A06_Specs_03_XAPPENDIX-A_ORCA_Geotech_Report.pdf

122562/POR11R153 Page i of iii November 23, 2011 Copyright 2011 Kleinfelder Copyright 2011 Kleinfelder Revision No. 1, Dated December 5, 2011

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

PROPOSED BALCONY

OREGON CAVE CHATEAU

20000 CAVES HIGHWAY

JOSEPHINE COUNTY

CAVE JUNCTION, OREGON

Kleinfelder Project No. 122562 November 23, 2011

Copyright 2011 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC

PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.

AYellowbear Text Box mmmmmmmmmmmm

122562/POR11R153 Page ii of iii November 23, 2011

November 23, 2011 Project No. 122562

Mr. Andrew G. Blyholder

ARCHITECT RESOURCE GROUP, INC.

Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107 San Francisco, CA 94111

Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation

Proposed Balcony Oregon Cave Chateau 200000 Caves Highway Josephine County Cave Junction, Oregon

Dear Mr. Blyholder:

This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed balcony at Oregon Cave Chateau located at 20000 Caves Highway in Josephine County, Oregon. Our scope of work included a field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and preparation of this report.

We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.

Noom T. Aksharadananda, P.E Jeanne M, Niemer, P.E., G.E.

Staff Professional Senior Project Manager mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

122562/POR11R153 Page iii of iii November 23, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.4 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING

3.5 LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1.1 ENGINEERED FILL

5.1.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

5.1.3 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

5.1.4 TRENCH BACKFILL

5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

5.3 MICROPILE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY

5.3.2 PILE INSTALLATION AND TESTING

5.4 SURFACE DRAINAGE

6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

6.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW

6.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

7.0 LIMITATIONS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Earth Pressure Diagram Figure 4 Liquefaction Analysis

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Field Explorations Appendix B Laboratory Testing mmmmmmmmmmmm

122562/POR11R153 Page 1 of 13 November 23, 2011 Copyright 2011 Kleinfelder Revision No. 1, Dated December 5, 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed balcony at Oregon Caves Chateau, located at 20000 Caves Highway in Josephine County, Oregon The site is located approximately 18 miles east of Cave Junction, Oregon, as shown on Figure 1.

The project will consist of constructing a new three-level balcony on the west side of an existing three-story chateau building. The new balcony will replace fire-escape structures that were removed in the 1980’s. Based on information provided by the structural engineer, SOHA Engineers, we anticipate that column loads will not exceed 60 kips and the existing building will resist lateral loads from the new balcony structures. Since the chateau is an historical landmark, an existing retaining wall will remain in place, undisturbed. We understand that foundations for the balcony are to be located about three feet behind the existing retaining wall. We anticipate the use of tie-beams to transfer lateral loads at the ground level between the proposed balcony structures and existing chateau foundations.

122562/POR11R153 Page 2 of 13 November 23, 2011

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of our services was to explore subsurface conditions in order to provide recommendations for design and construction of the proposed balcony.

Field Preparation Our field preparation included -

� Marking exploration locations in the field and arranging for both one-call (public) and private utility locates to identify and mark subsurface utilities located within an approximate 100-foot to the west from the existing building.

� Coordinating the field exploration schedule with drilling/excavating and locate subcontractors.

Field Exploration Our field exploration included -

� Completing one hand-dug excavation to about four feet bgs, immediately adjacent to the west side of the building intending to observe the width and depth of the building foundation. We backfilled the excavation with the excavated material.

� Observing the drilling for four borings to depths ranging from 10 feet to 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs), using subcontracted drilling equipment.

� Maintaining detailed logs that document materials and ground water encountered during drilling.

� Collecting soil samples at representative depths and classifying the soils in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

� Transporting samples to our Portland laboratory for testing.

Laboratory Testing Our laboratory testing program included -

� Standard classification of soils in general accordance with ASTM D-2488, to confirm our field classifications.

� Moisture content testing in general accordance with ASTM D2216 on four representative samples.

� Sieve analysis testing (percent passing the number 200 Sieve) on three samples, in general accordance with ASTM D1140.

� Atterberg Limits tests in general accordance with ASTM D4318 on three samples, to evaluate plasticity characteristics of the site soils.

122562/POR11R153 Page 3 of 13 November 23, 2011

Geotechnical Analysis and Report Preparation Our report includes -

� A discussion of the geologic conditions and seismic hazards of the area.

� A discussion of the subsurface and groundwater conditions encountered at each exploration location.

� Logs of the borings and test pit with USCS classification, and results from laboratory tests or field test correlations as applicable.

� Recommendations for site preparation: grading and drainage, stripping depths, fill type for imported materials, compaction criteria, trench excavation and backfill, use of on-site soils and wet/dry weather earthwork.

� Geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of micro piles with steel pipe casings including allowable axial capacity.

� Recommendations for the International Building Code (IBC) site coefficients, and Seismic Design Category, based on site soil classification; and a discussion of liquefaction potential at the site.

122562/POR11R153 Page 4 of 13 November 23, 2011

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The project site is located in the southeast portion of Josephine County, in the northwestern part of the Klamath Mountains geomorphic province of southwestern Oregon and northern California. The Klamath Mountains province consists of north-trending arcuate belts of rocks which are convex to the west. The oldest belt to the east and the successively younger belts to the west are each bounded by east-dipping thrust faults along which older rocks have overridden younger rocks. The area is considered to have once been part of the continental margin along which an oceanic plate was subducted. Most of the rock formations are interpreted to have been portions of ancient sea floor rocks, or island-arc volcanic deposits.

