EB3_Permit and Bid_Project Manual_8-2-2021.pdf

OMD ENLISTED BARRACKS EB3

Hermiston, Oregon for Oregon Military Department

Project Manual

30 JUL 2021

Permit Set SERA Project Number

2001041

ARCHITECTURE

URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING

INTERIOR DESIGN

338 NW 5TH AVE

PORTLAND, OREGON 97209

P. 503.445.7372 F. 503.445.7395

SERADESIGN.COM

PROJECT NO. 2001041 OMD: CAMP UMATILLA PAGE 1

30 JUL 2021 ENLISTED BARRACKS EB3 SECTION 00 01 07

SEALS PAGE

SERA Architects, Inc. Permit Set

Architect of Record A. SERA Architects, Inc.

Architect: George D. Hager Jr.

Address: 338 NW 5th Avenue City: Portland, Oregon Tel: 503-445-7372

B. Project Manager: Bill Poulos Email: BillP@seradesign.com

Structural Engineer:

A. KPFF Consulting Engineers (KPFF)

Structural Engineer: Joshua P. Richards Address:111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2500 City: Portland, Oregon Tel: 503-764-0532

B. Project Manager: Justin Brown Email: Justin.Brown@kpff.com

MEP-F:

A. Colbreit Engineering (CTE)

Plumbing Engineer: Adam T. Boyd Mech. Engineer: Adam T. Boyd Elect. Engineer: James P. Krumsick Address: 721 SW Industrial Way, Ste 110 City: Bend, Oregon Tel: 541-728-3293

B. Project Manager: Adam Boyd Email: adamboyd@colebreit.com

N

79476PE

13, OREGON

EXPIRES

MAR.

NE

G I

S T R U C T

702 0

REE

RU LA

R I C H A RD S

P.AUHSOJ

PROFESS I ONA L

DERETSI

GER

12-31-22

EXP. 12-31-21

REG

I STERED PROFESS IONAL

J A M E S P . K R U M S I C K

OREGON

2ENG I N E ER

S E P T . 2 1 , 1 9 8 4

1 6 9 9

EXPIRES 6/30/2022

mailto:BillP@seradesign.com mailto:Justin.Brown@kpff.com mailto:adamboyd@colebreit.com katiem Stamp

PROJECT NO. 2001041 OMD: CAMP UMATILLA PAGE 2

30 JUL 2021 ENLISTED BARRACKS EB3 SECTION 00 01 07

SEALS PAGE

SERA Architects, Inc. Permit Set

Civil Engineer:

A. Humber Design Group, Inc. (HDG)

Civil Engineer: William G. Brannan Address: 117 SE Taylor Street, Suite 001 City: Portland, Oregon Tel: 503-946-6690

B. Project Manager: William Brannan Email: William.Brannan@hdgpdx.com

Landscape Architect:

A. SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.

Landscape Architect: Dan Jenkins Address: 335 NW 5th Avenue City: Portland, Oregon Tel: 503-445-7372

B. Project Manager: Dan Jenkins Email: DanJ@seradesign.com

Daniel K. Jenkins mailto:William.Brannan@hdgpdx.com mailto:DanJ@seradesign.com katiem Stamp

30 JUL 2021 ENLISTED BARRACKS EB3 SECTION 00 01 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERA Architects, Inc. Permit Set

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 01 07 SEALS PAGE

00 01 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 31 00 AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 10 00 SUMMARY

01 20 00 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

ARCHITECTURAL BULLETIN (AB) FORM FORM

01 23 00 ALTERNATES

01 26 13 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

RFI SAMPLE FORM FORM

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

ELECTRONIC MEDIA RELEASE FORM FORM

01 32 16 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS SCHEDULE

01 35 15 LEED REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

LEED SCORECARD

01 35 73 DELEGATED DESIGN PROCEDURES

01 40 00 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

01 43 39 COORDINATED MOCK-UPS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 51 00 TEMPORARY UTILITIES

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 60 00 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

SUBSTITUTION REQUEST FORM (DURING BIDDING) FORM

SUBSTITUTION REQUEST FORM (AFTER BIDDING) FORM

01 70 00 EXECUTION AND CLOSEOUT REQUIREMENTS

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 81 00 FACILITY PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

