The URL can be used to link to this page

Rpt (TIR) CM Estates PH1 20230811 Civil Engineers ● Structural Engineers ● Landscape Architects ● Community Planners ● Land Surveyors Stormwater Report PREPARED FOR: Mr. Evan Mann Copper Ridge LLC PO Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373-0790 PROJECT: County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat Yelm, Washington 2230251.10 PREPARED BY: Chris Flyckt, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: J. Matthew Weber, PE Principal DATE: August 2023 Stormwater Report PREPARED FOR: Mr. Evan Mann Copper Ridge LLC PO Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373-0790 PROJECT: County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat Yelm, Washington 2230251.10 PREPARED BY: Chris Flyckt, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: J. Matthew Weber, PE Principal DATE: August 2023 I hereby state that this Stormwater Report for County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise that is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that City of Yelm does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me. 08/11/2023 Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 2230251.10 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Summary of Minimum Requirements .......................................................................................... 1 2.1 MR 1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans .................................................................... 1 2.2 MR 2 - Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention ....................................................... 1 2.3 MR 3 – Source Control of Pollution ..................................................................................... 1 2.4 MR 4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls ........................................ 1 2.5 MR 5 – Onsite Stormwater Control ..................................................................................... 1 2.6 MR 6 – Runoff Treatment ................................................................................................... 2 2.7 MR 7 – Flow Control ........................................................................................................... 2 2.8 MR 8 – Wetlands Protection ............................................................................................... 2 2.9 MR 9 – Basin/Watershed Planning ..................................................................................... 2 2.10 MR 10 – Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................. 2 3.0 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Soils Reports .................................................................................................................................. 2 5.0 Wells ................................................................................................................................................ 2 6.0 Fuel Tanks ...................................................................................................................................... 3 7.0 Sub-Basin Description................................................................................................................... 3 8.0 Analysis of the 100-Year Flood ..................................................................................................... 3 9.0 Aesthetic Considerations for Facilities ....................................................................................... 3 10.0 Facility Sizing and Downstream Analysis ................................................................................... 3 10.1 Conveyance ........................................................................................................................ 3 10.2 Treatment ............................................................................................................................ 3 10.3 Flow Control ........................................................................................................................ 3 10.4 Roof Runoff ......................................................................................................................... 4 11.0 Covenants Dedications, Easements ............................................................................................ 4 12.0 Property Owners Association Articles of Incorporation ............................................................ 4 13.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 2230251.10 Appendices Appendix A Exhibits A-1 ............. Vicinity Map A-2 ............. NRCS Soil Map A-3 ............. Developed Basin Map A-4 ............. FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain Map Appendix B Stormwater Facility Sizing Calculations B-1 ............. WWHM Report B-2 ............. Basin Map Appendix C Geotechnical Report Earth Solutions NW, LLC June 14, 2023 Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 1 2230251.10 1.0 Project Overview The following hydrology report summarizes the storm drainage analysis and design for a 59-lot development located at the 10800 Vancil Road SE Subdivision in Yelm, Thurston County, Washington. The land is currently a 9.84-acre property. The project includes the addition of 59 residential lots for single-family homes, a new roadway and sidewalks, sewer, water services, and stormwater facilities to treat and dispose of the project's stormwater. The proposed roadway features and utilities will be extended from Vancil Road SE. No offsite road improvements will be required, other than frontage improvements along Vancil Road SE. The 9.84-acre site is located in Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 02 East, W.M. The Thurston County tax parcel number associated with the project is 22730410300. The increased stormwater runoff resulting from the addition of impervious area will be treated and infiltrated in accordance with the most recent Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). 2.0 Summary of Minimum Requirements This project is subject to the SWMMWW and is a new development that will add more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces; therefore, all Minimum Requirements (MR) apply to this project. 2.1 MR 1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans This report and the project plans represent the Stormwater Site Plan for this project and satisfy MR 1. 2.2 MR 2 - Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared with final engineering. 2.3 MR 3 – Source Control of Pollution Pollution source control will be provided for the site by separating roof runoff from pollution generating surfaces. The residential roads should be maintained and cleaned of debris, garbage, and sediment, as required. The Construction SWPPP, addressing MR 3, will be prepared with final engineering. 2.4 MR 4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls The project proposes to infiltrate all stormwater runoff, so all runoff will be retained in the developed condition. There are no natural drainage systems or outfalls to preserve. 2.5 MR 5 – Onsite Stormwater Control This project will meet the Low Impact Development (LID) Performance Standard. The onsite soils have a high infiltration capacity and all runoff will be retained onsite through treatment systems and infiltration facilities. The LID Performance Standard will be met by infiltrating all stormwater runoff from the site. Refer to Section 10.0 for facility sizing. Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 2 2230251.10 2.6 MR 6 – Runoff Treatment Over 5,000 square feet of pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) will be added as part of these improvements; therefore, runoff treatment is required for this site. Stormwater from the roadways will be conveyed to stormwater treatment filters before being infiltrated. One distinct basin will convey stormwater to a treatment system and infiltration trench. Final treatment system sizing will be completed with final engineering. 2.7 MR 7 – Flow Control The project exceeds the thresholds for new development projects and must provide flow control . Proposed flow control is achieved with the use of infiltration trenches that will infiltrate 100 percent of runoff. Refer to Section 10.0 for facility sizing. 2.8 MR 8 – Wetlands Protection To our knowledge, no wetlands are located on or adjacent to the site. 2.9 MR 9 – Basin/Watershed Planning To our knowledge, no basin plans exist for the site. All of Yelm is within a critical aquifer recharge area. Treatment of stormwater prior to infiltration is proposed via media filter manholes . Final sizing of the treatment system will be done with final engineering. 2.10 MR 10 – Operation and Maintenance The stormwater system for the roadway improvements will be publicly owned and maintained. City of Yelm shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the public stormwater facilities. An Operation and Maintenance Plan consisting of maintenance checklists for stormwater management will be prepared with final engineering. Operation and maintenance for drainage facilities constructed for each lot shall be the responsibility of the individu al owners. 3.0 Existing Conditions The site is presently covered with grass, with slopes ranging from 0 to 3 percent. 4.0 Soils Reports Site soils are identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey as Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, a Type A soil. This soil is characterized as very deep, somewhat excessively drained. Earth Solutions NW, LLC conducted a site investigation to confirm subsurface soil conditions and establish a design infiltration rate. Soil test holes were dug in the vicinity of the proposed infiltration basins of the project and observations confirm that the soil types match the SCS soil description. A soil log map showing the location of the test holes is included in the geotechnical report. The report recommends a design infiltration rate of 20 inches per hour. Refer to Appendix C for the complete Earth Solutions NW report. 5.0 Wells To our knowledge, no wells are located onsite. Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 3 2230251.10 6.0 Fuel Tanks No fuel tanks were observed at the project site. 7.0 Sub-Basin Description From review of site topography, it does not appear that offsite runoff is tributary to the site from the north or west. The east half of Vancil Road SE does not have a curb and therefore does appear to infiltrate along the shoulder of the roadway. There is one basin in the developed condition. It contains a treatment and infiltration system to manage runoff from the plat roads, landscape areas, on-lot driveways and the half-street widening of Vancil Road SE. The impervious areas used for determining flow control and water treatment do not include individual lots. On-lot runoff will be collected and infiltrated in individual drywells. Refer to Appendix A-3 for the Developed Basin Map. Drywell sizing will be provided with final engineering. 