B08_Attach_8_FOVA_241806_Geotech_Report-FOVA_Utilities2014.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Fort Vancouver National Historic Site Vancouver, Washington for

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

February 17, 2014

Earth Science + Technology

APPENDIX B

FOVA 993

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Fort Vancouver National Historic Site Vancouver, Washington for Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

February 17, 2014

15055 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 140 Portland, Oregon 97224 503.624.9274

February 17, 2014 | Page i File No. 0861-036-00

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

SITE CONDITIONS

Published Information Geologic Map Review Soil Survey Review

Surface Conditions Subsurface Conditions Groundwater Conditions

CONCLUSIONS

General

RECOMMENDATIONS

General Excavation Support

OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION

LIMITATIONS

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figures 2a and 2b. Site Plan Figures 3 through 6. Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Field Exploration and Laboratory Program Figure A-1 – Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 through A-6 – Logs of Borings Figure A-7 – Atterberg Limits Test Results Figures A-8 and A-9 – Sieve Analysis Test Results

Appendix B. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

FORT VANCOUVER REHABILITATE UTILITIES PROJECT Vancouver, Washington

February 17, 2014 | Page 1 File No. 0861-036-00

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed Rehabilitate Utilities Project located within the East and South barracks of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in Vancouver, Washington, as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.

Our understanding of the project is based upon information provided by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, including Section 1.6 of the document titled “Scope of Services, Task Order No.

P13PD00586” and project design drawings dated January 2013. Based on the information provided in the Scope of Services and project design drawings, we understand the National Park Service intends to rehabilitate utilities and infrastructure in the East and South barracks, which will include sewer, water, electric, and storm sewer. The excavations for these utilities will range from approximately 2 to 7 feet in depth. Our scope of services was completed in accordance with our proposal dated June 12, 2013 and authorized by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. on August 26, 2013.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The services provided by GeoEngineers were in general accordance with the Scope of Services document, Task Order No. P13PD00586, Section 1.6. Our scope of services assumed that the main utility corridors will extend along McClelland Road between McLoughlin Road and Alvord Road, and along Alvord Road between McClelland Road and East 5th Street.

The purpose of our services was to explore the subsurface conditions along the proposed utility corridor, evaluate the geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface materials along the proposed utility corridor, and to develop recommendations and criteria to assist in designing the proposed project. Our scope of services included the following:

1. General Site Geology Review. We reviewed in-house and other selected information to assist us in describing the general site geology.

2. Marking Subsurface Exploration Locations. We visited the site to mark proposed subsurface exploration locations. Approximately 2 weeks prior to our field exploration, we sent you a map showing the locations of the proposed explorations for approval by the National Park Service.

3. Traffic Control. We subcontracted with D&H Flagging to provide on-site flagging.

4. Utility Locates. We coordinated utility locating using the public “One Call” service and a private utility locator.

5. Performing Subsurface Explorations. GeoEngineers performed a total of five hollow-stem auger borings at selected locations along McClelland Drive and Alvord Road. The borings extended to approximately 11 to 13.5 feet below existing road elevation. We subcontracted with Subsurface Technologies, Inc., to provide the hollow-stem auger borings. The borings were observed by one of our staff geologists, who logged the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings. We classified the materials encountered in the borings in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) Standard Practices Test Method

Page 2 | February 17, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.

D 2488. The borings were backfilled according to the appropriate Washington State requirements.

6. Laboratory Testing. We performed a laboratory-testing program consisting of soil moisture and soil classification on selected samples. The following tests were performed by our Portland geotechnical laboratory:

a. Moisture content and density determinations on three selected soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 2216;

b. Particle size (sieve) analysis on seven selected soil samples in general accordance with ASTM C 136; and

c. Atterberg limits testing to evaluate plasticity characteristics of three selected soil samples, in general accordance with ASTM D 4318.

7. Characterizing Subsurface Conditions. This report provides a description of the subsurface conditions based on the materials observed in our explorations, including:

a. The depth and characterization of materials encountered; and

b. The depth of groundwater, if encountered.