Available geologic literature places the project location in an area mapped of rocks of the Applegate Group, which are mainly volcanic in origin and were apparently deposited in a submarine environment. Applegate Group rocks generally includes flow breccias and tuffs.

These rocks may range in age from Early Permian to Late Triassic.

3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

The site is bounded by Caves Highway (Hwy 46) to the north, east and south, and a downhill ravine to the west. An approximate 8-foot tall rock retaining wall constructed from hard to weathered, gray basalt is located adjacent to the existing building. The ravine includes steep slopes (possibly greater than 1.5H: 1V) on the north and south with a drainage running west-east at the bottom. The drainage collects water from a pond in front of the chateau that flows through a box culvert underneath the building and the existing retaining wall.

At the time of our visit, the ground surface above the wall formed a level area next to the building and was covered with grass. The elevation at the top of the wall is approximately 35 feet below the surface elevation of the Caves Highway. Below the wall, the ground surface is hilly and steep and slopes down to a hiking trail. The area was covered by bushes and shrubs along the front of the wall and on the side of the trail. During our field reconnaissance, we encountered basalt outcrops in most areas throughout the site

122562/POR11R153 Page 5 of 13 November 23, 2011

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

We conducted our field explorations from October 17th to 19th, 2011. We observed the excavation for one hand-dug test pit and four borings in the locations shown on Figure 2. The subsurface conditions that we observed included between seven and 15 feet of fill consisting of loose to medium dense, poorly-graded gravel with cobbles to boulders, sand, and silt over about seven feet of loose to medium dense native poorly-graded gravel with angular cobbles, sand and silt. We encountered by medium hard basalt below the native gravel at about 23 feet bgs in boring B3/2.

Appendix A includes logs of the soil exploration and a description of our subsurface exploration program.

3.4 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING

We encountered ground water in borings B-3 and B-3/2 on the lower side of the retaining wall at depths ranging from 7 to 17 feet below the ground surface.

We encountered caving in the loose soils between four and 16 feet bgs.

3.5 LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION

We performed laboratory testing of representative soil samples to determine geotechnical properties including natural moisture content, grain size and plasticity characteristics. We present a description of our laboratory testing program and test results in Appendices A and B.

122562/POR11R153 Page 6 of 13 November 23, 2011

3.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory test results, and field reconnaissance, the balcony structures may be constructed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Loose granular soils with cobbles and boulders, deep bedrock, shallow groundwater, limited access, and potential negative consequences of load transfer to the existing retaining wall present unique challenges at this site, however. Shallow, spread foundations would apply additional load to the existing, historic retaining wall, and would also be subject to liquefaction settlement in the loose, granular soils during a design level earthquake. Drilled piers, while a viable option to transfer load below the existing wall and achieve better performance during a design level earthquake, are not considered a feasible solution due to site access constraints.

We recommend micropiles as the preferred foundation alternative for the balcony foundation.

Micropiles consist of a continuously threaded reinforcing tendon as the load carrying steel member together with a grout body of portland cement that transfers tension and compression forces through skin friction between the grout and the surrounding soil or bedrock. Micropiles can be installed in areas with limited access, using casing advance, percussion or rotary drilling techniques. These techniques can efficiently drill through the soil and bedrock, while maintaining hole stability.

Groundwater contributed significantly to caving in the test borings. We also anticipate groundwater levels at the site will fluctuate in response to water level in the nearby drainage and seasonal variations in precipitation, changes in site utilization, or other factors. Additionally, discontinuous zones of perched water may exist at varying locations and depths beneath the ground surface. Any foundation alternative will need to account for and adjust installation procedures to accommodate groundwater.

We present our recommendations for design and construction in the sections that follow.

122562/POR11R153 Page 7 of 13 November 23, 2011

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1.1 ENGINEERED FILL

On-site Soils

The on-site soils can be used as site grading fill and trench backfill if the material is free of particles larger than three inches in diameter, organic matter, and other deleterious materials. If the material cannot be properly moisture conditioned, we recommend using imported granular material. The granular on-site soils may be used as structural fill as long as they meet the gradation requirements outlined in the following section.

Structural Fill and Select Imported Granular Fill

Structural fill should consist of crushed gravel and sand that is fairly well graded between coarse and fine sizes. It should contain no clay balls, roots, organic matter or other deleterious materials, and have a maximum particle size of two inches, with less than 12 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve. Imported fill materials to be used for engineered fill should be sampled and tested for approval by the geotechnical engineer prior to being transported to the site.

Please provide a minimum of two business days to allow for qualification testing.

Imported Aggregate Base Rock/Crushed Rock

Aggregate base rock should consist of imported clean, durable, crushed angular rock. Such rock should be well-graded, contain no roots, organic matter and other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 1-1/2 inch, and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve.

5.1.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

Fill soils should be compacted at moisture contents that are near optimum. The optimum moisture content varies with the soil gradation and should be evaluated during construction. Fill material that is not near optimum moisture content should be moisture conditioned.

Fill and backfill material should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts, and be compacted with appropriate equipment to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density for granular materials, and 92 percent of the maximum dry density for fine-grained material, if used. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material and compaction equipment used.

122562/POR11R153 Page 8 of 13 November 23, 2011

5.1.3 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is the responsibility of the contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing the information below as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

Near-surface soils that we encountered during our field investigation consisted of interlayered sand, silt, and clay. These materials may be considered Type C soil with regard to the OSHA regulations. OSHA requires a maximum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) for Type C soil for excavations up to 20 feet deep. Shallower excavation slopes and dewatering of excavations will be required if groundwater seepage occurs. The Contractor’s OSHA-qualified “competent person” must make the actual determination of soil type and allowable slope inclination in the field whenever personnel exposure is anticipated.

