Attachment F Geotech Memorandum dated June 6 2024.pdf

M E M O R A N D U M To: Ryan Rudnick, PE | Parametrix Date: June 6, 2024

GRI Project No.: 6730-A

From: Keith Martin, PE, GE; and George Freitag, CEG

Re: Utility Improvement Project Plan Review GO Bond Nehalem Bay State Park Projects Tillamook County, Oregon

INTRODUCTION

At your request, GRI has completed a review of the project plans dated May 17, 2024, for the above-referenced project. The purpose of our review was to evaluate the planned design and construction of geotechnical-related elements as they relate to site subsurface conditions and the recommendations in our preliminary geotechnical report.

GRI completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the park projects. The results of our investigation are provided in a March 16, 2023, preliminary report to Parametrix titled, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, GO Bond Nehalem Bay State Park Projects, Tillamook County, Oregon” that was approved by Tillamook County on May 19, 2023, under Dune Area Development Permit

#851-23-000080-PLNG.

GRI also completed limited supplemental subsurface explorations in April 2024 to confirm soil conditions at select locations, which are discussed further below in this memorandum.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project consists of utility upgrades to seven camping loops within the park, the construction of two new bathrooms, and other related utility improvements. A new bathroom will be constructed between the C and D loops (CD Bathroom) and at the horse camp. The new CD Bathroom, designed by VLMK Engineering and Design, will consist of a single-level concrete masonry unit (CMU) structure supported on shallow spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor.

The CD bathroom foundations are designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. The CD bathroom will have a footprint of about 50 feet long by 24 feet wide. The new bathroom at the horse camp will consist of a CXT pre-manufactured/cast, single-level, lightly loaded structure with a length of about 17 feet and a width of about 10 feet and founded on a 6-inch-thick gravel pad. The plans by CXT indicate the foundation design is based on an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. Based on the plans, the CD bathroom and horse camp bathrooms will be constructed at approximate existing site grades, requiring minimum cutting and filling.

GRI 6730-A - Utility Improvement Project Plan Review Memorandum Page 2 June 6, 2024

Also, as part of the project, new vaults, utility lines, and manholes will be installed. New water and electric utilities will be installed in camp loops A-F, the horse camp loop, and elsewhere, and will generally be placed less than about 5 feet deep. A portion of the new sewer line and manholes/pump stations will be installed at depths of up to about 8 feet to 10 feet below site grades. As currently anticipated, the new utilities associated with the project will be installed using both open trenching and horizontal directional drilling methods, depending on the utility and location. We understand that deeper sewer manholes and lines will be installed in open trenches.

Shallow concrete footings and pads will be constructed to support control panels, kiosks, and other lightly loaded ancillary elements. Local areas of new asphalt concrete pavement will be constructed.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions disclosed as part of our 2023 preliminary investigation indicate that the project site is mantled primarily by relatively clean sand to depths of at least 100 feet. Within the depths of excavation required for this project, the sand is relatively loose. Minor amounts of fill and organics are present locally at the surface. To supplement the information from our preliminary investigation and confirm conditions, design, and construction recommendations for the CD bathroom and horse camp bathroom, GRI completed five additional test pits on April 8, 2024. Test pits TP-1 through TP-3 were completed at the CD bathroom location, and test pits TP-4 and TP-5 were completed at the horse camp bathroom location. The locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plans, Figures 1 and 2. Logs of the test pits are provided on Figures 3 through 5.

The test pits were excavated by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) using an E10 Bobcat hydraulic excavator. This excavator has a maximum possible excavation depth of 5 feet. The test pits disclosed a 4- to 8-inch layer of organic matter and roots at the ground surface, underlain by sand. At the CD restroom, the sand was typical gray and orange. At the horse camp site, a trace of small cobbles was encountered in the sand. The relative density of the sand in the test pits was generally loose to very loose. Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage and sidewall caving were encountered below depths of 2 feet to 3 feet in the test pits. The test pits extended to maximum depths of between 3 feet and 4 feet and were terminated due to heavy seepage and sidewall caving.