8. Providing Geotechnical Design Parameters. This report provides geotechnical design parameters for excavation support during construction, including:

a. Design earth pressures; and

b. Stability of base of excavation.

9. Providing this Geotechnical Report.

SITE CONDITIONS

Published Information

Geologic Map Review

We completed a review of selected geologic information provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Geology and Earth Resources. The underlying geology in the vicinity of the site is mapped as predominately gravel deposits associated with Pleistocene outburst flood deposits. The gravel deposits consist of poorly sorted, stratified mixture of boulders, cobbles, gravel and sand resulting from multiple episodes of catastrophic outbursts of glacier- dammed Lake Missoula.

Soil Survey Review

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides soil data through the Web Soil Survey. The Web Soil Survey map indicates that surficial soil in the vicinity of the proposed site consists of Lauren gravelly loam. The Lauren soil is located on terraces and formed in alluvial processes with volcanic ash. The soil typically consists

February 17, 2014 | Page 3 File No. 0861-036-00 of gravelly to very gravelly loam in the upper 60 inches. The USDA NRCS mapping did not provide information at depths below 60 inches.

Surface Conditions

The site is located within the right-of-ways of McClellan Road and Alvord Road at the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in Vancouver, Washington. The site generally extends along McClelland Road from the intersection of Fort Vancouver Way and McClellan Road to the intersection of Alvord Road and McClellan Road; and, along Alvord Road from the intersection of McClellan Road and Alvord Road to the intersection of East 5th Street and Alvord Road. Both roadways are surfaced with hot-mix asphalt pavement and vary in width from about 15 to 20 feet.

McClellan Road generally slopes slightly downward at about a 1 percent grade from northwest to southeast and Alvord Road generally slopes downward at about a 2 to 3 percent grade from northeast to southwest. Both roads are typically bounded by landscaping or buildings depending on location.

Subsurface Conditions

We explored subsurface conditions by drilling five borings to depths ranging from 11 to 13.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) on September 24, 2013 at the locations shown in Figure 2. Members of our staff maintained logs of the soils encountered and gathered representative soil samples.

Appendix A presents the exploration logs and a description of the subsurface exploration program.

We encountered approximately 3 to 5 inches of asphaltic concrete overlying 3 to 4 inches of aggregate base material except in boring B-4 which was completed off to the side of the road.

Subsurface soil conditions were generally consistent throughout the site with the exception of boring B-5.

The subsurface conditions encountered in borings B-1 through B-4 generally consisted of an upper unit of very loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel overlying a lower unit of medium dense to very dense silty gravel with sand. The silty sand with gravel extended between approximately 2 to 7 feet bgs. The silty gravel with sand extended to the maximum depth explored in the borings, which ranged between 11 and 13.5 feet bgs.

The subsurface conditions encountered in boring B-5 consisted of an upper unit of loose to medium dense silty gravel with sand overlying a lower unit of medium dense to dense sand with silt and gravel. The silty gravel with sand extended to 7 feet bgs. The sand with silt and gravel extended to the depth explored in the boring which was 11.5 feet bgs.

Groundwater Conditions

We did not encounter groundwater during our subsurface explorations at the site. Based on our experience in the area, it is our opinion the groundwater levels will likely vary between 15 and 20 feet bgs and will be tied to the water elevation in the nearby Columbia River. We anticipate that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal variations in the river due to precipitation, changes in water utilization or other factors. Additionally, it is our opinion that perched groundwater conditions may be encountered during construction, particularly after extended wet weather events.

Page 4 | February 17, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.

CONCLUSIONS

General

Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and analyses, it is our opinion that the site can support the planned underground utility corridors, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into project design and are implemented during construction.

RECOMMENDATIONS

General

Silt fences, hay bales, buffer zones of natural growth, sedimentation ponds, and granular haul roads should be used as required to reduce sediment transport to acceptable levels during excavation of the proposed utility corridors. Measures to reduce erosion should be implemented in accordance with City of Vancouver’s regulations regarding erosion control.