5.1.4 TRENCH BACKFILL

Trench backfill should consist of approved, on-site or import soils placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches loose thickness and compacted to at least 92 percent of maximum dry density based on ASTM D 698. Trench backfill should be mechanically compacted; jetting is not an appropriate method for compaction, and should not be used.

122562/POR11R153 Page 9 of 13 November 23, 2011

5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

We recommend using the following seismic site parameters for design. We determined these parameters using the Seismic Hazard Curves, Response Parameters and Design Parameters application from the USGS for the approximate center of the site (Latitude 42.0984°, Longitude - 123.4077°).

Table 2 2009 IBC Seismic Design Parameters

Design Parameter Parameter Value

Site Classification D

Ss (g) 0.828

S1 (g) 0.404

Fa 1.169

Fv 1.596

SMS (g) 0.968

SM1 (g) 0.646

SDS (g) 0.645

SD1 (g) 0.431

5.3 MICROPILE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Micropile foundations are typically designed and installed by a specialty contractor experienced in this type of construction. We recommend the original geotechnical evaluation report with the boring logs be provided to the selected specialty contractor so that the contractor can select the appropriate equipment for installation. We present design and construction criteria for the foundation system in the following paragraphs.

122562/POR11R153 Page 10 of 13 November 23, 2011

We recommend using the following ultimate bond strengths for design of micropiles as shown below:

Soil Unit Bond Strength, psi

Loose gravel fill (4-15 feet bgs) 0

Medium Dense Native gravel and cobbles (15-25 feet bgs)

Basalt > 25 feet bgs 50

This bond stress can be used for tension and compression loads. End bearing should not be considered in the design of the micropiles. A factor of safety of at least 3 should be used for design.

Micropile diameters can range from 3 to 12 inches. The minimum diameter will be dependent on the required lateral capacity and the equipment required to install the piles. In general, the smaller equipment that will be less disruptive to the site will be limited to the smaller pile diameters.

We recommend a center-to-center spacing of at least three diameters when designing for vertical loading conditions. Micropiles aligned in the direction of lateral forces should have a center-to-center spacing of at least 6 diameters.

The reinforcement should be installed with at least 2 centralizers. A larger center reinforcement or permanent casing steel may be required because of structural considerations. Grout should consist of a high strength (minimum 4,000 psi), non-shrink mix, batched on site, and should be.

installed with the use of tremie tube, from the bottom of the micropile. Pressure grouting of micropiles may be considered to increase bond stress in the lower portion of the pile; however, pressure grouting should not be used in the upper 12 feet (or more) of the pile to prevent loading on the retaining wall.

A representative of our firm should observe installation of micropiles in order to confirm that subsurface conditions are as we anticipated.

We recommend that the contractor reference the Federal Highways Administration Manual

“Micropile Design and Construction” (FHWA NHI-05-039) to aid in design and construction.

122562/POR11R153 Page 11 of 13 November 23, 2011

5.3.1 LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY

Lateral loads on pile caps can be resisted by passive earth pressure on the sides and by friction on the bearing surface. We recommend that ultimate passive earth pressures be calculated using an equivalent unit weight of 350 pcf if the pile caps are confined by the loose to medium dense gravel with silt and sand. We recommend using a friction coefficient of 0.34 for foundations placed on the gravel.

We do not anticipate lateral loads to be transferred to the micropiles, based on our understanding that the pile caps will be connected to the existing foundation with tie beams. Our recommendations assume that the existing foundation can support lateral loads from the balcony structure; however, this assumption should be confirmed by the structural engineer prior to finalizing the design.

5.3.2 PILE INSTALLATION AND TESTING

The micropiles should be subject to testing to verify the design. The verification pile should be installed with the same procedures that are planned for the production piles, and be loaded to at least 200 percent of the design capacity for verification testing. We should review the load testing program prior to implementation.

5.4 SURFACE DRAINAGE

Site grading should be carefully planned to promote positive drainage away from the structures and to divert surface water away from the site. Landscaping irrigated areas should be kept as far from the proposed structures as possible.

122562/POR11R153 Page 12 of 13 November 23, 2011

5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

6.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW

Because the design details for the proposed project were not available at the time this report was prepared, we strongly recommend that Kleinfelder be given the opportunity to review the geotechnical aspects of the project plans and specifications as the design is being developed to confirm the applicability of our recommendations, or to make appropriate modifications. In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to review the final project plans and specifications, there is a substantially increased risk of misinterpretation or misapplication of our geotechnical recommendations.

6.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

We recommend that micropile installing be observed by a representative from Kleinfelder, including verifying drilling depths, size of steel reinforcement, reviewing grout materials delivered to the project, maintaining a log of the soils, and verifying minimum embedment and bearing material. The purpose of these services would be to provide us the opportunity to observe the soil and pile conditions encountered during construction; evaluate the applicability of the recommendations to the soil conditions encountered; and to recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described in this report.

In addition, we offer the following materials testing services to assist in your construction:

• Observation and testing of concrete;

• Observation and testing of earthwork materials;

• Observation and testing of structural steel;

• Observation and testing of field welding.

122562/POR11R153 Page 13 of 13 November 23, 2011

6.0 LIMITATIONS

We performed our work in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. We based our conclusions, opinions and recommendations on a limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided.

This report may be used only by the Owner, client, and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report. We performed our work based on project information provided by Architectural Resource Group. If we are not retained to review plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the plans and specifications, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for the suitability of our recommendations. In addition, if there are any changes in the field to the plans and specifications, the client must obtain written approval from Kleinfelder’s engineer that such changes do not affect our recommendations. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelder’s recommendations.

Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies will yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk involved. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service that provide adequate information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. More extensive studies could be performed to reduce these uncertainties.

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at our explorations. The recommendations should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other projects without our prior review and consent.

Site

A T

T A

C H

E D

X

R E

F S

A T

T A

C H

I M

A G

E S m a g e s

A e r i a l j p g

I m a g e s

O r e g o n

C a v e j p g

I m a g e s

P i c t u r e p n g a g e s

P i c t u r e p a g e s

T e r r a i n p a g e s

V i c i n i t y j p g

FILE NAME:

122562-Figs.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN:

PROJECT NO.

C A

D

F

I L

U

J

S t e w a r t

P o r t l a d r a f t i n g

L

Y

O U

T

F i g

P

L O

T T

E

N o v p

J t e w a r t www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

S E

A T

T L

E

W

A

Oregon Cave Chateau

20000 Caves Highway

Cave Junction, Oregon

FIGURE

1J.S.

N.A.

October 2011

122562

Site Vicinity

Not to Scale

N

Reference: ArcGIS Online, 2011.

B-1

B-3

B-3/2

B-2

TP-1

A T

T A

C H

X

R E

F S

A T

T A

C H

M

A G

E a g e s

A e r i a l j p g

I m a g e s

O r e g o n

C a v e j p g

I m a g e s

P i c t u r e p a g e s

P i c t u r e p a g e s

T e r r a i n p a g e s

V i c i n i t y j p g

FILE NAME:

122562-Figs.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN:

PROJECT NO.

C A

D

F

I L

U

J

S t e w a r t

P o r t l a d r a f t i n g

Y

O U

F i g

P

L O

T T

E

N o v p t e w a r t www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

S E

A T

T L

E

W

A

Oregon Cave Chateau

20000 Caves Highway

Cave Junction, Oregon

FIGURE

2J.S.

N.A.

October 2011

122562

Boring Location Map

Not to Scale

N

Reference: Google Earth Pro, 2011.

Legend

Boring Number and Approximate Location

Test Pit Number and Approximate Location

TP-1

B-1

Appendix A Field Explorations

122562/POR11R153 A - 1 November 22, 2011

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATIONS

General

We explored the subsurface conditions on 2011 October 17th through 19th by excavating one (1) test pit (designated TP-1) and drilling three (4) borings (designated B-1 through B-3 and B-3/2).

We describe the procedures used to excavate the test pits, drill the borings, collect soil samples, and other field techniques in the following paragraphs. Unless otherwise noted, all soil sampling and classification procedures followed local engineering practices in general accordance with relevant ASTM procedures and certain local and common drilling and descriptive practices and methodologies.

Test Pits

Excavations. PLI Systems Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon dug the test pit by hand to a depth of approximately 4 feet. A representative from our firm observed the excavation of the test pit and maintained a detailed log of subsurface conditions and materials encountered, collected soil samples at appropriate depth intervals, and documented the abandonment. We measured the depths of material contacts using a tape measure throughout the excavation process. The test pit was abandoned by backfilling the excavation with native soil.

Borings

Drilling. PLI Systems of Hillsboro, Oregon drilled the borings using a collapsible drill rig with hollow stem auger and air percussion techniques. Each boring was abandoned in accordance with Oregon Water Resources Departments by backfilling the borehole with bentonite chips.

An engineer from our firm observed drilling activities and maintained a detailed log of subsurface conditions and materials encountered, collected soil and rock samples at appropriate depth intervals, and documented the abandonment of each boring.

Disturbed. We obtained disturbed soil samples from the borings at selected depth intervals. The drilled used a standard 2-inch outer diameter (O.D.) and a 3.75-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler to retrieve the samples. During the Standard Penetration Test, the sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is defined as the standard penetration resistance (or N-value). The N-value provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils such as sand and gravel, and the consistency of cohesive soils such as silt, clay and clayey silt. The disturbed soil samples were examined and representative samples were double-sealed in plastic bags for further examination and physical testing in our laboratory.

122562/POR11R153 A - 2 November 22, 2011

Test Pit and Boring Logs

Figures A1 and A-2 describe the information and symbols presented on the test boring and pit logs, which are located on Figures A3 through A7. The logs show the various types of materials encountered in the test borings and pits, and the depths where the materials and/or characteristics of these materials changed, although the changes may be gradual. On each log, we show the sample type and identification number, groundwater level, field strength data, and natural water (moisture) content.

Groundwater

We observed groundwater at depths ranging from approximately 7 to 17 feet below existing ground surface in B-3 and B-3/2, respectively. Fluctuations in groundwater level likely occur seasonally and other factors such as variations in rainfall, utility trench locations and depths could potentially cause further variation in groundwater depth.

Material Descriptions

We visually classified soil samples in the field, including consistency, color, relative moisture, degree of plasticity, and other distinguishing characteristics of the samples. Afterwards, we observed the samples in the laboratory, performed various standard classification tests, and modified the field classifications where necessary. The terminology used in the soil classifications are defined in Table A1.