01 91 00 GENERAL COMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

NOT USED

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 35 11 CONCRETE FLOOR FINISHES

03 45 00 PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE

03 54 00 CAST UNDERLAYMENT

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY

04 20 01 MASONRY VENEER

PROJECT NO. 2001041 OMD: CAMP UMATILLA PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERA Architects, Inc. Permit Set

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 05 13 SHOP APPLIED METAL COATING

05 50 00 METAL FABRICATIONS

05 51 00 METAL STAIRS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 17 33 WOOD I-JOISTS

06 17 36 METAL-WEB WOOD JOISTS

06 17 53 SHOP-FABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES

06 18 00 GLUE-LAMINATED CONSTRUCTION

06 20 00 FINISH CARPENTRY

06 41 00 ARCHITECTURAL WOOD CASEWORK

06 82 05 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PANELING

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 14 00 FLUID-APPLIED WATERPROOFING

07 19 00 WATER REPELLENTS

07 21 00 THERMAL INSULATION

07 25 00 WEATHER BARRIERS

07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS

07 62 00 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

07 72 00 ROOF ACCESSORIES

07 84 00 FIRESTOPPING

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 – OPENINGS

08 11 13 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 31 00 ACCESS DOORS AND PANELS

08 53 13 VINYL WINDOWS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

HARDWARE GROUPS

08 80 00 GLAZING

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 05 61 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR FLOORING PREPARATION

09 21 16 GYPSUM BOARD ASSEMBLIES

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 65 00 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 68 13 TILE CARPETING

09 90 00 PAINTING AND COATING

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 14 00 SIGNAGE

10 21 13.19 PLASTIC TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 26 01 WALL AND CORNER GUARDS

10 28 00 TOILET, BATH, AND LAUNDRY ACCESSORIES

10 44 00 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND CABINETS

PROJECT NO. 2001041 OMD: CAMP UMATILLA PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERA Architects, Inc. Permit Set

DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT

11 52 70 TELEVISION MOUNTS

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 21 13 HORIZONTAL LOUVER BLINDS

12 93 23 LITER AND RECYCLING RECEPTORS

DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION THROUGH DIVISION 21 – FIRE SUPPRESSION

NOT USED

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR PLUMBING CTE

22 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND

EQUIPMENT

CTE

22 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR PLUMBING CTE

22 07 19 PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION CTE

22 08 00 COMMISSIONING OF PLUMBING CTE

22 11 16 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING CTE

22 11 19 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING SPECIALTIES CTE

22 11 23.21 INLINE, DOMESTIC-WATER PUMPS CTE

22 13 16 SANITARY WASTE AND VENT PIPING CTE

22 13 19 SANITARY WASTE PIPING SPECIALTIES CTE

22 33 30 SOLAR HOT WATER EQUIPMENT CTE

22 34 00 FUEL-FIRED, DOMESTIC-WATER HEATERS CTE

22 40 00 PLUMBING FIXTURES CTE

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 00 00 COMMON RESULTS FOR HVAC CTE

23 05 23.11 GLOBE VALVES FOR HVAC PIPING CTE

23 05 23.12 BALL VALVES FOR HVAC PIPING CTE

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC CTE

23 07 00 HVAC INSULATION CTE

23 08 00 COMMISSIONING OF HVAC CTE

23 11 26 FACILITY LIQUEFIED-PETROLEUM GAS PIPING CTE

23 21 13 HYDRONIC PIPING CTE

23 21 16 HYDRONIC PIPING SPECIALTIES CTE

23 21 23 HYDRONIC PUMPS CTE

23 31 13 METAL DUCTS CTE

23 33 00 AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES CTE

23 34 16 CENTRIFUGAL HVAC FANS CTE

23 37 00 AIR OUTLETS AND INLETS CTE

23 52 16 CONDENSING BOILERS CTE

23 65 13 ADIABATIC CLOSED-CIRCUIT COOLER CTE

23 72 23.19 ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS CTE

23 81 26 SPLIT-SYSTEM HEAT PUMPS CTE

23 81 46 WATER-SOURCE UNITARY HEAT PUMPS CTE

PROJECT NO. 2001041 OMD: CAMP UMATILLA PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERA Architects, Inc. Permit Set