8.0 Analysis of the 100-Year Flood Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping does not indicate flooding in the immediate area. Refer to the exhibit in Appendix A-4. 9.0 Aesthetic Considerations for Facilities The proposed stormwater infiltration facilities will be underground and have minimal impact to the aesthetics of the site. 10.0 Facility Sizing and Downstream Analysis The stormwater system was sized and analyzed using the latest edition of the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) continuous modeling software. Conservative infiltration rates of 20 inches per hour were used for the design calculations. 10.1 Conveyance Conveyance sizing will be completed with final engineering. 10.2 Treatment Basic treatment will be provided via media filter cartridge manholes/catch basins. Final sizing will be completed with final engineering. 10.3 Flow Control Flow control will be provided by an infiltration trench. The basin will have a single trench. Basin A will have a 4.0-foot deep trench with a bottom area of 4,000 square feet that will be constructed in the open space in Tract A. Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 4 2230251.10 Infiltration Basin Summary Basin Pervious Area (ac) Impervious Area (ac) Required Trench Area (sf) Percent Infiltrated A 3.58 2.87 - - B 0 0.43 - - TOTAL 3.58 3.3 4,000 100 The remaining 3.39 acres on the site are assumed to be covered by roofs; 2,500 square feet per lot was used as an impervious roof assumption. This runoff will be infiltrated by individual roof downspout infiltration trenches on each lot and , as such, is not included in the model. The infiltration basin was sized in accordance with the SWMMWW and exceeds the required storage volumes. 10.4 Roof Runoff Stormwater for the roof area of the homes will be infiltrated in individual drywells. The drywells will be sized in accordance with SWMMWW Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1 - BMP T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration System. Refer to Appendix B-1 for the roof downspout system detail. 11.0 Covenants Dedications, Easements The storm facilities for the right-of-way improvements shall be publicly owned and maintained. A maintenance agreement should be executed to ensure future maintenance of the facilities. The on-lot systems will be privately owned and maintained and therefore do not require covenants, dedications, or easements. 12.0 Property Owners Association Articles of Incorporation Not applicable. 13.0 Conclusion The proposed project involves site improvements associated with a 59-lot development. The project includes clearing, grading, erosion control, utility improvements, and stormwater management facilities. The site, as proposed, will meet the requirements of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). This report and associated plans have been prepared within the guidelines established by City of Yelm for stormwater management. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to or obtained by AHBL . These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared using procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. AHBL, Inc. Chris Flyckt, PE Project Engineer CF/lsk August 2023 Q:\2023\2230251\WORDPROC\Reports\20230811 Rpt (Storm) 2230251.10.docx Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 2230251.10 Appendix A Exhibits A-1 .................... Vicinity Map A-2 .................... NRCS Soil Map A-3 .................... Developed Basin Map A-4 .................... FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain Map SITECREEK ST SE507BALD HILL507E YELM AVEGROVE RD SEVANCIL RD SEVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 660' (1/8 MILE)RD SEMORRIS RD SEUMTANUMST SEPALOUSEAVE SEVANCIL CT SECLARK RD SE109THAVE SECLARK RD SE110THAVE SE110THAVE SE2215 North 30th Street,Suite 300,Tacoma, WA 98403253.383.2422 TEL253.383.2572 FAXJOB NO.DATE: United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Thurston County Area, WashingtonNatural Resources Conservation Service July 18, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Thurston County Area, Washington................................................................13 110—Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................13 112—Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..........................13 References............................................................................................................15 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 519730051973405197380519742051974605197500519754051975805197620519730051973405197380519742051974605197500519754051975805197620530780 530820 530860 530900 530940 530980 531020 530780 530820 530860 530900 530940 530980 531020 46° 55' 53'' N 122° 35' 44'' W46° 55' 53'' N122° 35' 32'' W46° 55' 42'' N 122° 35' 44'' W46° 55' 42'' N 122° 35' 32'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,590 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Thurston County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 8, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 18, 2020—Jul 20, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 110 Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 8.5 73.4% 112 Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 3.1 26.6% Totals for Area of Interest 11.6 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report 11 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Thurston County Area, Washington 110—Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ndb6 Elevation: 330 to 1,310 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Spanaway and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Spanaway Setting Landform:Terraces, outwash plains Parent material:Volcanic ash over gravelly outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 15 to 20 inches: very gravelly loam H3 - 20 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R002XA006WA - Puget Lowlands Prairie Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA) Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA) Hydric soil rating: No 112—Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ndb8 Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Elevation: 660 to 1,310 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Spanaway and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Spanaway Setting Landform:Terraces, outwash plains Parent material:Volcanic ash over gravelly outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 16 inches: stony sandy loam H2 - 16 to 22 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3 - 22 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R002XA006WA - Puget Lowlands Prairie Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA) Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 15 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 16 82 93567 PALOUSE AVE SE VANCIL CT SE VANCIL RD SECOUNTRY MEADOWS ESTATES PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT (NOT APPROVED) ROAD A ROAD BROAD C 4 TRACT D10 11121314151617 38 39 42 43 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 26 2728293031 TRACT C 22 23 24 25 36 56 57 58 59 FUTURE ROW DEDICATIONss sssss sssssss ssssss ss ss ss ss ss s s ss sssssssssssss sss ss ss ss s s s 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+ 0 0 106+00107+00108+00109+00110+00110+1510+0 0 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 37 4140 44 45 4746 CB #3 RIM: 363.88 CB #4 RIM: 363.88CB #5 RIM: 364.06 CB #6 RIM: 364.06 CB #10 RIM: 361.93 CB#11 RIM: 362.34 CB#12 RIM: 362.34 CB #1 RIM: 361.32 CB #2 RIM: 361.32 CB #7 RIM: 361.44 CB #8 RIM: 361.44 STORMFILTER RIM: 360.39 CB #9 RIM: 360.01 CB#14 RIM: 359.19 CB#13 RIM: 359.19 155 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 48 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 24 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 233 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 93 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 35 LF 12" CPEP @ 2.77% 24 LF 12" CPEP @ 7.83% 37 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 74 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 409 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.54% 22 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 35 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 49 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 82 LF 12" CPEP @ 1.32% 35 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.49% TRACT B 32353433 TRACT E1920 18TRACT ACB#15 RIM: 359.77 163 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 164 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% CB# 17 RIM: 356.68 CB#16 RIM: 355.85 4000 SF X 4' DEEP INFILTRATION TRENCH 1 2 3 4 TEL www.ahbl.comWEBTELwww.ahbl.comWEBTELwww.ahbl.comWEB 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422TEL www.ahbl.comWEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 253.383.2572 FAX 11 MW/SK 8/23/2023 PRELIMINARY PLAT 2230251.10 P.O.BOX 73790 PUYALLUP, WA 98373 KURT WILSON / EVAN MANN COPPER RIDGE LLC COUNTRY MEADOWS ESTATES PHASE 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 30, TWN. 17 N., RGE. 02 E., W.M., CITY OF YELM, THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. COUNTRY MEADOWS ESTATES PHASE 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT DATE: August 3, 2023 FILENAME: Q:\2023\2230251\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2230251-SH-STRM.dwg C4.1 9 CONCEPT STORM PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 1" = 50 FEET 25 N ROOF RUNOFF WILL BE INFILTRATED WITHIN THE PRIVATE SYSTEM LOCATED ON EACH LOT. ROOF RUNOFF NOTE National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 7/18/2023 at 3:46 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 122°35'58"W 46°56'N 122°35'20"W 46°55'36"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 2230251.10 Appendix B Stormwater Facility Sizing Calculations B-1 .................... WWHM Report B-2 .................... Basin Map WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing Site Name:Country Meadows Estates Phase 1 Site Address: City:Yelm Report Date:8/9/2023 Gage:Lake Lawrence Data Start:1955/10/01 Data End:2008/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:0.857 Version Date:2021/08/18 Version:4.2.18 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 6.88 Pervious Total 6.88 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 6.88 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Road A/B Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 3.58 Pervious Total 3.58 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 3.3 Impervious Total 3.3 Basin Total 6.88 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 6 Mitigated Routing Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length:62.94 ft. Bottom Width:62.94 ft. Trench bottom slope 1:0 To 1 Trench Left side slope 0:0 To 1 Trench right side slope 2:0 To 1 Material thickness of first layer:1 Pour Space of material for first layer:0.33 Material thickness of second layer:1 Pour Space of material for second layer:0.33 Material thickness of third