Excavation Support

Temporary excavations will be required for the proposed utility corridor. Shoring will be required for temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet under Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 296- 155, Part N. We identified four areas (Areas 1 through 4, Figures 2a and 2b) along the proposed utility corridor. We recommend that design of the shoring within Areas 1 through 4 be completed utilizing the apparent earth pressure diagrams presented in Figures 3 through 6. Surcharge loads located within a horizontal distance of about H from the excavation (where H equals the height of the excavation) should be evaluated as a separate additional lateral earth pressure as shown in Figures 3 through 6. Examples of additional surcharge pressures include temporary soil stockpiles and construction equipment.

We evaluated the stability of the base of the excavations for Areas 1 through 4. Based upon our evaluation, it is our opinion that the base of the excavations will remain stable with respect to bottom heave during construction of the proposed utilities.

OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION

Satisfactory geotechnical performance depends to a large degree on quality of construction.

Sufficient monitoring of the contractor’s activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications. Subsurface conditions observed during construction should be compared with those encountered during the subsurface exploration. Recognition of changed conditions often requires experience; therefore, qualified personnel should visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect whether subsurface conditions change significantly from those anticipated. We recommend that GeoEngineers be retained to perform geotechnical construction observation based on our familiarity with this project and the site.

February 17, 2014 | Page 5 File No. 0861-036-00

LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. for the proposed Rehabilitate Utilities Project at the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in Vancouver, Washington, and their authorized agents and/or regulatory agencies. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance and in writing to such reliance.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted earth science practices in the area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.

Please refer to Appendix B titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information pertaining to use of this report.

REFERENCES

United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed September 17, 2013.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Washington Interactive Geologic Map on-line. Available online at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/geosciencesdata/pages/geology_portal.as px>, accessed October 7, 2013.

Alvord Rd

McClellan Rd µ

SITE

Vicinity Map

Figure 1

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

Vancouver, Washington

2,000 2,0000

Feet

Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps

Notes:

1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.

2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc.

can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission.

Projection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

O ffi ce : S

E A

P at h:

sp o\ pr oj ec ts

\0 \0

\G

IS

\M

X D

\0

_V ic in ity

M ap

.m xd

M ap

R ev is ed

: 1

O ct ob er m au gu st

Columbia River

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

G

AS

G

AS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

ASG

AS

G

AS

GAS

6''W

6''W

6''W

''S

T

''S

T

''S

T

''S

T

''S

T

10''ST

12''ST

10''ST 10''ST

6' 'S

6' 'S

6' 'S

6' 'S

6''S

6''S

6''S

6' 'S

6' 'S

6''S

6''S

' 'S

T

8''ST

6''W

6''W

6''W 8''

W

6''W

2' 'W

2' 'W

2' 'W3/4''W

3/ 4'

'W

3/ 4'

'W

6''S

FEET

080 80

W E

N

S

Notes

1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.

2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document.

GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

Reference: Sheet CE1 "Composite Utilities Plan - Existing Utilities" for Fort Vancouver National Historic Site dated Jan. 2013.

Legend

Figure 2a

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

Vancouver, Washington

Site Plan B-1

MATCHLINE - SEE FIGURE 2b

B-1

B-2

B-3

ALVORD ROAD

FO

RT

VA

NC

OU

VE

R W

AY

(M cL

OU

GH

LI

N

RO

AD

McCLELLAND ROAD

Boring by GeoEngineers

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS

GAS GAS GAS GAS

GAS

G

AS

GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS

G

AS

G

AS

G

AS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

GAS

''S

T

''S

T

10''ST

10''ST

''S

T

''S

T

10''ST

''S

''S

10''S

6''S

6''S

6''S

6''S

6' 'S

6 ' ' S

6''W 6''W

6''W

1''W

6''W

6''W

4''W

2''W

S S

''S

T

''S

T

S

FEET

080 80

W E

N

S

Notes

1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.

2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document.

GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

Reference: Sheet CE2 "Composite Utilities Plan - Existing Utilities" for Fort Vancouver National Historic Site dated Jan. 2013.

Legend

Figure 2b

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

Vancouver, Washington

Site Plan B-4

MATCHLINE - SEE FIGURE 2a

B-4

B-5

EAST 5th STREET

ALVORD ROAD

FO

RT

VA

NC

OU

VE

R W

AY

(M cL

OU

GH

LI

N

RO

AD

Boring by GeoEngineers

Area 3

Area 4

1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.

2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

3. Drawing modified from FHWA-IF-99-015, dated June 1999

Notes:

Apparent Earth Pressures for Area 1

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Vancouver, Washington

Figure 3

Excavation Depth (ft) Ka Total Load (lbs/ft)

4 0.33 388

5 0.33 606

6 0.33 873

7 0.33 1183

Excavation with one level of supports

Excavation with multiple levels of supports e e e e

Ps Ps

PS = Ka qs PS = Ka qs

H1 = Distance from ground surface to uppermost support Hn+1 = Distance from base of excavation to lowermost support Thi = Horizontal load in support i R = Reaction force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e. below base of excavation) Pe = Maximum ordinate of diagram Ps = Additional lateral earth pressure qs = Surcharge pressure Ka = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

SP

Pr oj ec ts

\0

1-

6-

\F ig ur e 3

.p pt x

KW

W

/1 8/ showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

3. Drawing modified from FHWA-IF-99-015, dated June 1999

Notes:

Apparent Earth Pressures for Area 2

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Vancouver, Washington

Figure 4

Excavation Depth (ft) Ka Total Load (lbs/ft)

4 0.22 272

5 0.22 425

6 0.22 613

7 0.22 834

Excavation with one level of supports

Excavation with multiple levels of supports e e e e

Ps Ps

PS = Ka qs PS = Ka qs

H1 = Distance from ground surface to uppermost support Hn+1 = Distance from base of excavation to lowermost support Thi = Horizontal load in support i R = Reaction force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e. below base of excavation) Pe = Maximum ordinate of diagram Ps = Additional lateral earth pressure qs = Surcharge pressure Ka = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

SP

Pr oj ec ts

\0

1-

6-

\F ig ur e 4

.p pt x

KW

W

/1 showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

3. Drawing modified from FHWA-IF-99-015, dated June 1999

Notes:

Apparent Earth Pressures for Area 3

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Vancouver, Washington

Figure 5

Excavation Depth (ft) Ka Total Load (lbs/ft)

4 0.22 259

5 0.22 404

6 0.22 582

7 0.22 792

Excavation with one level of supports

Excavation with multiple levels of supports e e e e

Ps Ps

PS = Ka qs PS = Ka qs

H1 = Distance from ground surface to uppermost support Hn+1 = Distance from base of excavation to lowermost support Thi = Horizontal load in support i R = Reaction force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e. below base of excavation) Pe = Maximum ordinate of diagram Ps = Additional lateral earth pressure qs = Surcharge pressure Ka = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

SP

Pr oj ec ts

\0

1-

6-

\F ig ur e 5

.p pt x

KW

W

/1 showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

3. Drawing modified from FHWA-IF-99-015, dated June 1999

Notes:

Apparent Earth Pressures for Area 4

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Vancouver, Washington

Figure 6

Excavation Depth (ft) Ka Total Load (lbs/ft)

4 0.22 277

5 0.22 433

6 0.22 623

7 0.22 848

Excavation with one level of supports

Excavation with multiple levels of supports e e e e

Ps Ps

PS = Ka qs PS = Ka qs

H1 = Distance from ground surface to uppermost support Hn+1 = Distance from base of excavation to lowermost support Thi = Horizontal load in support i R = Reaction force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e. below base of excavation) Pe = Maximum ordinate of diagram Ps = Additional lateral earth pressure qs = Surcharge pressure Ka = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

SP

Pr oj ec ts

\0

1-

6-

\F ig ur e 6

.p pt x

KW

W

/1

APPENDIX A

Field Exploration and Laboratory Program

February 17, 2014 | Page A-1

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY PROGRAM

Field Explorations

Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were evaluated on September 24, 2013 by drilling five borings, B-1 through B-5, at the approximate locations shown in the Site Plan, Figures 2a and 2b.