A1

Project Number: 122562

Checked By: J. Niemer Oregon Cave Chateau

File Name: 122562

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3

CLEAN SANDS

(More than half of is larger than the #4 sieve)

ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OF MEDIUM-TO-HIGH

PLASTICITY

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

OH

CH

the #200 sieve)

GRAINED

SOILS

ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES

MH

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-CLAY MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY,

GRAVELS

WITH <5%

FINES

SANDS WITH

GP-GC

SW

>12% FINES

SP

ML

CL

SILTS AND CLAYS

coarse fraction is smaller than the #4 sieve)

WITH <5%

FINES

GRAVELS

WITH 5 to 12%

FINES

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3

Copyright Kleinfelder, Inc. 2010

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM 2487)

GP

GM

(Liquid limit greater than 50)

GW-GM

GW-GC

GP-GM

CLEAN GRAVELS

(More than half of material is smaller than

(More than half of material is larger than the #200 sieve)

COARSE

GRAINED

MAJOR DIVISIONS

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

SILTS AND CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GC-GM

CL-ML

OL

SOILS

SANDS

GW

GC

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3

> >coarse fraction

(More than half of

FINE

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3

(Liquid limit less than 50)

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SAND MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3

SW-SM

SW-SC

SP-SM

SP-SC

SM

SC

SC-SM

GRAPHIC

LOG

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT

MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN

CLAYS

GRAVELS

WITH >12%

FINES

SANDS WITH

5 to 12% FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE

SAND OR SILT

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

SYSTEM (USCS)

Entry By: N.T. Aksharada

Date: 11-23-11

Figure

U S

C S

D

K

C O

R P

O R

A T

E S

T D

.G

E

IN

F E

L D

E R

G

IN

T S

T D

L

IB

R A

R Y

K

R W

M O

D

.G

B

L

O G

S .G

P

/2

/1

A2

Project Number: 122562

Checked By: J. Niemer Oregon Cave Chateau

File Name: 122562

DESCRIPTION

THE THREAD CAN BARELY BE ROLLED AND THE LUMP CANNOT BE

INCLUSION OF SMALL POCKETS OF DIFFERENT SOIL.

SAME COLOR AND APPEARANCE THROUGHOUT.HOMOGENEOUS

SLICKENSIDED

LAMINATED

STRATIFIED

DESCRIPTION

LOG SYMBOLS

Copyright Kleinfelder, 2010

LOG KEY

BULK / BAG SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA SAMPLER

(3 inch outside diameter)

STANDARD PENETRATION

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

(2 inch outside diameter)

CONTINUOUS CORE

SHELBY TUBE

A 1/8-IN THREAD CANNOT BE ROLLED AT ANY WATER CONTENT

THE PLASTIC LIMIT. THE THREAD CAN BE REROLLED SEVERAL

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER

(2-1/2 inch outside diameter)

WATER LEVEL

(level after completion)

SEEPAGE

WATER LEVEL

(level where first encountered)

ROCK CORE

NONPLASTIC

ALTERNATING LAYERS OF VARYING MATERIAL/COLOR, > 1/4-IN THICK.

BREAKS ALONG DEFINITE PLANES WITH LITTLE RESISTANCE TO FRACTURING.

FRACTURE PLANES APPEAR POLISHED/GLOSSY, SOMETIMES STRIATED

COHESIVE SOIL THAT CAN BE BROKEN DOWN INTO SMALLER ANGULAR LUMPS.

LENSED

BLOCKY

FISSURED

STRUCTURE

MOISTURE CONTENT

FIELD TEST

FORMED WITHOUT CRUMBLING WHEN DRIER THAT THE PLASTIC

LIMIT.

PLASTICITY

FIELD TEST

DAMP BUT NO VISIBLE WATER

VISIBLE FREE WATER, USUALLY SOIL BELOW WATER TABLE

GENERAL NOTES

DESCRIPTION

MOIST

WET

ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCHDRY

FORMED WHEN DRIER THAN THE PLASTIC LIMIT

THE THREAD IS EASY TO ROLL AND NOT MUCH TIME IS REQUIRED

TO REACH THE PLASTIC LIMIT. THE THREAD CANNOT BE REROLLED

AFTER REACHING THE PLASTIC LIMIT. THE LUMP CRUBLES

WHEN DRIER THAN THE PLASTIC LIMIT.

LOW

IT TAKES CONSIDERABLE TIME ROLLING AND KNEEDING TO REACH

HIGH

MEDIUM

TIMES AFTER REACHING THE PLASTIC LIMIT. THE LUMP CAN BE

ALTERNATING LAYERS OF VARYING MATERIAL/COLOR, < 1/4-IN THICK.

CRITERIA

FIELD TESTDESCRIPTION

CEMENTATION

WEAK

MODERATE

STRONG

CRUMBLES/BREAKS WITH HANDLING OR SLIGHT FINGER PRESSURE

CRUMBLES/BREAKS WITH CONSIDERABLE FINGER PRESSURE

WILL NOT CRUMBLE/BREAK WITH FINGER PRESSURE

Below Ground Surface No Sample Recovery Photo Ionization Detector Direct Shear Test Triaxial Shear Test Consolidation Test Expansion Index Unconfined Compression California Bearing Ratio Hydrogen Ion Concentration Soil Resistivity Soluble Sulfates/Chlorides

BGS

NR

PID

DS

TRI

C

EI

UC

CBR

pH R Su/Cl

ABBREVIATIONS MODIFIERS

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

Modifier description based on ASTM D 2487-09a.

< 5 % particles

5 to 10%

10 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Subsurface log data represents subsurface characteristics only to the extent encountered at the location of the exploration. The data inherently cannot accurately predict the entire subsurface conditions to be encountered at the project site relative to construction or other subsurface activities. Lines between soil layers and/or rock units are approximate and may be gradual transitions. The information provided should be used only for the purposes intended as described in the accompanying documents. In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented on the logs were evaluated by visual methods. Where laboratory tests were performed, the designations reflect the laboratory test results.