PLAN REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The subsurface conditions disclosed by the supplemental explorations are generally consistent with those completed for the preliminary investigation. Therefore, the conclusions and recommendations in our preliminary report are generally applicable for the design and construction of the bathrooms and the overall project. Based on our review, the designs of the bathrooms by VLMK and CXT are in substantial conformance with the recommendations in our preliminary report.

GRI 6730-A - Utility Improvement Project Plan Review Memorandum Page 3

Based on our review of the plans, the overall project as designed appears to be consistent with our assumptions and conclusions/recommendations provided in our preliminary report. Based on the review, the site grading and finished graded slopes appear to be consistent with the assumptions and recommendations in our preliminary geotechnical report.

From a geotechnical perspective, we anticipate that the main geotechnical considerations associated with construction of the project will be earthwork associated with the on-site loose native sand, primarily the stability of temporary excavations below grades and associated dewatering needs for construction of the below grade elements, such as utilities constructed in open excavations. As previously discussed, the on-site sand is relatively clean and loose and will have a relatively high risk of sloughing, as observed in our test pits, if not sloped back adequately or shored. Additionally, groundwater encountered within the depth of excavations may result in running soil and heaving of the bottom. Depending on the time of year and location, groundwater may be encountered at relatively shallow depths, as noted in the recent test pit excavations.

Shoring will be required where the excavation slopes cannot be laid back to a stable slope. If groundwater is encountered, pumping from sumps may not be sufficient to dewater the excavation and maintain adequate stability, and it may be necessary to install dewatering well points in advance of the excavations to draw down groundwater prior to excavation. Section 6.7 of our preliminary report provides commentary on temporary excavation, shoring, and dewatering considerations.

We understand that some of the new utilities will be installed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) methods to reduce open trenching that may impact existing on-site features. We anticipate that the HDD drilling will encounter relatively clean, fine sand that may extend below groundwater.

Also, several test pits completed as part of our preliminary investigation encountered a layer of cobbles at relatively shallow depths. It is possible that the drilling could also encounter different materials not observed in the test pits, such as woody debris, silt, or boulders. We anticipate HDD is a reasonable trenchless method to utilize, but the success of the installation will be highly dependent on the contractor’s experience, means, and methods. We recommend reviewing the proposed HDD installation with an experienced HDD contractor prior to construction to evaluate appropriate means and methods, requirements, and risks.

We recommend the contractor(s) thoroughly review the geotechnical report prior to construction of the project.

LIMITATIONS

This plan review memorandum is limited to the review of the plans referenced above regarding the elements discussed and subject to the same limitations discussed in our March 16, 2023, preliminary geotechnical report.

GRI 6730-A - Utility Improvement Project Plan Review Memorandum Page 4

We have included the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) guidance document “Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report/Geoenvironmental Report” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of this memorandum, included as Attachment A. We recommend you read this document.

Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions.

Submitted for GRI, RENEWS: 12/2024

Keith S. Martin, PE, GE George A Freitag, CEG Senior Engineer Principal

6730-A UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MEMORANDUM

Enclosures: Figure 1, Site Plan (CD Bathroom) Figure 2, Site Plan (Horse Camp Bathroom) Figures 3 - 5, Test Pit Logs Attachment A, Geoprofessional Business Association Guidance Document

This document has been submitted electronically.

Tx

4''SS

4''SS

4''SS

SITE PLAN FROM PARAMETRIX 95% PLANS DATED MAY 17, 2024

N

0 603015 30 FEET0

TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GRI ON APRIL 8, 2024

TP-3

TP-2

TP-1

PARAMETRIX

GO BOND NEHALEM BAY STATE

PARK PROJECTS

SITE PLAN

(CD RESTROOM)