The borings were completed by Subsurface Technologies of North Plains, Oregon, using truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment.

The borings were continuously monitored by a representative from our firm who visually examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed surface and groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of the borings. The borings were drilled to a depths ranging between 11 and 13.5 feet bgs. Soil samples collected from the borings were obtained in general accordance with the standard penetration testing (SPT) method described by the ASTM Standard Practices D 1586. 1.4-inch-inside diameter SPT samplers and 2.4-inch-inside diameter Dames and Moore samplers were used to collect the soil. Both sampler types were driven into the soil using a 140-pound hammer, free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is recorded in the boring log. The conversion of non-standard penetration resistance for the Dames and Moore-style sampler to approximate SPT N-values was made using the Lacroix-Horn equation (ASTM SPT-523, 1973).

Samples of the representative soil types were obtained from the borings at selected depths and transported to our laboratory in Portland, Oregon. The soils encountered were visually classified in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D 2488, which is summarized in Figure A-1. The boring logs are shown in Figures A-2 through A-6.

The logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicates the various soils encountered. The logs also indicates the approximate depths at which the soils or their characteristics change, although the change may be gradual. If the change occurred between sampling locations, the depth was inferred.

Boring locations were established in the field using a hand-held GPS unit. Boring elevations were interpolated from the contour lines shown on the Composite Utilities Plan – Existing Utilities by Kennedy/Jenks. Boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the method used.

Laboratory Testing

Soil samples obtained from the borings were returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Representative soil samples were selected for laboratory tests to evaluate the pertinent geotechnical engineering characteristics of the site soil and to confirm or revise our field classification. The laboratory-testing program was completed in general accordance with applicable ASTM Standards.

Soil samples obtained from the borings were visually classified in the field and/or in our laboratory using the USCS and ASTM classification methods. ASTM Test Method D 2488 was used to visually classify the soil samples, while ASTM D 2487 was used to classify the soils based on laboratory

Page A-2 | February 17, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.

tests results. These classification procedures are incorporated in the exploration logs shown in Figures A-2 through A-6.

Atterberg limits were estimated for three representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results of Atterberg limit test are presented in Atterberg Limits Results, Figure A-7.

Gradation tests were accomplished on five representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM C 136. The results of gradation tests are presented in Sieve Analysis Results, Figures A-8 and A-9.

The natural moisture content and dry density of three representative ring samples was estimated in general accordance with ASTM test method D 3550-01. Results of the natural moisture content and dry density analyses are presented on the appropriate boring logs at the respective sample depths.

Sheen Classification

NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.

CC

Asphalt Concrete

NS

SS

MS

HS

NT

Shelby tube

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS

%F

AL

CA

CP

CS

DS

HA

MC

MD

OC

PM

PI

PP

PPM

SA

TX

UC

VS

Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit

Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit

Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer

Measured free product in well or piezometer

GRAPH

Topsoil/ Forest Duff/Sod

Direct-Push

Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls

Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop.

A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig.

FIGURE A-1

2.4-inch I.D. split barrel

SYMBOLS TYPICAL

KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS

CR

Bulk or grab

Piston

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

DESCRIPTIONSLETTER

Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units

TS

GC

PT

OH

CH

MH

OL

GM

GP

GW

DESCRIPTIONS

TYPICAL

LETTER

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)

MAJOR DIVISIONS

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS

WITH HIGH ORGANIC

CONTENTS

CLEAN SANDS

GRAVELS WITH

FINES

CLEAN

GRAVELS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

SAND

AND

SANDY

SOILS

GRAVEL

AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

COARSE

GRAINED

SOILS

SW

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.