layer:2 Pour Space of material for third layer:0.33 Infiltration On Infiltration rate:20 Infiltration safety factor:1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.):582.111 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.):0.001 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.):582.112 Percent Infiltrated:100 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total Evap From Facility:0 Discharge Structure Riser Height:4 ft. Riser Diameter:10 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0444 0.091 0.001 0.000 1.834 0.0889 0.091 0.002 0.000 1.834 0.1333 0.091 0.004 0.000 1.834 0.1778 0.091 0.005 0.000 1.834 0.2222 0.091 0.006 0.000 1.834 0.2667 0.091 0.008 0.000 1.834 0.3111 0.091 0.009 0.000 1.834 0.3556 0.091 0.010 0.000 1.834 0.4000 0.091 0.012 0.000 1.834 0.4444 0.091 0.013 0.000 1.834 0.4889 0.091 0.014 0.000 1.834 0.5333 0.091 0.016 0.000 1.834 0.5778 0.091 0.017 0.000 1.834 0.6222 0.091 0.018 0.000 1.834 0.6667 0.091 0.020 0.000 1.834 0.7111 0.091 0.021 0.000 1.834 0.7556 0.091 0.022 0.000 1.834 0.8000 0.091 0.024 0.000 1.834 0.8444 0.091 0.025 0.000 1.834 0.8889 0.091 0.026 0.000 1.834 0.9333 0.091 0.028 0.000 1.834 0.9778 0.091 0.029 0.000 1.834 1.0222 0.091 0.030 0.000 1.834 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 7 1.0667 0.091 0.032 0.000 1.834 1.1111 0.091 0.033 0.000 1.834 1.1556 0.091 0.034 0.000 1.834 1.2000 0.091 0.036 0.000 1.834 1.2444 0.091 0.037 0.000 1.834 1.2889 0.091 0.038 0.000 1.834 1.3333 0.091 0.040 0.000 1.834 1.3778 0.091 0.041 0.000 1.834 1.4222 0.091 0.042 0.000 1.834 1.4667 0.091 0.044 0.000 1.834 1.5111 0.091 0.045 0.000 1.834 1.5556 0.091 0.046 0.000 1.834 1.6000 0.091 0.048 0.000 1.834 1.6444 0.091 0.049 0.000 1.834 1.6889 0.091 0.050 0.000 1.834 1.7333 0.091 0.052 0.000 1.834 1.7778 0.091 0.053 0.000 1.834 1.8222 0.091 0.054 0.000 1.834 1.8667 0.091 0.056 0.000 1.834 1.9111 0.091 0.057 0.000 1.834 1.9556 0.091 0.058 0.000 1.834 2.0000 0.091 0.060 0.000 1.834 2.0444 0.091 0.061 0.000 1.834 2.0889 0.091 0.062 0.000 1.834 2.1333 0.091 0.064 0.000 1.834 2.1778 0.091 0.065 0.000 1.834 2.2222 0.091 0.066 0.000 1.834 2.2667 0.091 0.068 0.000 1.834 2.3111 0.091 0.069 0.000 1.834 2.3556 0.091 0.070 0.000 1.834 2.4000 0.091 0.072 0.000 1.834 2.4444 0.091 0.073 0.000 1.834 2.4889 0.091 0.074 0.000 1.834 2.5333 0.091 0.076 0.000 1.834 2.5778 0.091 0.077 0.000 1.834 2.6222 0.091 0.078 0.000 1.834 2.6667 0.091 0.080 0.000 1.834 2.7111 0.091 0.081 0.000 1.834 2.7556 0.091 0.082 0.000 1.834 2.8000 0.091 0.084 0.000 1.834 2.8444 0.091 0.085 0.000 1.834 2.8889 0.091 0.086 0.000 1.834 2.9333 0.091 0.088 0.000 1.834 2.9778 0.091 0.089 0.000 1.834 3.0222 0.091 0.090 0.000 1.834 3.0667 0.091 0.092 0.000 1.834 3.1111 0.091 0.093 0.000 1.834 3.1556 0.091 0.094 0.000 1.834 3.2000 0.091 0.096 0.000 1.834 3.2444 0.091 0.097 0.000 1.834 3.2889 0.091 0.098 0.000 1.834 3.3333 0.091 0.100 0.000 1.834 3.3778 0.091 0.101 0.000 1.834 3.4222 0.091 0.102 0.000 1.834 3.4667 0.091 0.104 0.000 1.834 3.5111 0.091 0.105 0.000 1.834 3.5556 0.091 0.106 0.000 1.834 3.6000 0.091 0.108 0.000 1.834 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 8 3.6444 0.091 0.109 0.000 1.834 3.6889 0.091 0.110 0.000 1.834 3.7333 0.091 0.112 0.000 1.834 3.7778 0.091 0.113 0.000 1.834 3.8222 0.091 0.114 0.000 1.834 3.8667 0.091 0.116 0.000 1.834 3.9111 0.091 0.117 0.000 1.834 3.9556 0.091 0.118 0.000 1.834 4.0000 0.091 0.120 0.000 1.834 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 9 Analysis Results POC 1 POC #1 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 10 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. 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:36 PM Page 11 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:48 PM Page 12 Mitigated Schematic 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 13 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1955 10 01 END 2008 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 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.wdm MESSU 25 Pre20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.MES 27 Pre20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.L61 28 Pre20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.L62 END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 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 *** 1 A/B, Forest, Flat 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 *** 1 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 ********* 1 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 *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 14 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 1 0 5 2 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 1 0.2 0.5 0.35 0 0.7 0.7 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 1 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 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** <-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 0.857 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 0.857 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 END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** END EXT TARGETS 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 16 MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** END MASS-LINK END RUN 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 17 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1955 10 01 END 2008 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 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.wdm MESSU 25 Mit20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.MES 27 Mit20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.L61 28 Mit20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing.L62 30 POC20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 7 IMPLND 1 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 Gravel Trench Bed 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 *** 7 A/B, Lawn, Flat 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 *** 7 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 ********* 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 18 7 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 *** 7 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 7 0 5 0.8 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 7 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 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 7 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 *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 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 *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 19 # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Road A/B*** PERLND 7 3.58 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 7 3.58 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 3.3 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 7 3.58 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 3.3 COPY 1 15 PERLND 7 3.58 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 Gravel Trench Be-005 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # 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 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 20 1 1 0.01 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 92 5 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.090954 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.044444 0.090954 0.001334 0.000000 1.834232 0.088889 0.090954 0.002668 0.000000 1.834232 0.133333 0.090954 0.004002 0.000000 1.834232 0.177778 0.090954 0.005336 0.000000 1.834232 0.222222 0.090954 0.006670 0.000000 1.834232 0.266667 0.090954 0.008004 0.000000 1.834232 0.311111 0.090954 0.009338 0.000000 1.834232 0.355556 0.090954 0.010672 0.000000 1.834232 0.400000 0.090954 0.012006 0.000000 1.834232 0.444444 0.090954 0.013340 0.000000 1.834232 0.488889 0.090954 0.014674 0.000000 1.834232 0.533333 0.090954 0.016008 0.000000 1.834232 0.577778 0.090954 0.017342 0.000000 1.834232 0.622222 0.090954 0.018676 0.000000 1.834232 0.666667 0.090954 0.020010 0.000000 1.834232 0.711111 0.090954 0.021344 0.000000 1.834232 0.755556 0.090954 0.022678 0.000000 1.834232 0.800000 0.090954 0.024012 0.000000 1.834232 0.844444 0.090954 0.025346 0.000000 1.834232 0.888889 0.090954 0.026680 0.000000 1.834232 0.933333 0.090954 0.028014 0.000000 1.834232 0.977778 0.090954 0.029348 0.000000 1.834232 1.022222 0.090954 0.030682 0.000000 1.834232 1.066667 0.090954 0.032016 0.000000 1.834232 1.111111 0.090954 0.033350 0.000000 1.834232 1.155556 0.090954 0.034684 0.000000 1.834232 1.200000 0.090954 0.036018 0.000000 1.834232 1.244444 0.090954 0.037352 0.000000 1.834232 1.288889 0.090954 0.038686 0.000000 1.834232 1.333333 0.090954 0.040020 0.000000 1.834232 1.377778 0.090954 0.041354 0.000000 1.834232 1.422222 0.090954 0.042688 0.000000 1.834232 1.466667 0.090954 0.044022 0.000000 1.834232 1.511111 0.090954 0.045356 0.000000 1.834232 1.555556 0.090954 0.046690 0.000000 1.834232 1.600000 0.090954 0.048024 0.000000 1.834232 1.644444 0.090954 0.049358 0.000000 1.834232 1.688889 0.090954 0.050692 0.000000 1.834232 1.733333 0.090954 0.052025 0.000000 1.834232 1.777778 0.090954 0.053359 0.000000 1.834232 1.822222 0.090954 0.054693 0.000000 1.834232 1.866667 0.090954 0.056027 0.000000 1.834232 1.911111 0.090954 0.057361 0.000000 1.834232 1.955556 0.090954 0.058695 0.000000 1.834232 2.000000 0.090954 0.060029 0.000000 1.834232 2.044444 0.090954 0.061363 0.000000 1.834232 2.088889 0.090954 0.062697 0.000000 1.834232 2.133333 0.090954 0.064031 0.000000 1.834232 2.177778 0.090954 0.065365 0.000000 1.834232 2.222222 0.090954 0.066699 0.000000 1.834232 2.266667 0.090954 0.068033 0.000000 1.834232 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 21 2.311111 0.090954 0.069367 0.000000 1.834232 2.355556 0.090954 0.070701 0.000000 1.834232 2.400000 0.090954 0.072035 0.000000 1.834232 2.444444 0.090954 0.073369 0.000000 1.834232 2.488889 0.090954 0.074703 0.000000 1.834232 2.533333 0.090954 0.076037 0.000000 1.834232 2.577778 0.090954 0.077371 0.000000 1.834232 2.622222 0.090954 0.078705 0.000000 1.834232 2.666667 0.090954 0.080039 0.000000 1.834232 2.711111 0.090954 0.081373 0.000000 1.834232 2.755556 0.090954 0.082707 0.000000 1.834232 2.800000 0.090954 0.084041 0.000000 1.834232 2.844444 0.090954 0.085375 0.000000 1.834232 2.888889 0.090954 0.086709 0.000000 1.834232 2.933333 0.090954 0.088043 0.000000 1.834232 2.977778 0.090954 0.089377 0.000000 1.834232 3.022222 0.090954 0.090711 0.000000 1.834232 3.066667 0.090954 0.092045 0.000000 1.834232 3.111111 0.090954 0.093379 0.000000 1.834232 3.155556 0.090954 0.094713 0.000000 1.834232 3.200000 0.090954 0.096047 0.000000 1.834232 3.244444 0.090954 0.097381 0.000000 1.834232 3.288889 0.090954 0.098715 0.000000 1.834232 3.333333 0.090954 0.100049 0.000000 1.834232 3.377778 0.090954 0.101383 0.000000 1.834232 3.422222 0.090954 0.102717 0.000000 1.834232 3.466667 0.090954 0.104051 0.000000 1.834232 3.511111 0.090954 0.105385 0.000000 1.834232 3.555556 0.090954 0.106719 0.000000 1.834232 3.600000 0.090954 0.108053 0.000000 1.834232 3.644444 0.090954 0.109387 