MAY 2024 JOB NO. 6730-A FIG. 1JUN. 2024

.0

13.0

.0

TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GRI ON APRIL 8, 2024

SITE PLAN FROM PARAMETRIX 95% PLANS DATED MAY 17, 2024

N

0 6030 30 FEET150

TP-4

TP-5

PARAMETRIX

GO BOND NEHALEM BAY STATE

PARK PROJECTS

SITE PLAN

(HORSE CAMP RESTROOM)

MAY 2024 JOB NO. 6730-A FIG. 2JUN. 2024

GRAVEL; clean to some silt, clay, and sand

Sandy GRAVEL; clean to some silt and clay

Silty GRAVEL; up to some clay and sand

Clayey SAND; up to some silt and gravel

Gravelly CLAY; up to some silt and sand

Sandy CLAY; up to some silt and gravel

Silty CLAY; up to some sand and gravel

Symbol Description

Flush-mount monument set in concrete

Concrete, well casing shown where applicable

Filter pack, machine-slotted well casing shown where applicable

1-in.-diameter solid PVC

FIELD MEASUREMENTS

Typical Description

Groundwater level after drilling and date measured

Symbol Typical Description

BASALT

MUDSTONE

SILTSTONE

PEAT

Symbol

FILL

Clayey GRAVEL; up to some silt and sand

SAND; clean to some silt, clay, and gravel

SILT; up to some clay, sand, and gravel

Gravelly SILT; up to some clay and sand

Sandy SILT; up to some clay and gravel

Clayey SILT; up to some sand and gravel

CLAY; up to some silt, sand, and gravel

Grab Sample

Rock core sample interval

Sonic core sample interval

INSTALLATION SYMBOLS

Symbol

Bentonite seal, well casing shown if applicable

Vibrating-wire pressure transducer

SymbolBEDROCK SYMBOLS

SOIL SYMBOLS

Typical Description

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

Sampler DescriptionSymbol

LANDSCAPE MATERIALS

Gravelly SAND; clean to some silt and clay

Silty SAND; up to some clay and gravel

Shelby tube sampler with recovery

(ASTM D1587)

Grout, vibrating-wire transducer cable shown where applicable

1-in.-diameter hand-slotted PVC

Grout, inclinometer casing shown where applicable

Groundwater level during drilling and date measured

SANDSTONE

SURFACE MATERIAL SYMBOLS

Symbol Typical Description

BORING AND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND

Rock quality designation (RQD, %)

Asphalt concrete PAVEMENT

Portland cement concrete PAVEMENT

Crushed rock BASE COURSE

2.0 in. O.D. split-spoon sampler and Standard Penetration Test with recovery (ASTM D1586)

3.0 in. O.D. split-spoon sampler with recovery

(ASTM D3550)

Push probe sample interval

Rock/sonic core or push probe recovery (%)

B O

R

IN

G A

N D

T E

S T

P

IT

L O

G L

E G

E N

D G

R I D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

/7 /2

Forest litter at surface; rooted zone to 6-8 inches SAND, tan with gray and orange, loose, damp to wet, scattered roots and organics

(4/8/2024)

Caving and sloughing and medium to heavy seepage at 2 feet

Date Started:

Excavated by: Equipment:

Note:

TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF

0.50

G. MartinLogged By:

1.0

4/8/24 OPRD Bobcat E10 Mini Excavator

See Legend for Explanation of Symbols

TP-1 Surface Elevation: Not Available

GPS Coordinates: 45.6976736° N -123.9353789° W (WGS 84)

SA

M

PL

E

N O

G R

AP

H

IC

L

O G

EL

EV

AT

IO

N , F

T D

EP

TH

, F T

D

EP

TH

, F

T

COMMENTS AND

ADDITIONAL TESTS

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PECLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL

PLASTIC LIMIT, %

LIQUID LIMIT, %

FINES CONTENT, %

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

TEST PITS

FIG.