4 SIEVE

CL

WELL-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SANDS

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

- SILT MIXTURES

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN 50

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

SANDS WITH

FINES

SP

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

ML

SC

SM

NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

PASSING NO. 4

SIEVE

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK

FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH

SLIGHT PLASTICITY

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS

OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY

SOILS

ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF

MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

MORE THAN 50%

PASSING NO. 200

SIEVE

MORE THAN 50%

RETAINED ON NO.

200 SIEVE

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY

CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GRAPH

SYMBOLS

AC

Cement Concrete

Sampler Symbol Descriptions

Groundwater Contact

Material Description Contact

No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tested

Laboratory / Field Tests Percent fines Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Direct shear Hydrometer analysis Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Plasticity index Pocket penetrometer Parts per million Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear

50/3"

Approximately 5 inches asphalt concrete pavement

Approximately 4 inches base course Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (very loose to loose, moist)

Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (dense to very dense, moist)

AC

CR

SM

GM

Approximate SPT N-value = 19

Approximate SPT N-value = 15

Total Depth (ft)

Hammer Data

System Datum

Start End Checked By Logged By

EJADrilled

Notes:

AF

Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum

Driller

Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)

Easting (X) Northing (Y)

45.62689 -122.66331

Truck-Mounted Dietrich D-50

Subsurface Technologies

Drilling Method

Hollow-stem Auger13.5

Automatic 140 (lbs) / (in) Drop

Drilling Equipment

NAD83

9/24/20139/24/2013

Not Encountered

Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.

FIELD DATA

D ep th fe et

In te rv al

E le va tio n (f ee t)

S am pl e

N am e T es tin g

R ec ov er ed in

G ra ph ic

L og

C o lle c te d

S am p le

B lo w s/ fo ot

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

G ro up C la ss ifi ca tio n

W at er L ev el

Log of Boring B-1 Rehabilitate Utilities Project

Vancouver, Washington

0861-036-00

Project:

Project Location:

Project Number:

Figure A-2 Sheet 1 of 1P or tla nd

D at e:

/1 5/

P at h:

P

0\

6\

\G

IN

T \0

.G P

J D

B T em pl at e/

Li bT em pl at e:

G E

O E

N G

IN

E

E R

S 8.

G D

T /G

E I8

_G E

O T

E C

H _S

T A

N D

A R

D

REMARKS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

MD; AL; SA

Approximately 5 inches asphalt concrete pavement

Approximately 4 inches base course Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (loose to medium dense, moist)

Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (medium dense to very dense, moist)

AC

CR

SM

GM

Approximate SPT N-value = 4

AL; PI = 7

SA; %F = 37

Approximate SPT N-value = 24

Approximate SPT N-value = 32

14 99

Total Depth (ft)

Hammer Data

System Datum

Start End Checked By Logged By

EJADrilled

Notes:

AF

Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum

Driller

Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)

Easting (X) Northing (Y)

45.62658 -122.6618

Truck-Mounted Dietrich D-50

Subsurface Technologies

Drilling Method

Hollow-stem Auger11.5

Automatic 140 (lbs) / (in) Drop

Drilling Equipment

NAD83

9/24/20139/24/2013

Not Encountered

Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.

FIELD DATA

D ep th fe et

In te rv al

E le va tio n (f ee t)

S am pl e

N am e T es tin g

R ec ov er ed in

G ra ph ic

L og

C o lle c te d

S am p le

B lo w s/ fo ot

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

G ro up C la ss ifi ca tio n

W at er L ev el

Log of Boring B-2 Rehabilitate Utilities Project

Vancouver, Washington

0861-036-00

Project:

Project Location:

Project Number:

Figure A-3 Sheet 1 of 1P or tla nd

D at e:

/1 5/

P at h:

P

0\

6\

\G

IN

T \0

.G P

J D

B T em pl at e/

Li bT em pl at e:

G E

O E

N G

IN

E

E R

S 8.