SPT

(BLOWS/FT)

< 4

> 50

APPERENT DENSITY / RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

MODIFIED CAL

(BLOWS/FT)

5 - 12

35 - 60

> 60

< 5< 4

5 - 15

15 - 40

40 - 70

> 70

CAL SAMPLER

(BLOWS/FT)

RELATIVE

DENSITY (%)

0 - 15

15 - 35

35 - 65

65 - 85

85 - 100

SOFT

(FIRM)

(FIRM)

(HARD)

(VERY HARD)

CONSISTENCY

VERY SOFT

HARD

MEDIUM STIFF

STIFF

VERY STIFF

4 - 10

10 - 30

30 - 50

12 - 35

EASILY PENETRATED SEVERAL INCHES WITH 1/2-IN ROD PUSHED BY HAND

DIFICULT TO PENETRATE WITH 1/2-IN ROD PUSHED BY HAND

EASILY PENETRATED A FOOT WITH 1/2-IN ROD DRIVEN BY 5-LB HAMMER

PENETRATED ONLY A FEW INCHES WITH 1/2-IN ROD DRIVEN BY 5-LB HAMMER

DIFFICULT TO PENETRATE A FOOT WITH 1/2-IN ROD DRIVEN BY 5-LB HAMMER

FIELD TEST

APPERENT/

DENSITY

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

FIELD TEST

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL

EASILTY PENETRATED SEVERAL INCHES BY THUMB. EXUDES BETWEEN THUMB AND FINGERS

PENETRATED OVER 1/2-IN BY THUMB WITH MODERATE EFFORT. MOLDED BY STRONG FINGER PRESSURE.

DIFFICULT TO PENETRATE A FOOT WITH 1/2-IN ROD DRIVEN BY 5-LB HAMMER

(FIRM) - THUMB WILL INDENT SOIL ABOUT 1/4 IN

UNCONFINED

C0MPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (TSF)

POCKET PEN

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

> 2.0

TORVANE

UNDRAINED SHEAR

STRENGTH

(TSF)

> 30

15 - 30

8 - 15

2 - 4

READILY INDENTED BY THUMBNAIL

(FIRM) - THUMB WILL INDENT SOIL ABOUT 1/4 IN

(HARD) - THUMB WILL NOT INDENT SOIL BUT READILY INDENTED WITH THUMBNAIL

(VERY HARD) - THUMBNAIL WILL NOT INDENT

EASILY PENETRATED 1-IN BY THUMB. MOLDED BY LIGHT FINGER PRESSURE.

< 2

SPT

(BLOWS/FT)

INDENTED WITH DIFFICULTY BY THUMBNAIL

4 - 8

NOTE: CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN IN PARENTHSIS ARE CONSISTENT WITH ASTM D 2488-10 AND MAY BE USED WHERE BLOW COUNT (N), FIELD SHEAR TESTING, OR LABORATORY DATA ARE NOT AVAIALBLE.

< 0.25

0.5 to 1.00.25 - 0.5

0.125 - 0.25

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0

> 4.0

< 0.125

Entry By: N.T. Aksharada

Date: 11-23-11

Figure

K A

L O

G K

Y

C

O R

P O

R A

T E

S T

D .G

E

IN

F

E L

D E

R G

IN

T

S T

D L

IB

R

A R

Y

K R

W M

O D

.G

L O

G S

.G

/2

GP-

GM

3-inch Top Soil with grass

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand (GP-GM) and Cobble/Boulder, loose to medium dense, light gray to brown, non to low plastic, moist: ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

FILL

Air percussion lost pressure to drill from 8 to 15 feet.

Boring backfilled with bentonite grout. Boring caving encountered at 8 feet. Ground water not encountered during the exploration.

Boring terminated at a depth of 15.0 ft below existing site grade.

S1

A4

Field Soil Description & Classification

BORING LOG B1

D ry

U n it W ei g h t

(p cf

P as si n g #4

S ie ve

P as si n g #2

S ie ve

Other Tests and

Field NotesW at er C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic it y

In d ex

Laboratory

B u lk S am p le

D e p th ft

G ra p h ic L o g

B lo w s p er in

All data and interpretations in this log are subject to limitations presented in the report. The decriptions and data herein represent the subsurface characteristics encountered at the location of the exploration. The transitions between soil layers and/or rock units are approximate and may be gradual.

The report and log key are an integral part of these logs.

E le va ti o n ft

U S

C S

S ym b o l

Material DescriptionS am p le

N u m b er

S am p le r T yp e

(S ym b o l)

BORING LOG B1

(Sheet 1 of 1)

Project Number: 122562

Entry By: N.T. Aksharada

Checked By: J. Niemer

Date: 11-22-11

Figure

Oregon Cave Chateau

File Name: 122562

Top of Boring Elevation: 3978.0 ft

Boring Number: B1

Coordinate Data Source: NAVD88Surface Conditions: level

WL Measurement Point:

Logged By: N.T. Aksharada

Datum/Coordinate System: NAD83

Location: 20000 Caves Hwy, Cave Junction, OR

Depth to Groundwater Initial/Time:

Drilling Method: Air Percussion

Drilling Equipment: Collapsible Rig

Drilling Company: PLI Systems

Bit Size/Type: 4 7/8-inch / Cutting Head

Hammer Type/Method: 140-lb Cathead / Manual

Hammer Drop/Weight: 30 in. / 140 lbs.

Angle From Horizontal/Bearing: -90°

Coordinates (Lat/Long): 42.09844° / -123.40772°

Depth to Groundwater Final/Time:

Date Started: 10-19-11

Boring Depth: 15.0 ft

Date Completed: 10-19-11

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

C O

R P

O R

A T

E S

T D

S

T R

E L

E A

S E

.G

E

IN

F E

L D

E R

G

IN

T S

T D

L

IB

R A

R Y

K

R W

M O

D

.G

L

O G

S .G

/2

GP-

GM

GP

3-inch Top Soil with grass

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand (GP-GM) and Cobble/Boulder, loose to medium dense, light gray to brown, non plastic, moist: ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

FILL

Boulder encountered at 9 to 10 feet bgs.

