium Sand 19.9 No. 10 (2.00-mm)32.2 Fine Sand 11.4 No. 20 (.850-mm)22.1 No. 40 (.425-mm)12.3 Fines 0.9 No. 60 (.250-mm)4.7 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)2.0 No. 200 (.075-mm)0.9 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.37 D30 1.70 D60 14.00 D90 28.00 Cc 0.56 Cu 37.84 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:TP-9 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:TP-9 0.5' - 3.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:0.5 - 3 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 10.9% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 32.9 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 31.3 3/4 in. (19.0)67.1 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)41.4 Coarse Sand 4.9 No. 4 (4.75-mm)35.9 Medium Sand 13.0 No. 10 (2.00-mm)31.0 Fine Sand 14.6 No. 20 (.850-mm)26.0 No. 40 (.425-mm)18.1 Fines 3.5 No. 60 (.250-mm)10.8 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)6.3 No. 200 (.075-mm)3.5 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.24 D30 1.70 D60 16.00 D90 29.00 Cc 0.75 Cu 66.67 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:MW-2 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:MW-2 0.0' - 4.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:0 - 4 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 10.9% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 14.4 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 34.8 3/4 in. (19.0)85.6 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)63.0 Coarse Sand 8.5 No. 4 (4.75-mm)50.8 Medium Sand 19.8 No. 10 (2.00-mm)42.3 Fine Sand 18.0 No. 20 (.850-mm)35.4 No. 40 (.425-mm)22.6 Fines 4.5 No. 60 (.250-mm)13.4 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)8.0 No. 200 (.075-mm)4.5 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.18 D30 0.64 D60 8.00 D90 24.00 Cc 0.28 Cu 44.44 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:MW-2 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:MW-2 4.0' - 8.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:4 - 8 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 10.2% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 17.7 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 32.0 3/4 in. (19.0)82.3 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)60.1 Coarse Sand 8.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm)50.4 Medium Sand 22.5 No. 10 (2.00-mm)42.4 Fine Sand 15.1 No. 20 (.850-mm)30.7 No. 40 (.425-mm)19.9 Fines 4.7 No. 60 (.250-mm)12.1 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)7.9 No. 200 (.075-mm)4.7 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.20 D30 0.84 D60 9.50 D90 25.00 Cc 0.37 Cu 47.50 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Tahoma Terra Commercial Sample Location:MW-2 Job Number:362-005-01 Sample Name:MW-2 8.0' - 11.0' Date Tested:4/16/21 Depth:8 - 11 Feet Tested By:Neal Graham 8.9% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 7.8 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 32.9 3/4 in. (19.0)92.2 3/8 in. (9.5-mm)74.3 Coarse Sand 11.3 No. 4 (4.75-mm)59.3 Medium Sand 27.7 No. 10 (2.00-mm)48.0 Fine Sand 17.0 No. 20 (.850-mm)32.9 No. 40 (.425-mm)20.3 Fines 3.3 No. 60 (.250-mm)11.6 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm)6.4 No. 200 (.075-mm)3.3 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.23 D30 0.73 D60 5.00 D90 17.00 Cc 0.46 Cu 21.74 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel Symbol:SP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) 75 37.5 19 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.075 Hydrometer Reading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 TP-1 4.0' - 5.0'TP-2 0.5' - 2.5'TP-2 2.5' - 5.0'TP-3 0.5' - 4.0'TP-4 0.5' - 4.5' COBBLES GRAVEL SILT OR CLAYSAND COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 Graph 1 Gradation Analysis Results TAHOMA TERRA COMMERCIAL YELM, WASHINGTON 75 37.5 19 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.075 Hydrometer Reading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 TP-4 4.5' - 6.0'TP-5 0.5' - 3.0'TP-7 0.5' - 4.0'TP-7 4.0' - 5.0'TP-9 0.5' - 3.0' COBBLES GRAVEL SILT OR CLAYSAND COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 Graph 2 Gradation Analysis Results TAHOMA TERRA COMMERCIAL YELM, WASHINGTON 75 37.5 19 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.075 Hydrometer Reading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 MW-2 0.0' - 4.0'MW-2 4.0' - 8.0'MW-2 8.0' - 11.0' COBBLES GRAVEL SILT OR CLAYSAND COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 Graph 3 Gradation Analysis Results TAHOMA TERRA COMMERCIAL YELM, WASHINGTON INSIGHT