G D

T /G

E I8

_G E

O T

E C

H _S

T A

N D

A R

D

REMARKS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p

SA*

SA*

50/2"

50/6"

Approximately 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement

Approximately 4 inches base course Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (loose, moist)

Gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (dense to very dense, moist)

AC

CR

SM

GM

SA; %F = 13

*Composite Sample5

Total Depth (ft)

Hammer Data

System Datum

Start End Checked By Logged By

EJADrilled

Notes:

AF

Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum

Driller

Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)

Easting (X) Northing (Y)

45.6262 -122.6624

Truck-Mounted Dietrich D-50

Subsurface Technologies

Drilling Method

Hollow-stem Auger11

Automatic 140 (lbs) / (in) Drop

Drilling Equipment

NAD83

9/24/20139/24/2013

Not Encountered

Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.

FIELD DATA

D ep th fe et

In te rv al

E le va tio n (f ee t)

S am pl e

N am e T es tin g

R ec ov er ed in

G ra ph ic

L og

C o lle c te d

S am p le

B lo w s/ fo ot

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

G ro up C la ss ifi ca tio n

W at er L ev el

Log of Boring B-3 Rehabilitate Utilities Project

Vancouver, Washington

0861-036-00

Project:

Project Location:

Project Number:

Figure A-4 Sheet 1 of 1P or tla nd

D at e:

/1 5/

P at h:

P

0\

6\

\G

IN

T \0

.G P

J D

B T em pl at e/

Li bT em pl at e:

G E

O E

N G

IN

E

E R

S 8.

G D

T /G

E I8

_G E

O T

E C

H _S

T A

N D

A R

D

REMARKS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p

MD; AL

SA*

SA*

Topsoil Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (loose to medium dense, moist)

Light brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (dense to very dense, moist)

TS

SM

GM

Approximate SPT N-value = 10

AL; PI = 8

SA; %F = 14

*Composite Sample

Total Depth (ft)

Hammer Data

System Datum

Start End Checked By Logged By

EJADrilled

Notes:

AF

Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum

Driller

Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)

Easting (X) Northing (Y)

45.625738 -122.66415

Truck-Mounted Dietrich D-50

Subsurface Technologies

Drilling Method

Hollow-stem Auger11.5

Automatic 140 (lbs) / (in) Drop

Drilling Equipment

NAD83

9/24/20139/24/2013

Not Encountered

Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.

FIELD DATA

D ep th fe et

In te rv al

E le va tio n (f ee t)

S am pl e

N am e T es tin g

R ec ov er ed in

G ra ph ic

L og

C o lle c te d

S am p le

B lo w s/ fo ot

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

G ro up C la ss ifi ca tio n

W at er L ev el

Log of Boring B-4 Rehabilitate Utilities Project

Vancouver, Washington

0861-036-00

Project:

Project Location:

Project Number:

Figure A-5 Sheet 1 of 1P or tla nd

D at e:

/1 5/

P at h:

P

0\

6\

\G

IN

T \0

.G P

J D

B T em pl at e/

Li bT em pl at e:

G E

O E

N G

IN

E

E R

S 8.

G D

T /G

E I8

_G E

O T

E C

H _S

T A

N D

A R

D

REMARKS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p

SA*

MD; AL: SA*

SA

Approximately 4 inches asphalt concrete pavement

Approximately 3 inches base course Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (loose to medium dense, moist)

Brown fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel (medium dense to dense, moist)

AC

CR

GM

SP-SM

SA; %F = 26

*Composite Sample

Approximate SPT N-value = 10

AL; PI = 2

SA; %F = 10

Total Depth (ft)

Hammer Data

System Datum

Start End Checked By Logged By

EJADrilled

Notes:

AF

Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum

Driller

Groundwater Depth to Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)

Easting (X) Northing (Y)

45.62486 -122.66481

Truck-Mounted Dietrich D-50

Subsurface Technologies

Drilling Method

Hollow-stem Auger11.5

Automatic 140 (lbs) / (in) Drop

Drilling Equipment

NAD83

9/24/20139/24/2013

Not Encountered

Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.