0.000000 1.834232 3.688889 0.090954 0.110721 0.000000 1.834232 3.733333 0.090954 0.112055 0.000000 1.834232 3.777778 0.090954 0.113389 0.000000 1.834232 3.822222 0.090954 0.114723 0.000000 1.834232 3.866667 0.090954 0.116057 0.000000 1.834232 3.911111 0.090954 0.117391 0.000000 1.834232 3.955556 0.090954 0.118725 0.000000 1.834232 4.000000 0.090954 0.120059 0.000000 1.834232 4.044444 0.090954 0.124101 0.082732 1.834232 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 0.857 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 0.857 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 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 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 22 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 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 END MASS-LINK END RUN 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 23 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 24 Mitigated HSPF Message File 20230803 CountryMeadowsPhase1PrelimSizing 8/9/2023 2:07:57 PM Page 25 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 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+ 0 0 106+00107+00108+00109+00110+00110+15CB #5 RIM: 364.06 CB #6 RIM: 364.06 CB #4 RIM: 363.88 CB #3 RIM: 363.88 CB#12 RIM: 362.34 CB#11 RIM: 362.34 CB #10 RIM: 361.93 CB #7 RIM: 361.44 CB #8 RIM: 361.44 CB #2 RIM: 361.32 CB #1 RIM: 361.32 STORMFILTER RIM: 360.39 CB #9 RIM: 360.01 CB#14 RIM: 359.19 CB#13 RIM: 359.19 PROPOSED 4000SF X 4FT DEEP INFILTRATION TRENCH 82 93567 1516 11 4 12171314 101 1920 18 43423938374140 44 45 4746 36 57 58 59 56 25242322 53 54 55 52 48 49 50 51 28 27313029 26 32353433 36 0360 361 362 362362 3633633 6 4 36421 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 80 160 1" = 80 FEET 40 N 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX JOB NO. DATE: Stormwater Report County Meadows Estates Phase 1 Preliminary Plat 2230251.10 Appendix C Geotechnical Report Earth Solutions NW, LLC June 14, 2023 EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC 15365 N.E.90th Street,Suite 100 Redmond,WA 98052 (425)449-4704 Fax (425)449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com Geotechnical Engineering Construction Observation/Testing Environmental Services GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED VANCIL ROAD SUBDIVISION 10800 VANCIL ROAD SOUTHEAST THURSTON COUNTY (YELM),WASHINGTON ES-9150 PREPARED FOR COPPER RIDGE, LLC June 14, 2023 _________________________ Scott S. Riegel, L.G., L.E.G. Associate Principal Geologist _________________________ Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED VANCIL ROAD SUBDIVISION 10800 VANCIL ROAD SOUTHEAST THURSTON COUNTY (YELM), WASHINGTON ES-9150 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 Northeast 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Phone: 425-449-4704 | Fax: 425-449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com 06/14/2023 06/14/2023 Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project or purpose; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop specifications; • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- phase observations. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org June 14, 2023 ES-9150 Copper Ridge, LLC P.O. Box 73790 Puyallup, Washington 98373 Attention: Evan Mann Dear Evan: Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW), is pleased to present this report to support the proposed project. Based on the results of our investigation, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on conditions observed during our fieldwork, the site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of glacial outwash sand/gravel deposits. The proposed residential structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on undisturbed competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill placed directly on a competent subgrade surface. We anticipate competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will generally be encountered beginning at depths of about two to four feet below existing grades across the site. Based on our investigation, infiltration is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint due to the pervasive presence of relatively clean outwash sand/gravel soils. This report provides geotechnical analyses and recommendations for the proposed residential development. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the content of this study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Scott S. Riegel, L.G., L.E.G. Associate Principal Geologist 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 • Redmond, WA 98052 •(425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Earth Solutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents ES-9150 PAGE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 General .................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................. 2 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 2 Surface ..................................................................................... 2 Subsurface .............................................................................. 2 Topsoil and Fill ............................................................. 3 Native Soil ..................................................................... 3 Geologic Setting ........................................................... 3 Groundwater ................................................................. 3 GEOLOGIC CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION .................................. 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 4 General .................................................................................... 4 Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................. 4 Temporary Erosion Control ......................................... 5 Stripping ....................................................................... 5 In-situ and Imported Soil ............................................. 6 Structural Fill ................................................................ 6 Excavations and Slopes .............................................. 7 Subgrade Preparation .................................................. 7 Foundations ............................................................................ 7 Retaining Walls ....................................................................... 8 Seismic Design ....................................................................... 9 Slab-on-Grade Floors ............................................................. 10 Drainage................................................................................... 10 Preliminary Infiltration Evaluation .............................. 10 Utility Support and Trench Backfill ....................................... 11 Preliminary Pavement Sections ............................................. 12 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................... 13 Additional Services ................................................................. 13 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents Cont’d ES-9150 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY VANCIL ROAD SUBDIVISION 10800 VANCIL ROAD SOUTHEAST THURSTON COUNTY (YELM), WASHINGTON ES-9150 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study (study) was prepared for the proposed residential development to be constructed in Yelm, Washington. To complete our scope of services, we performed the following:  Subsurface exploration to characterize the soil and groundwater conditions.  Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected on site.  Engineering analyses.  Preparation of this report. The following documents and resources were reviewed as part of our report preparation:  Vancil Road Layout, provided by the client, dated February 27, 2023.  Morris Road Plat, prepared by AHBL, dated June 15, 2022.  Surficial hydrogeologic units of the Puget Sound aquifer system, Washington and British Columbia, for the Centralia quadrangle (Plate 17 of 18) M.A. Jones 1998.  Web Soil Survey (WSS) online resource, maintained by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  Pierce County Stormwater Management and Site Development Manual, effective July 1, 2021.  Yelm Municipal Code Chapter 18.21. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 2 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Project Description The overall project area is located off the east side of Vancil Road Southeast in Yelm, Washington. Site grading plans were not available at the time of this proposal; however, we understand the Vancil Road project will consist of construction of 60 single-family homesites and the Morris Road site will be developed with 30 lots and associated infrastructure improvements. Each site will include a stormwater management facility, and will require seasonal groundwater monitoring. We presume infiltration will be pursued to the extent feasible. At the time of report submission, specific building loads were not available for review; however, we anticipate the proposed residential structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate wall loads of about 1 to 3 kips per linear foot and slab-on-grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf) will be incorporated into the final design. Based on the low topographic relief on this site, we anticipate grading will be limited to cuts and fills of about five feet or less for lots. Deeper cuts will occur for utilities and the stormwater tracts. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should review final designs to confirm that appropriate geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The two properties that comprise the Vancil Road and Morris Road sites consist of Thurston County Parcel Nos. 22730410300 & 22730410000. The sites are vacant and the majority of the Vancil Road site area is surfaced with field grass used as fenced pasture while the Morris Road site is largely forested. Topography is gently undulating. The Vancil Road property is bordered to the north and west by residential development, to the east by the Morris Road property and to the south by open space. The Morris Road property is bordered to the north and south by residential property, to the east by Morris Road Southeast and to the west by the Vancil Road property. Subsurface A representative of ESNW observed, logged, and sampled 18 test pits at accessible locations within the property boundaries on April 24/25, 2023 using a machine and operator provided by the client. The explorations were completed to assess and classify the site soils and to characterize the groundwater conditions within areas proposed for new development. The maximum exploration depth was approximately 16 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 3 Earth Solutions NW, LLC The approximate locations of the test pits are depicted on Plate 2 (Test Pit Location Plan). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. Representative soil samples collected at our exploration locations were analyzed in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and USDA methods and procedures. Topsoil and Fill Topsoil was generally encountered within the upper 12 to 18 inches of existing grades at the test pit locations, except several explorations that encountered up to 24 inches. It is possible that deeper or shallower pockets of topsoil will be encountered locally across the site. The topsoil was characterized by its dark brown color, the presence of fine organic material, and small root intrusions. Fill was not encountered during the subsurface exploration; however, fill is likely present to varying degrees around existing structures. Native Soil Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of medium dense poorly and well graded gravel with sand (USCS: GP and GW) soils were encountered. At an isolated location TP-6 at 16 feet), a well graded sand with silt (USCS: SW-SM) layer was encountered. Fines contents within the native soil deposits were less than 5 percent, except the isolated layer of sand with silt which had a fines content of about 7.4 percent at TP-6. The native soils were primarily observed to be in a damp to moist condition and caving was common within the relatively clean sandy gravel deposits. Geologic Setting Geologic mapping of the area identifies recessional outwash gravel deposits (Qvrg) as the primary geologic unit underlying the site. The online WSS resource identifies Spanaway series soils (Map Units 110 and 112) roughly evenly distributed across the site. The referenced soil survey characterizes Spanaway gravelly sandy loam with slow surface water runoff and little to no hazard of water erosion and are assigned to hydrologic soil group A. Based on the soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the native soils are consistent with the geologic and soils mapping resources outlined in this section of outwash sand/gravel soils. Groundwater Groundwater was not observed, during the April 2023 subsurface explorations. Groundwater flow rates and elevations may fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the winter, spring, and early summer months. In any case, groundwater conditions should be expected within deeper site excavations, particularly during the wet season. Depending on the timing, depth, and extent of such excavations, temporary dewatering may be necessary. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 4 Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOLOGIC CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION The subject property was evaluated for the presence of geologic critical areas in general accordance with Yelm Municipal Code Chapter 18.21. Based on our review no geologic critical areas are present on or immediately adjacent to the subject site. Based on review of the Thurston County Wellhead Protection Areas map, the site is located within a 10-year Time-of-Travel area. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our investigation, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed project include earthwork, temporary excavations, subgrade preparation, foundation support, and drainage. Based on local geologic mapping and conditions observed during our fieldwork, the site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of medium dense outwash sandy gravel deposits. The proposed residential structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on undisturbed competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill placed directly on a competent subgrade. We anticipate competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will generally be encountered beginning at depths of about two to four feet below existing grades across the site. Based on our investigation, infiltration is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint due to the presence of Spanaway gravel soils across the site. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Copper Ridge, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Site preparation activities should consist of installing temporary erosion control measures, establishing grading limits, and performing site stripping. Subsequent earthwork activities will likely include site grading, utility installations, and associated site improvements. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 5 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Temporary Erosion Control The following temporary erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) are recommended:  Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls, should be considered to both minimize off-site soil tracking and provide stable surfaces at site entrances. Placing geotextile fabric underneath the quarry spalls will provide greater stability if needed.  Silt fencing should be placed around the appropriate portions of the site perimeter to prevent offsite migration of sediment.  When not in use, soil stockpiles should be covered or otherwise protected (as necessary) to reduce the potential for soil erosion, especially during periods of wet weather.  As necessary, temporary measures for controlling surface water runoff, such as interceptor trenches, sumps, or interceptor swales, should be installed prior to beginning earthwork activities. For this site, infiltration may also be considered for control of surface water runoff.  Dry soils disturbed during construction should be wetted to minimize dust and airborne soil erosion. Additional Best Management Practices, as specified by the project civil engineer and indicated on the plans, should be incorporated into construction activities. Temporary erosion control measures may be modified during construction as site conditions require, as approved by the site erosion control lead. Stripping Topsoil was encountered generally within the upper 12 to 18 inches with isolated areas up to 24 inches of existing grades at the test pit locations. ESNW should be retained to observe site stripping activities at the time of construction so that the degree of required stripping may be assessed. The exposed subgrade may still possess root elements, other organic material, or be present in a loose condition. As such, ESNW should evaluate the exposed soil subgrade to determine if further stripping or in-situ compaction efforts prior to fill operations or finish grading is necessary. Over-stripping should be avoided, as it is unnecessary and may result in increased project development costs. Topsoil and organic-rich soil are neither suitable for foundation support nor for use as structural fill. Topsoil and organic-rich soil may be used in non-structural areas if desired. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 6 Earth Solutions NW, LLC In-situ and Imported Soil The in-situ soils encountered at the subject site have a low to moderate sensitivity to moisture and were generally in a damp to moist condition at the time of exploration. Soils anticipated to be exposed on site may degrade if exposed to wet weather and construction traffic. Compaction of the soils to the levels necessary for use as structural fill may be difficult to impossible during wet weather conditions. Soils encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content will likely require aeration or treatment prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, soils that are substantially below the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning through the addition of water prior to use as structural fill. An ESNW representative should determine the suitability of in-situ soils for use as structural fill at the time of construction. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should be evaluated by ESNW during construction. The imported soil must be workable to the optimum moisture content, as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D1557), at the time of placement and compaction. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well-graded, granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter-inch fraction). Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, roadway, permanent slope, retaining wall, and utility trench backfill areas. Structural fill placed and compacted during site grading activities should meet the following specifications and guidelines:  Structural fill material Granular soil*  Moisture content At or slightly above optimum†  Relative compaction (minimum) 95 percent (Modified Proctor)‡  Loose lift thickness (maximum) 12 inches * Existing gravel soils will likely require moisture conditioning (addition of water) prior to placement and compaction. † Soil shall not be placed dry of optimum and should be evaluated by ESNW during construction. ‡ Minimum relative compaction of 90% may be feasible for mass grading activities and should be evaluated by ESNW during construction. With respect to underground utility installations and backfill, local jurisdictions may dictate the soil type(s) and compaction requirements. Unsuitable material or debris must be removed from structural areas if encountered. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 7 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Excavations and Slopes The following Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act soil classifications and maximum allowable temporary slope inclinations may be used:  Areas exposing groundwater seepage 1.5H:1V (Type C)  Loose soil and fill 1.5H:1V (Type C)  Medium dense to dense soil 1H:1V (Type B) Groundwater seepage should be anticipated during excavation activities, especially if excavations take place during the wet season. An ESNW representative should observe temporary excavations to evaluate the presence of groundwater seepage. If seepage is not observed, steeper temporary slope inclinations may be feasible pending evaluation by the geotechnical engineer. Subgrade Preparation Foundations should be constructed on competent native soil or structural fill placed directly on competent native soil. Loose or unsuitable soil conditions encountered below areas of footing and slab elements should be remedied as recommended in this report. In general, foundation subgrades on native cut surfaces should be compacted in-situ to a minimum depth of one foot below the design subgrade elevation. Uniform compaction of the foundation and slab subgrade areas will establish a relatively consistent subgrade condition below the foundation and slab elements. ESNW should observe the foundation and slab subgrade prior to placing formwork. Supplementary recommendations for subgrade improvement can be provided at the time of construction and would likely include further mechanical compaction effort and/or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill. Foundations The proposed structures can be constructed on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill placed directly on competent native soil. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are encountered at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill will likely be necessary. A representative of ESNW should confirm suitability of foundation subgrades at the time of construction. If deemed necessary, the undisturbed weathered native soils may be compacted in-situ provided the soil is at or slightly above the optimum moisture content. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 8 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Provided the structures will be supported as described above, the following parameters may be used for design of the new foundations:  Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf  Passive earth pressure 300 pcf  Coefficient of friction 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The passive earth pressure and coefficient of friction values include a safety factor of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch. The majority of the settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters may be used for retaining wall design:  Active earth pressure (unrestrained condition) 35 pcf  At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf  Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution)  Passive earth pressure 300 pcf  Coefficient of friction 0.40  Seismic surcharge 8H psf* * Where H equals the retained height (in feet). The passive earth pressure and coefficient of friction values include a safety factor of 1.5. Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should be included in the retaining wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free-draining material that extends along the height of the wall and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. Relatively clean (fines content less than 5 percent) native soils may be used as the drainage zone, but should be observed by ESNW prior to placement. The upper 12 inches of the wall backfill may consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 9 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. A perforated drainpipe should be placed along the base of the wall and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3. Seismic Design The 2018 International Building Code (2018 IBC) recognizes the most recent edition of the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual (ASCE 7-16) for seismic design, specifically with respect to earthquake loads. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the parameters and values provided below are recommended for seismic design per the 2018 IBC. Parameter Value Site Class D* Mapped short period spectral response acceleration, SS (g) 1.280 Mapped 1-second period spectral response acceleration, S1 (g) 0.463 Short period site coefficient, Fa 1.000 Long period site coefficient, Fv 1.837 Adjusted short period spectral response acceleration, SMS (g) 1.280 Adjusted 1-second period spectral response acceleration, SM1 (g) 0.850 Design short period spectral response acceleration, SDS (g) 0.853 Design 1-second period spectral response acceleration, SD1 (g) 0.567 * Assumes medium dense soil conditions, encountered to a maximum depth of 16 feet bgs during the April 2023 field exploration, remain medium dense or better to at least 100 feet bgs. † Values assume Fv may be determined using linear interpolation per Table 11.4-2 in ASCE 7-16. As indicated in the table footnote, several of the seismic design values provided above are dependent on the assumption that site-specific ground motion analysis (per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16) will not be required for the subject project. ESNW recommends the validity of this assumption be confirmed at the earliest available opportunity during the planning and early design stages of the project. Further discussion between the project structural engineer, the project owner (or their representative), and ESNW may be prudent to determine the possible impacts to the structural design due to increased earthquake load requirements under the 2018 IBC. ESNW can provide additional consulting services to aid with design efforts, including supplementary geotechnical and geophysical investigation, upon request. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated or loose soil suddenly loses internal strength and behaves as a fluid. This behavior is in response to increased pore water pressures resulting from an earthquake or another intense ground shaking. In our opinion, site susceptibility to liquefaction may be considered negligible. The absence of a shallow groundwater table and the coarse (gravel) gradation of the native soil were the primary bases for this opinion. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 10 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or at least 12 inches of new structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to slab construction. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free-draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free-draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the number 200 sieve, based on the minus three- quarters-inch fraction. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. The relatively clean (less than 5 percent fines) native gravel soils may be used or considered functionally equivalent as a capillary break; however, ESNW should observe native soils prior to placement to confirm suitability. If used, the vapor barrier should consist of a material specifically designed to function as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Drainage Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve passive elements such as interceptor trenches, interceptor swales, and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during preliminary grading to identify areas of seepage and provide recommendations to reduce the potential for seepage-related instability. Finish grades must be designed to direct surface drain water away from structures and slopes. Water must not be allowed to pond adjacent to structures or slopes. Based on the presence of relatively clean sand/gravel soils on this site, footing drains may be omitted at the owner’s discretion. If footing drains are omitted, we recommend ESNW be contacted to observe the subgrade to ensure the entire alignment exposes relatively free-draining sand/gravel. If footing drains will be installed, a foundation drain should be installed along building perimeter footings. A typical foundation drain detail is provided on Plate 4. Preliminary Infiltration Evaluation As indicated on the referenced preliminary site plan, a stormwater tract will be created in each of the project areas. The Vancil Road plat will include a storm tract in the western portion of the site, while the Morris Road plat will include a storm tract in the eastern portion. ESNW excavated three test pits in each storm tract (TP-5 through TP-7 for Vancil Road and TP-11 through TP-13 for the Morris Road site). Native soils encountered across the site during our fieldwork were characterized primarily as recessional outwash gravel deposits with relatively low fines contents. Based on our laboratory analyses, the native soils classify primarily as USDA loamy sand with fines contents ranging from about 1.3 to 4.7 percent with one outlier (TP-6) with a fines content of 7.4 percent. The results of our laboratory analyses are included in Appendix B of this report. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 11 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Using Method 3 - Soil Grain Size Analysis Method, in conjunction with the presence of Type A soil on the subject site, we determined a preliminary long-term design infiltration rate to be used primarily as a feasibility screening tool. A preliminary long-term design rate is calculated following the equation below, located in the Pierce County Stormwater and Site Development Manual. 𝑙𝑜𝑔ଵ଴ ሺ𝐾௦௔௧ ሻ ൌ െ1.57 ൅ 1.90𝐷ଵ଴ ൅ 0.015𝐷଺଴ െ 0.013𝐷ଽ଴ െ 2.08𝐹௙௜௡௘௦ The relatively clean Spanaway (Type A) gravels observed in across the site exhibit favorable infiltration characteristics and will likely be feasible for full infiltration. Based on the soil samples obtained at TP-5 through TP-7 and TP-11 through TP-13 within the vicinity of the proposed infiltration facilities at representative depths, preliminary calculated long-term design rates ranging between 7 inches/hour to 87 in/hr were calculated. We recommend using an allowable infiltration rate of 20 in/hr for the Vancil Road plat and 30 in/hr for preliminary sizing calculations/design for the proposed Morris Road stormwater facility. In-situ pilot infiltration testing should be completed for final design of the infiltration ponds. Groundwater monitoring piezometers were installed at three test locations within each of the proposed stormwater tracts for future groundwater monitoring services, to be completed in the coming wet season. While no indications of seasonal groundwater were observed during the subsurface investigation, winter monitoring may result in alterations to future facility design based on potential groundwater conditions. Based on our field observations and laboratory analyses, the native gravelly soils do not meet the requirements for water quality treatment per Volume V, Chapter 6.3 of the stormwater manual. Specifically, the measured soil infiltration rate significantly higher than the maximum allowable nine inches per hour. Additionally, the native Spanaway gravels likely possess a lower cation exchange capacity (CEC) and organic content than required by the manual. Therefore, a treatment layer or other provision will likely be required for facility designs. Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, the on-site soil will generally be suitable for support of utilities. Based on the conditions encountered at the exploration locations, groundwater seepage may be exposed within utility trench excavations and will likely require temporary shoring and construction dewatering. Use of the native soil as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations will depend on the in-situ moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. If native soil is placed below the optimum moisture content, settlement will likely occur once wet weather impacts the trenches. As such, backfill soils should be properly moisture conditioned, as necessary, to ensure acceptability of the soil moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Large clasts greater than about six inches should be removed from utility trench backfill if encountered. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report or to the applicable requirements of the presiding jurisdiction. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 12 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Preliminary Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proof rolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications previously detailed in this report. Soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions will require remedial measures, such as overexcavation and/or placement of thick crushed rock or structural fill sections, prior to pavement. Cement treated base may be considered for stabilizing the subgrade if local jurisdictions allow this method of treatment. We anticipate new pavement sections will be subjected primarily to passenger vehicle traffic. For lightly loaded pavement areas subjected primarily to passenger vehicles, the following preliminary pavement sections may be considered:  A minimum of two inches of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or;  A minimum of two inches of HMA placed over three inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB). Heavier traffic areas generally require thicker pavement sections depending on site usage, pavement life expectancy, and site traffic. For preliminary design purposes, the following pavement sections for occasional truck traffic and access roadway areas may be considered:  Three inches of HMA placed over six inches of CRB, or;  Three inches of HMA placed over four and one-half inches of ATB. A representative of ESNW should be requested to observe subgrade conditions prior to placement of CRB or ATB. As necessary, supplemental recommendations for achieving subgrade stability and drainage can be provided. If on-site roads will be constructed with an inverted crown, additional drainage measures may be recommended to assist in maintaining road subgrade and pavement stability. Final pavement design recommendations, including recommendations for heavy traffic areas, access roads, and frontage improvement areas, can be provided once final traffic loading has been determined. Road standards utilized by the governing jurisdiction may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. The HMA, ATB, and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Copper Ridge, LLC ES-9150 June 14, 2023 Page 13 Earth Solutions NW, LLC LIMITATIONS This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Copper Ridge, LLC, and its representatives. The recommendations and conclusions provided in this study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is neither expressed nor implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the exploration locations may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review final project plans with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services as needed during future design and construction phases of the project. Drawn CAM Checked SSR Date June 2023 Date 06/06/2023 Proj.No.9150 Plate 1 Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Vicinity Map 10800 Vancil Road S.E.Subdivision Thurston County (Yelm),Washington Reference: Thurston County,Washington OpenStreetMap.org NORTH NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate. Yelm SITE Plate Proj.No. Date Checked DrawnEarthSolutionsNWLLC GeotechnicalEngineering,ConstructionObservation/TestingandEnvironmentalServicesEarthSolutionsNWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLCTP-1 TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5TP-6 TP-7 TP-8 TP-9 TP-10 TP-11 TP-12 TP-13 TP-14 TP-15 TP-16 TP-17 TP-18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1 2345 67 89101112 1314 1516 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 360 360vancilroads.e.vancil court s.e. birkland street s.e.morrisroads.e.Vancil Plat Morris Plat Storm Tract Storm Tract 0 75 150 300 Sc ale in Feet1"=150'NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate. NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and /or proposed site features.The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. LEGEND Approximate Location of ESNW Test Pit,Proj.No. ES-9150,April 2023 Subject Site Proposed Lot Number TP-1 NORTH 21 TestPitLocationPlan10800VancilRoadS.E.SubdivisionThurstonCounty(Yelm),WashingtonCAM SSR 06/06/2023 9150 2 Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Drawn CAM Checked SSR Date June 2023 Date 06/06/2023 Proj.No.9150 Plate 3 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC NOTES: Free-draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing No.4 sieve should be 25 to 75 percent. Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free-draining Backfill,per ESNW recommendations. Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1-inch Drain Rock. LEGEND: Free-draining Structural Backfill 1-inch Drain Rock 18"Min. Structural Fill Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAW ING Retaining Wall Drainage Detail 10800 Vancil Road S.E.Subdivision Thurston County (Yelm),Washington Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Drawn CAM Checked SSR Date June 2023 Date 06/06/2023 Proj.No.9150 Plate 4 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Slope Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) 18"Min. NOTES: Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. Surface Seal to consist of 12"of less permeable,suitable soil.Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal:native soil or other low-permeability material. 1-inch Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAW ING Footing Drain Detail 10800 Vancil Road S.E.Subdivision Thurston County (Yelm),Washington Earth Solutions NW, LLC Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs ES-9150 Subsurface conditions on site were explored by excavating 18 test pits on April 24/25, 2023, respectively, using equipment and operators provided by the client. The approximate locations of the test pits and borings are illustrated on Plate 2 of this study. The subsurface exploration logs are provided in this Appendix. The maximum exploration depth was 16 feet bgs. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. >12%Fines<5%FinesHighlyOrganicSoilsSiltsandClaysLiquidLimit50orMoreSiltsandClaysLiquidLimitLessThan50Fine-GrainedSoils-50%orMorePassesNo.200SieveCoarse-GrainedSoils-MoreThan50%RetainedonNo.200SieveSands-50%orMoreofCoarseFractionPassesNo.4SieveGravels-MoreThan50%ofCoarseFractionRetainedonNo.4Sieve>12%Fines<5%FinesGW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Well-graded gravel with or without sand,little to no fines Poorly graded gravel with or without sand,little to no fines Silty gravel with or without sand Clayey gravel with or without sand Well-graded sand with or without gravel,little to no fines Poorly graded sand with or without gravel,little to no fines Silty sand with or without gravel Clayey sand with or without gravel Silt with or without sand or gravel;sandy or gravelly silt Clay of low to medium plasticity;lean clay with or without sand or gravel; sandy or gravelly lean clay Organic clay or silt of low plasticity Elastic silt with or without sand or gravel;sandy or gravelly elastic silt Clay of high plasticity; fat clay with or without sand or gravel;sandy or gravelly fat clay Organic clay or silt of medium to high plasticity Peat,muck,and other highly organic soils EEaarrtthh SSoolluuttiioonnss NNWW LLC Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services EXPLORATION LOG KEYFillFILLMadeGround Classifications of soils in this geotechnical report and as shown on the exploration logs are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations,which include density/consistency,moisture condition,grain size,and plasticity estimates,and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual-manual and/or laboratory classification methods of ASTM D2487 and D2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System. Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency Coarse-Grained Soils: Fine-Grained Soils: SPT blows/foot SPT blows/foot Test Symbols &Units Fines =Fines Content (%) MC =Moisture Content (%) DD =Dry Density (pcf) Str =Shear Strength (tsf) PID =Photoionization Detector (ppm) OC =Organic Content (%) CEC =Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 g) LL =Liquid Limit (%) PL =Plastic Limit (%) PI =Plasticity Index (%) Component Definitions Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number Smaller than No.200 (0.075 mm) Boulders Modifier Definitions Percentage by Weight (Approx.) <5 5 to 14 15 to 29 >30_ Modifier Trace (sand,silt,clay,gravel) Slightly (sandy,silty,clayey,gravelly) Sandy,silty,clayey,gravelly Very (sandy,silty,clayey,gravelly) Moisture Content Dry -Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to the touch Damp -Perceptible moisture,likely below optimum MC Moist -Damp but no visible water,likely at/near optimum MC Wet -Water visible but not free draining, likely above optimum MC Saturated/Water Bearing -Visible free water,typically below groundwater table Symbols Cement grout surface seal Bentonite chips Grout seal Filter pack with blank casing section Screened casing or Hydrotip with filter pack End cap ATD =At time of drilling Static water level (date) _>50 Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard <4 4 to 9 10 to 29 30 to 49 <2 2 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 14 15 to 29 _>30 EEaarrtthh NNWWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Cobbles Gravel Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Silt and Clay Larger than 12" 3"to 12" 3"to No.4 (4.75 mm) 3"to 3/4" 3/4"to No.4 (4.75 mm) No.4 (4.75 mm)to No.200 (0.075 mm) No.4 (4.75 mm)to No.10 (2.00 mm) No.10 (2.00 mm)to No.40 (0.425 mm) No.40 (0.425 mm)to No.200 (0.075 mm) 356.5 343.0 GB GB GB MC = 7.5 MC = 8.3 MC = 7.6 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 4" -slight caving to BOH Test pit terminated at 15.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 15.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 358 ft LATITUDE 46.93068 LONGITUDE -122.59518 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 357.0 344.0 GB GB GB MC = 5.8 MC = 8.8 Fines = 3.8 MC = 7.1 TPSL GW Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -slight caving to BOH, probed 3" [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND] -becomes gray Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 2.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.0 14.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 358 ft LATITUDE 46.9305 LONGITUDE -122.59428 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 359.0 348.5 GB GB MC = 5.2 MC = 7.8 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -moderate caving to BOH -becomes gray Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 2.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.0 11.5DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 360 ft LATITUDE 46.93058 LONGITUDE -122.59333 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 360.0 349.0 GB GB MC = 6.8 MC = 9.3 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -moderate caving to BOH -probed 4" Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 2.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.0 12.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 361 ft LATITUDE 46.93021 LONGITUDE -122.59339 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 355.5 352.0 344.0 GB GB MC = 6.8 MC = 8.1 Fines = 4.7 TPSL GP GW Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -moderate caving to BOH, probed 3" Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp to moist [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly loamy coarse SAND] Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. Piezo installed. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 2.5 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 5.0 13.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 357 ft LATITUDE 46.93001 LONGITUDE -122.59472 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 355.5 348.0 342.0 341.0 GB GB MC = 7.7 MC = 10.9 Fines = 7.4 TPSL GP GW SW- SM Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -slight caving to BOH, probed 3" Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp to moist Brown well-graded SAND with silt, medium dense to dense, moist [USDA Classification: very gravelly loamy coarse SAND] Test pit terminated at 16.0 feet below existing grade. Piezo installed. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 9.0 15.0 16.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 357 ft LATITUDE 46.93002 LONGITUDE -122.59521 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 355.5 343.0 GB GB MC = 7.8 MC = 7.2 Fines = 4.9 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -moderate caving to BOH [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly loamy coarse SAND] Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. Piezo installed. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 14.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 357 ft LATITUDE 46.9303 LONGITUDE -122.59519 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 355.5 342.0 GB GB MC = 7.4 MC = 8.5 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -slight caving to BOH Test pit terminated at 15.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 15.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 357 ft LATITUDE 46.92922 LONGITUDE -122.59478 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 356.5 345.0 GB GB MC = 8.0 Fines = 5.3 MC = 8.1 TPSL GP- GM Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, medium dense, damp -probed 4" [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly loamy coarse SAND] -slight caving to BOH -becomes gray Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 13.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 358 ft LATITUDE 46.92958 LONGITUDE -122.59398 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 357.5 345.5 GB GB MC = 7.9 MC = 7.9 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 12" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -slight caving to BOH, probed 3" -becomes gray Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 13.5DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 359 ft LATITUDE 46.92938 LONGITUDE -122.59327 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Field Grass AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-10 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 353.5 340.0 GB GB MC = 9.1 MC = 5.3 Fines = 2.2 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -moderate caving to BOH -becomes gray [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND] Test pit terminated at 15.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. Piezo installed. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 15.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 355 ft LATITUDE 46.93071 LONGITUDE -122.59039 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-11 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 354.5 342.0 GB GB MC = 7.0 MC = 6.0 Fines = 3.5 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -moderate caving to BOH [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly loamy coarse SAND] Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. Piezo installed. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 14.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 356 ft LATITUDE 46.93049 LONGITUDE -122.59051 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-12 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 349.5 341.0 336.0 GB GB MC = 7.3 MC = 4.8 Fines = 1.3 TPSL GP GW Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -slight caving to BOH Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp to moist [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly SAND] Test pit terminated at 15.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. Piezo installed. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.5 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 10.0 15.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/24/23 COMPLETED 4/24/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 351 ft LATITUDE 46.93071 LONGITUDE -122.59075 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-13 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 353.5 342.5 GB GB GB MC = 8.8 MC = 5.2 Fines = 1.5 MC = 7.1 TPSL GW Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 24" Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp to moist -probed 3" -moderate caving to BOH [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND] Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.0 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 12.5DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/25/23 COMPLETED 4/25/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 355 ft LATITUDE 46.93064 LONGITUDE -122.59146 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-14 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 354.5 340.0 GB GB GB MC = 10.6 MC = 8.5 MC = 9.8 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -moderate caving to BOH -becomes gray Test pit terminated at 16.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.5 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 16.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/25/23 COMPLETED 4/25/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 356 ft LATITUDE 46.93019 LONGITUDE -122.59064 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-15 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG GB GB MC = 9.2 Fines = 4.3 MC = 7.4 TPSL GW Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 24" Brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly loamy coarse SAND] -slight caving to BOH Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.5 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 2.0 14.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/25/23 COMPLETED 4/25/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION LATITUDE 46.9302 LONGITUDE -122.59146 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-16 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG GB GB MC = 7.9 MC = 6.6 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 24" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 3" -moderate caving to BOH Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.5 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 2.0 12.0DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/25/23 COMPLETED 4/25/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION LATITUDE 46.93064 LONGITUDE -122.59233 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-17 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG 359.5 347.5 GB GB MC = 8.4 MC = 4.8 TPSL GP Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 18" Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, damp -probed 4" -slight caving to BOH Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet below existing grade due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Caving observed from 3.5 feet to BOH. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 1.5 13.5DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 SAMPLE TYPENUMBEREXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided DATE STARTED 4/25/23 COMPLETED 4/25/23 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 361 ft LATITUDE 46.93026 LONGITUDE -122.59252 LOGGED BY SKH CHECKED BY SSR NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Forest Duff AT TIME OF EXCAVATIONAT TIME OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-18 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - 9150.GPJ - GINT US.GDT - 6/6/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 TESTS U.S.C.S.MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAPHICLOG Earth Solutions NW, LLC Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-9150 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 3 D100 140 Specimen Identification 1 fine 6 HYDROMETER 304 3.8 4.7 7.4 4.9 5.3 101/2 COBBLES Specimen Identification 4 coarse 20 401.5 8 14 USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GW with Sand. USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand. USCS: GW with Sand. USDA: Brown Very Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand. USCS: SW-SM with Gravel. USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand. USCS: GP with Sand. USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand. USCS: GP-GM with Sand. 6 60 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTD10 1.868 2.94 0.87 3.741 3.196 12.425 12.362 4.834 13.65 11.317 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 100 44.36 40.04 32.95 41.95 40.31 LL TP-02 TP-05 TP-06 TP-07 TP-09 0.28 0.309 0.147 0.325 0.281 3/4 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS GRAVEL SAND 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 %Silt 1.00 2.26 1.07 3.15 3.22 TP-02 TP-05 TP-06 TP-07 TP-09 2 2003 Cc CuClassification %Clay 16 PID60 D30 coarse SILT OR CLAYfinemedium GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 3/8 50 7.5ft. 13.0ft. 16.0ft. 14.0ft. 2.0ft. 7.50ft. 13.00ft. 16.00ft. 14.00ft. 2.00ft. PL PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GRAIN SIZE USDA ES-9150 10800 VANCIL ROAD S.E. SUBDIVISION.GPJ GINT US LAB.GDT 5/3/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 3 D100 140 Specimen Identification 1 fine 6 HYDROMETER 304 2.2 3.5 1.3 1.5 4.3 101/2 COBBLES Specimen Identification 4 coarse 20 401.5 8 14 USDA: Gray Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GP with Sand. USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand. USCS: GP with Sand. USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Sand. USCS: GW with Sand. USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: GW with Sand. USDA: Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand. USCS: GW with Sand. 6 60 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTD10 6.273 5.708 3.987 6.876 2.699 16.693 14.225 14.5 21.278 9.585 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 100 27.25 32.63 34.17 23.12 20.48 LL TP-11 TP-12 TP-13 TP-14 TP-16 0.613 0.436 0.424 0.92 0.468 3/4 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS GRAVEL SAND 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 %Silt 3.85 5.25 2.58 2.41 1.62 TP-11 TP-12 TP-13 TP-14 TP-16 2 2003 Cc CuClassification %Clay 16 PID60 D30 coarse SILT OR CLAYfinemedium GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 3/8 50 15.0ft. 14.0ft. 15.0ft. 6.0ft. 3.0ft. 15.00ft. 14.00ft. 15.00ft. 6.00ft. 3.00ft. PL PROJECT NUMBER ES-9150 PROJECT NAME 10800 Vancil Road S.E. Subdivision GRAIN SIZE USDA ES-9150 10800 VANCIL ROAD S.E. SUBDIVISION.GPJ GINT US LAB.GDT 5/3/23Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Report Distribution ES-9150 EMAIL ONLY Copper Ridge, LLC P.O. Box 73790 Puyallup, Washington 98373 Attention: Evan Mann