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL (GP), with angular cobbles, loose to medium dense, brown to gray, non plastic, moist: ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL(GP)

Air percussion lost pressure to drill from 15 to 20 feet.

Boring backfilled with bentonite grout. Boring caving encountered at 15 feet. Ground water not encountered during the exploration.

Boring terminated at a depth of 20.0 ft below existing site grade.

S1

A5

Field Soil Description & Classification

BORING LOG B2

D ry

U n it W ei g h t

(p cf

P as si n g #4

S ie ve

P as si n g #2

S ie ve

Other Tests and

Field NotesW at er C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic it y

In d ex

Laboratory

R ec o ve ry in

D e p th ft

G ra p h ic L o g

B lo w s p er in

All data and interpretations in this log are subject to limitations presented in the report. The decriptions and data herein represent the subsurface characteristics encountered at the location of the exploration. The transitions between soil layers and/or rock units are approximate and may be gradual.

The report and log key are an integral part of these logs.

E le va ti o n ft

U S

C S

S ym b o l

Material DescriptionS am p le

N u m b er

S am p le r T yp e

(S ym b o l)

BORING LOG B2

(Sheet 1 of 1)

Project Number: 122562

Entry By: N.T. Aksharada

Checked By: J. Niemer

Date: 11-22-11

Figure

Oregon Cave Chateau

File Name: 122562

Top of Boring Elevation: 3979.0 ft

Boring Number: B2

Coordinate Data Source: NAVD88Surface Conditions: level

WL Measurement Point:

Logged By: N.T. Aksharada

Datum/Coordinate System: NAD83

Location: 20000 Caves Hwy, Cave Junction, OR

Depth to Groundwater Initial/Time:

Drilling Method: Air Percussion

Drilling Equipment: Collapsible Rig

Drilling Company: PLI Systems

Bit Size/Type: 4 7/8-inch / Cutting Head

Hammer Type/Method: 140-lb Cathead / Manual

Hammer Drop/Weight: 30 in. / 140 lbs.

Angle From Horizontal/Bearing: -90°

Coordinates (Lat/Long): 42.09849° / -123.40767°

Depth to Groundwater Final/Time:

Date Started: 10-19-11

Boring Depth: 20.0 ft

Date Completed: 10-19-11

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L

C O

R P

O R

A T

E S

T D

S

T R

E L

E A

S E

.G

E

IN

F E

L D

E R

G

IN

T S

T D

L

IB

R A

R Y

K

R W

M O

D

.G

L

O G

S .G

/2

NPNP

50/4/4"

GP-

GM

GP

3-inch Top Soil with lanscaping

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand (GP-GM) and Cobble/Boulder, loose to medium dense, brown to dark brown to gray, non plastic, fine to medium grained, moist: ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

FILL

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL (GP), with angular cobbles, loose, brown to light gray to gray, non plastic, moist to very moist : ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL (GP)

Boulder encountered below 11 feet bgs.

Caving encountered at 4 feet. Boring backfilled with bentonite grout. Ground water encountered at 7 feet during drilling.

Boring terminated at a depth of 15.0 ft below existing site grade.

S1

S2

S3

A6

Field Soil Description & Classification

BORING LOG B3

D ry

U n it W ei g h t

(p cf

P as si n g #4

S ie ve

P as si n g #2

S ie ve

Other Tests and

Field NotesW at er C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic it y

In d ex

Laboratory

R ec o ve ry in

D e p th ft

G ra p h ic L o g

B lo w s p er in

All data and interpretations in this log are subject to limitations presented in the report. The decriptions and data herein represent the subsurface characteristics encountered at the location of the exploration. The transitions between soil layers and/or rock units are approximate and may be gradual.

The report and log key are an integral part of these logs.

E le va ti o n ft

U S

C S

S ym b o l

Material DescriptionS am p le

N u m b er

S am p le r T yp e

(S ym b o l)

BORING LOG B3

(Sheet 1 of 1)

Project Number: 122562

Entry By: N.T. Aksharada

Checked By: J. Niemer

Date: 11-22-11

Figure

Oregon Cave Chateau

File Name: 122562

Top of Boring Elevation: 3971.0 ft

Boring Number: B3

Coordinate Data Source: NAVD88Surface Conditions: slope

WL Measurement Point: Ground Surface

Logged By: N.T. Aksharada

Datum/Coordinate System: NAD83

Location: 20000 Caves Hwy, Cave Junction, OR

Depth to Groundwater Initial/Time: 7.5 ft / hrs after

Drilling Method: Air Percussion and HSA

Drilling Equipment: Collapsible Rig

Drilling Company: PLI Systems

Bit Size/Type: 4 7/8-inch / Cutting Head

Hammer Type/Method: 140-lb Cathead / Manual

Hammer Drop/Weight: 30 in. / 140 lbs.

Angle From Horizontal/Bearing: -90°

Coordinates (Lat/Long): 42.09847° / -123.40775°

Depth to Groundwater Final/Time: 7.0 ft / 1 hrs after

Date Started: 10-18-11

Boring Depth: 15.0 ft

Date Completed: 10-18-11

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L

C O

R P

O R

A T

E S

T D

S

T R

E L

E A

S E

.G

E

IN

F E

L D

E R

G

IN

T S

T D

L

IB

R A

R Y

K

R W

M O

D

.G

L

O G

S .G

/2

16NPNP

GP-

GM

GP

4-inch Top Soil with lanscaping

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand (GP-GM) and Cobble/Boulder, loose to medium dense, brown to light gray to gray, non plastic, moist: ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

FILL

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL (GP), with angular cobbles, loose to medium dense, brown to gray, non plastic, moist: ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

Soil collapsed at 16 feet bgs.