GEOLOGIC 1015 4TH AVE E OLYMPIA , WA 98506 4/28/2021 Soil 362-005-01 TAHOMA TERRA TP-5 0.5-3 S21-07494 Date Received: Grower: Sampled By: Field: Laboratory #: Test Results Customer Account #: Customer Sample ID: Other Tests: Cation Exchange meq/100gCEC 9.7 pH 1:1 E.C. 1:1 m.mhos/cm Est Sat Paste E.C. m.mhos/cm Effervescence Lbs/Acre Ammonium - N mg/kg %3.4 69Organic Matter W.B.ENR: $26.00This is your Invoice #: List Cost:K. Bair, PhD, CReviewed by:S21-07494 Account #:199500 We make every effort to provide an accurate analysis of your sample. For reasonable cause we will repeat tests, but because of factors beyond our control in sampling procedures and the inherent variability of soil, our liability is limited to the price of the tests. Recommendations are to be used as general guides and should be modified for specific field conditions and situations. Note: "u" indicates that the element was analyzed for but not detected INSIGHT GEOLOGIC 1015 4TH AVE E OLYMPIA , WA 98506 4/28/2021 Soil 362-005-01 TAHOMA TERRA TP-6 0.5-5 S21-07495 Date Received: Grower: Sampled By: Field: Laboratory #: Test Results Customer Account #: Customer Sample ID: Other Tests: Cation Exchange meq/100gCEC 15.2 pH 1:1 E.C. 1:1 m.mhos/cm Est Sat Paste E.C. m.mhos/cm Effervescence Lbs/Acre Ammonium - N mg/kg %6.5 120Organic Matter W.B.ENR: $26.00This is your Invoice #: List Cost:K. Bair, PhD, CReviewed by:S21-07495 Account #:199500 We make every effort to provide an accurate analysis of your sample. For reasonable cause we will repeat tests, but because of factors beyond our control in sampling procedures and the inherent variability of soil, our liability is limited to the price of the tests. Recommendations are to be used as general guides and should be modified for specific field conditions and situations. Note: "u" indicates that the element was analyzed for but not detected INSIGHT GEOLOGIC 1015 4TH AVE E OLYMPIA , WA 98506 4/28/2021 Soil 362-005-01 TAHOMA TERRA TP-8 0.5-4.5 S21-07496 Date Received: Grower: Sampled By: Field: Laboratory #: Test Results Customer Account #: Customer Sample ID: Other Tests: Cation Exchange meq/100gCEC 9.8 pH 1:1 E.C. 1:1 m.mhos/cm Est Sat Paste E.C. m.mhos/cm Effervescence Lbs/Acre Ammonium - N mg/kg %4.5 91Organic Matter W.B.ENR: $26.00This is your Invoice #: List Cost:K. Bair, PhD, CReviewed by:S21-07496 Account #:199500 We make every effort to provide an accurate analysis of your sample. For reasonable cause we will repeat tests, but because of factors beyond our control in sampling procedures and the inherent variability of soil, our liability is limited to the price of the tests. Recommendations are to be used as general guides and should be modified for specific field conditions and situations. Note: "u" indicates that the element was analyzed for but not detected INSIGHT GEOLOGIC 1015 4TH AVE E OLYMPIA , WA 98506 4/28/2021 Soil 362-005-01 TAHOMA TERRA TP-9 0.5-3 S21-07497 Date Received: Grower: Sampled By: Field: Laboratory #: Test Results Customer Account #: Customer Sample ID: Other Tests: Cation Exchange meq/100gCEC 15.9 pH 1:1 E.C. 1:1 m.mhos/cm Est Sat Paste E.C. m.mhos/cm Effervescence Lbs/Acre Ammonium - N mg/kg %6.4 120Organic Matter W.B.ENR: $26.00This is your Invoice #: List Cost:K. Bair, PhD, CReviewed by:S21-07497 Account #:199500 We make every effort to provide an accurate analysis of your sample. For reasonable cause we will repeat tests, but because of factors beyond our control in sampling procedures and the inherent variability of soil, our liability is limited to the price of the tests. Recommendations are to be used as general guides and should be modified for specific field conditions and situations. Note: "u" indicates that the element was analyzed for but not detected INSIGHT GEOLOGIC 1015 4TH AVE E OLYMPIA , WA 98506 4/28/2021 Soil 362-005-01 TAHOMA TERRA TP-11 0.5-3 S21-07498 Date Received: Grower: Sampled By: Field: Laboratory #: Test Results Customer Account #: Customer Sample ID: Other Tests: Cation Exchange meq/100gCEC 23.2 pH 1:1 E.C. 1:1 m.mhos/cm Est Sat Paste E.C. m.mhos/cm Effervescence Lbs/Acre Ammonium - N mg/kg %6.5 120Organic Matter W.B.ENR: $26.00This is your Invoice #: List Cost:K. Bair, PhD, CReviewed by:S21-07498 Account #:199500 We make every effort to provide an accurate analysis of your sample. For reasonable cause we will repeat tests, but because of factors beyond our control in sampling procedures and the inherent variability of soil, our liability is limited to the price of the tests. Recommendations are to be used as general guides and should be modified for specific field conditions and situations. Note: "u" indicates that the