G R

I T P

L O

G

G P

S

P P

G R

I D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

5/

Forest litter/ campground area; rooted zone to 4-6 inches SAND, tan, gray, and orange, loose, damp to wet, scattered roots and organics

(4/8/2024)

Caving and sloughing and water at 3.5 feet

Date Started:

Excavated by: Equipment:

Note:

TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF

0.50

G. MartinLogged By:

1.0

4/8/24 OPRD Bobcat E10 Mini Excavator

See Legend for Explanation of Symbols

TP-2 Surface Elevation: Not Available

GPS Coordinates: 45.6977462° N -123.9353494° W (WGS 84)

3.0

S-1

JOB NO. 6730-A

4.0

S-1

S-2

0 100

0 100

MAY 2024 FIG. 3

Test pit terminated at a depth of 3 feet due to heavy seepage and caving

Test pit terminated at a depth of 4 feet due to heavy seepage and caving

JUN. 2024

Scattered forest litter; rooted zone to 6 inches SAND, tan with gray and orange, loose, damp to wet, scattered roots and organics

(4/8/2024)

Moderate to heavy seepage 3-3.5 feet Caving and sloughing 3-4 feet

Date Started:

Excavated by: Equipment:

Note:

TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF

0.50

G. MartinLogged By:

1.0

4/8/24 OPRD Bobcat E10 Mini Excavator

See Legend for Explanation of Symbols

TP-3 Surface Elevation: Not Available

GPS Coordinates: 45.697805° N -123.9355975° W (WGS 84)

SA

M

PL

E

N O

G R

AP

H

IC

L

O G

EL

EV

AT

IO

N , F

T D

EP

TH

, F T

D

EP

TH

, F

T

COMMENTS AND

ADDITIONAL TESTS

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PECLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL

PLASTIC LIMIT, %

LIQUID LIMIT, %

FINES CONTENT, %

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

TEST PITS

FIG.

G R

I T P

L O

G

G P

S

P P

G R

I D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

5/

Dune shrubs and forest litter; rooted zone to 6 inches SAND, tan, gray and orange, loose, damp to wet, scattered roots and organics, contains trace scattered cobbles

(4/8/2024)

Moderate seepage 3-3.5 feet Heavy seepage 3.5-4 feet

Date Started:

Excavated by: Equipment:

Note:

TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF

0.50

G. MartinLogged By:

1.0

4/8/24 OPRD Bobcat E10 Mini Excavator

See Legend for Explanation of Symbols

TP-4 Surface Elevation: Not Available

GPS Coordinates: 45.6921661° N -123.9361396° W (WGS 84)

4.0

S-1

S-2

JOB NO. 6730-A

4.0

S-1

S-2

0 100

0 100

MAY 2024 FIG. 4

Test pit terminated at a depth of 4 feet due to heavy seepage and caving

Test pit terminated at a depth of 4 feet

Dune shrubs and forest litter; rooted zone to 6 inches SAND, trace rounded gravel, gray to tan with orange patches, loose, damp to wet, scattered roots and organics, contains small cobbles

(4/8/2024)

Moderate seepage 3-3.5 feet Heavy seepage 3.5-4 feet

Date Started:

Excavated by: Equipment:

Note:

TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF

0.50

G. MartinLogged By:

1.0

4/8/24 OPRD Bobcat E10 Mini Excavator

See Legend for Explanation of Symbols

TP-5 Surface Elevation: Not Available

GPS Coordinates: 45.6920797° N -123.9360015° W (WGS 84)

SA

M

PL

E

N O

G R

AP

H

IC

L

O G

EL

EV

AT

IO

N , F

T D

EP

TH

, F T

D

EP

TH

, F

T

COMMENTS AND

ADDITIONAL TESTS

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PECLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL

PLASTIC LIMIT, %

LIQUID LIMIT, %

FINES CONTENT, %

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

TEST PITS

FIG.

G R

I T P

L O

G

G P

S

P P

G R

I D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

5/

4.0

S-1

S-2

JOB NO. 6730-A

0 100

MAY 2024 FIG. 5

Test pit terminated at a depth of 4 feet

GRI 6730-A - Utility Improvement Project Plan Review Memorandum

ATTACHMENT A

Geoprofessional Business Association Guidance Document

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:

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:

function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

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:

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