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL (GP)

BASALT with sedimentary infills: fine to coarse grain, weak to medium strong (R2 to R3), light brown to brown, gray to light gray, moderately to highly weathered.

BEDROCK

Boring backfilled with bentonite grout. Ground water encountered at 17 feet during drilling.

Boring completed at a depth of 30.0 ft below existing site grade.

S1

S2

A7

Field Soil Description & Classification

BORING LOG B3/2

D ry

U n it W ei g h t

(p cf

P as si n g #4

S ie ve

P as si n g #2

S ie ve

Other Tests and

Field NotesW at er C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic it y

In d ex

Laboratory

R ec o ve ry in

D e p th ft

G ra p h ic L o g

B lo w s p er in

All data and interpretations in this log are subject to limitations presented in the report. The decriptions and data herein represent the subsurface characteristics encountered at the location of the exploration. The transitions between soil layers and/or rock units are approximate and may be gradual.

The report and log key are an integral part of these logs.

E le va ti o n ft

U S

C S

S ym b o l

Material DescriptionS am p le

N u m b er

S am p le r T yp e

(S ym b o l)

BORING LOG B3/2

(Sheet 1 of 1)

Project Number: 122562

Entry By: N.T. Aksharada

Checked By: J. Niemer

Date: 11-22-11

Figure

Oregon Cave Chateau

File Name: 122562

Top of Boring Elevation: 3970.0 ft

Boring Number: B3/2

Coordinate Data Source: NAVD88Surface Conditions: slope

WL Measurement Point: Ground Surface

Logged By: N.T. Aksharada

Datum/Coordinate System: NAD83

Location: 20000 Caves Hwy, Cave Junction, OR

Depth to Groundwater Initial/Time: 20.0 ft / hrs after

Drilling Method: Air Percussion and Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA)

Drilling Equipment: Collapsible Rig

Drilling Company: PLI Systems

Bit Size/Type: 4 7/8-inch / Cutting Head

Hammer Type/Method: 140-lb Cathead / Manual

Hammer Drop/Weight: 30 in. / 140 lbs.

Angle From Horizontal/Bearing: -90°

Coordinates (Lat/Long): 42.09846° / -123.40777°

Depth to Groundwater Final/Time: 17.0 ft / 2 hrs after

Date Started: 10-18-11

Boring Depth: 30.0 ft

Date Completed: 10-18-11

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L

C O

R P

O R

A T

E S

T D

S

T R

E L

E A

S E

.G

E

IN

F E

L D

E R

G

IN

T S

T D

L

IB

R A

R Y

K

R W

M O

D

.G

L

O G

S .G

/2

98NPNPGP-

GM

2-inch Top Soil with grass

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand (GP-GM) and Cobble/Boulder, loose to medium dense: ~60% fine-grained, subangular gravel, ~30 Sand, ~5 to 10% Silt.

FILL

Excavation backfilled with soil cuttings.

Completed at a depth of 4.0 ft below existing site grade.

S1

A3

Field Soil Description & Classification

LOG TP-1

D ry

U n it W ei g h t

(p cf

P as si n g #4

S ie ve

P as si n g #2

S ie ve

Other Tests and

Field NotesW at er C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic it y

In d ex

Laboratory

B u lk S am p le

D e p th ft

G ra p h ic L o g

B lo w s p er in

All data and interpretations in this log are subject to limitations presented in the report. The decriptions and data herein represent the subsurface characteristics encountered at the location of the exploration. The transitions between soil layers and/or rock units are approximate and may be gradual.

The report and log key are an integral part of these logs.

E le va ti o n ft

U S

C S

S ym b o l

Material DescriptionS am p le

N u m b er

S am p le r T yp e

(S ym b o l)

LOG TP-1

(Sheet 1 of 1)

Project Number: 122562

Entry By: N.T. Aksharada

Checked By: J. Niemer

Date: 11-22-11

Figure

Oregon Cave Chateau

File Name: 122562

Top of Boring Elevation: 3979.0 ft

Boring Number: TP-1

Coordinate Data Source: NAVD88Surface Conditions: level

WL Measurement Point:

Logged By: N.T. Aksharada

Datum/Coordinate System: NAD83

Location: 20000 Caves Hwy, Cave Junction, OR

Depth to Groundwater Initial/Time:

Drilling Method: Excavation

Drilling Equipment: Hand-dug

Drilling Company: PLI Systems

Bit Size/Type:

Hammer Type/Method:

Hammer Drop/Weight:

Angle From Horizontal/Bearing:

Coordinates (Lat/Long): 42.09848° / -123.40765°

Depth to Groundwater Final/Time:

Date Started: 10-17-11

Boring Depth: 4.0 ft

Date Completed: 10-17-11

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L

C O

R P

O R

A T

E S

T D

S

T R

E L

E A

S E

.G

E

IN

F E

L D

E R

G

IN

T S

T D

L

IB

R A

R Y

K

R W

M O

D

.G

L

O G

S .G

/2

Appendix B Laboratory Testing

122562/POR11R153 B - 1 November 22, 2011

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

General

We performed laboratory tests on the recovered soil samples including: visual examination, moisture tests, plasticity index tests, and grain-size distribution analyses. We present the testing procedures and results of the tests in the following paragraphs.