FIELD DATA

D ep th fe et

In te rv al

E le va tio n (f ee t)

S am pl e

N am e T es tin g

R ec ov er ed in

G ra ph ic

L og

C o lle c te d

S am p le

B lo w s/ fo ot

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

G ro up C la ss ifi ca tio n

W at er L ev el

Log of Boring B-5 Rehabilitate Utilities Project

Vancouver, Washington

0861-036-00

Project:

Project Location:

Project Number:

Figure A-6 Sheet 1 of 1P or tla nd

D at e:

/1 5/

P at h:

P

0\

6\

\G

IN

T \0

.G P

J D

B T em pl at e/

Li bT em pl at e:

G E

O E

N G

IN

E

E R

S 8.

G D

T /G

E I8

_G E

O T

E C

H _S

T A

N D

A R

D

REMARKS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p

Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.

Symbol Sample ID

Sample Depth (feet)

Moisture Content

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

(%) USCS Soil Description

B-2 S-1 2.5 14 46 7 SM Silty sand with gravel

B-4 S-1 2.5 7 37 8 ML

Silt with sand and gravel

B-5 S-2 5 8 29 2 GM Silty gravel with sand

Atterberg Limits Test Results

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Vancouver, Washington

Figure A-7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTICITY CHART

CH or OH

OH or MH

ML or OL

CL or OL

CL-ML

Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.

SAND

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSE FINE

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000

PE

R

C

EN

T

PA

SS

IN

G

BY

W

EI

G H

T

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3/8”3” 1.5” #4 #10 #20 #200#40 #60 #1003/4”

Sieve Analysis Results

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Vancouver, Washington

Figure A-8

Symbol Sample

ID

Sample Depth (feet)

Moisture Content

Gravel

Sand

Fines (%) USCS Soil Description

B-2 S-1 2.5 14 23 41 37 SM Silty sand with gravel

B-3 S2-3 5-7.5 5 56 31 13 GM Silty gravel with sand

Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.

SAND

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSE FINE

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000

PE

R

C

EN

T

PA

SS

IN

G

BY

W

EI

G H

T

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3/8”3” 1.5” #4 #10 #20 #200#40 #60 #1003/4”

Sieve Analysis Results

Rehabilitate Utilities Project Vancouver, Washington

Figure A-9

Symbol Sample

ID

Sample Depth (feet)

Moisture Content

Gravel

Sand

Fines (%) USCS Soil Description

B-4 S3-4 7.5-10 5 45 40 14 GM Silty gravel with sand

B-5 S-1-2 2.5-5 12 40 35 26 GM Silty gravel with sand

B-5 S3 7.5 7 38 52 10

SP-

SM

Sand with silt and gravel

APPENDIX B

Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

February 17, 2014 | Page B-1

APPENDIX B

REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1

This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report.

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects

This report has been prepared for Kennedy/Jenks Consultants and their authorized agents and regulatory agencies. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites.

GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. No party other than the Kennedy/Jenks Consultants may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance in advance and in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our proposal dated June 12, 2013, and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. Use of this report is not recommended for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project- Specific Factors

This report has been prepared for the Proposed Rehabilitate Utilities Project at the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in Vancouver, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it was:

■ not prepared for you,

■ not prepared for your project,

■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or

■ completed before important project changes were made.

For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:

■ the function of the proposed structure;

■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure;

■ composition of the design team; or

■ project ownership.

If important changes are made after the date of this report, we recommend that GeoEngineers be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate.

1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org.

Page B-2 | February 17, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change

This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations.

Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions

Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations

GeoEngineers’ recommendations were developed principally from GeoEngineers’ professional judgment and opinion. Our recommendations should be confirmed by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation to confirm our recommendations.

Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation

Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs

Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in geotechnical engineering or

February 17, 2014 | Page B-3 geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.

Photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance

To help prevent costly problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, we recommend giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report's accuracy is limited. In addition, encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer.

Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects

Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties.

Read These Provisions Closely

It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) are less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines.

Without this understanding, there may be expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory “limitations” provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to know more how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site.

Biological Pollutants

GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts.

A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field.

Earth Science + Technology

Type Name of Services Here Name of Project Here for Type Client Name Here

Type Date of Report Here