element was analyzed for but not detected INSIGHT GEOLOGIC 1015 4TH AVE E OLYMPIA , WA 98506 4/28/2021 Soil 362-005-01 TAHOMA TERRA TP-14 0.5-6 S21-07499 Date Received: Grower: Sampled By: Field: Laboratory #: Test Results Customer Account #: Customer Sample ID: Other Tests: Cation Exchange meq/100gCEC 12.4 pH 1:1 E.C. 1:1 m.mhos/cm Est Sat Paste E.C. m.mhos/cm Effervescence Lbs/Acre Ammonium - N mg/kg %5.4 107Organic Matter W.B.ENR: $26.00This is your Invoice #: List Cost:K. Bair, PhD, CReviewed by:S21-07499 Account #:199500 We make every effort to provide an accurate analysis of your sample. For reasonable cause we will repeat tests, but because of factors beyond our control in sampling procedures and the inherent variability of soil, our liability is limited to the price of the tests. Recommendations are to be used as general guides and should be modified for specific field conditions and situations. Note: "u" indicates that the element was analyzed for but not detected INSIGHT GEOLOGIC 1015 4TH AVE E OLYMPIA , WA 98506 4/28/2021 Soil 362-005-01 TAHOMA TERRA TP-15 0.5-2.5 S21-07500 Date Received: Grower: Sampled By: Field: Laboratory #: Test Results Customer Account #: Customer Sample ID: Other Tests: Cation Exchange meq/100gCEC 11.3 pH 1:1 E.C. 1:1 m.mhos/cm Est Sat Paste E.C. m.mhos/cm Effervescence Lbs/Acre Ammonium - N mg/kg %5.4 108Organic Matter W.B.ENR: $26.00This is your Invoice #: List Cost:K. Bair, PhD, CReviewed by:S21-07500 Account #:199500 We make every effort to provide an accurate analysis of your sample. For reasonable cause we will repeat tests, but because of factors beyond our control in sampling procedures and the inherent variability of soil, our liability is limited to the price of the tests. Recommendations are to be used as general guides and should be modified for specific field conditions and situations. Note: "u" indicates that the element was analyzed for but not detected     ATTACHMENT C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE   ATTACHMENT C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This attachment provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND PROJECTS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Tahoma Terra Holdings, LLC (Client) and their authorized agents. This report may be made available to regulatory agencies for review. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. Insight Geologic Inc. structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open- ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS Insight Geologic, Inc. considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless Insight Geologic specifically indicates otherwise, do not 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; • elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; • composition of the design team; or • project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, Insight Geologic should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org .   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 manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or ground water fluctuations. Always contact Insight Geologic before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. MOST 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 subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Insight Geologic reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from Insight Geologic’s professional judgment and opinion. Insight Geologic’s recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. Insight Geologic cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by Insight Geologic should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining Insight Geologic for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having Insight Geologic confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain Insight Geologic to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having Insight Geologic participate in pre-bid and pre-construction conferences, and by 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. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a   geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with Insight Geologic and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. 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 to adjacent properties. READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. Insight Geologic includes these explanatory “limitations” provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with Insight Geologic if you are unclear how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site. GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project.