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 00 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL CTE

26 05 09 EQUIPMENT WIRING CTE

26 05 19 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES CTE

26 05 26 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CTE

26 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CTE

26 05 33 RACEWAYS AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CTE

26 05 44 SLEEVES & SLEEVE SEALS FOR ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS &

CABLING

CTE

26 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CTE

26 09 23 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES CTE

26 09 25 DIGITAL LIGHTING CONTROLS CTE

26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS CTE

26 24 16 PANELBOARDS CTE

26 27 13 ELECTRICITY METERING CTE

26 27 26 WIRING DEVICES CTE

26 28 13 FUSES CTE

26 28 16 ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS CTE

26 33 23 CENTRAL BATTERY EQUIPMENT FOR EMERGENCY LIGHTING CTE

26 43 00 SURGE PROTECTIVE DEVICES CTE

26 51 00 LIGHTING CTE

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 05 28 PATHWAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CTE

27 05 36 CABLE TRAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CTE

27 05 44 SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR COMMUNICATIONS

PATHWAYS

CTE

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 12 10 FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS CTE

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 10 00 SITE CLEARING HDG

31 20 00 EARTH MOVING HDG

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 12 16 ASHPHALT PAVING HDG

32 13 13 CONCRETE PAVING HDG

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS HDG

32 84 23 UNDERGROUND SPRINKLERS

32 92 19 SEEDING

32 93 00 PLANTS

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING HDG

33 31 00 SANITARY SEWERAGE HDG

33 41 00 STORM UTILITY DRAINAGE PIPING HDG

33 46 00 SUBDRAINAGE HDG

END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS

30 JUL 2021 ENLISTED BARRACKS EB3 SECTION 00 31 00

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

SERA Architects, Inc. Permit Set

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. Certain information relating to existing surface and subsurface conditions and structures is available to bidders but will not be part of Contract Documents, as follows:

B. Geotechnical Report: Entitled Geotechnical Engineering Report; OMD Enlisted Barracks;

Date Street; Hermiston, Oregon. Prepared by PBS Engineering and Environmental, Inc. , dated April 15, 2021 .

1. Copy of report is included, following this section.

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

END OF SECTION

4 4 1 2 S C O R B E T T A V E N U E

P O R T L A N D , O R 9 7 2 3 9

5 0 3 . 2 4 8 . 1 9 3 9 M A I N

8 6 6 . 7 2 7 . 0 1 4 0 F A X

P B S U S A . C O M

Geotechnical Engineering Report OMD Enlisted Barracks

Date Street

Hermiston, Oregon

Prepared for:

Sera Architects, Inc.

338 NW 5th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97209

April 15, 2021

PBS Project 73286.019

© 2021 PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc.

4 4 1 2 S C O R B E T T A V E N U E , P O R T L A N D , O R 9 7 2 3 9 ▪ 5 0 3 . 2 4 8 . 1 9 3 9 M A I N ▪ 8 6 6 . 7 2 7 . 0 1 4 0 F A X ▪ P B S U S A . C O M

Geotechnical Engineering Report

OMD Enlisted Barracks

Date Street

Hermiston, Oregon

Prepared for:

Sera Architects, Inc.

338 NW 5th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97209

Prepared by:

Clint Nealey, PE (WA)

Geotechnical Staff Engineer

Reviewed by:

Ryan White, GE, PE

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

6/30/2022

Sera Architects, Inc.

OMD Enlisted Barracks i

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

General

Purpose and Scope

1.2.1 Literature and Records Review

1.2.2 Subsurface Explorations

1.2.3 Field Infiltration Testing

1.2.4 Soils Testing

1.2.5 Geotechnical Engineering Analysis

1.2.6 Report Preparation

Project Understanding

2 SITE CONDITIONS

Surface Description

Geologic Setting

2.2.1 Regional Geology

2.2.2 Local Geology

Subsurface Conditions

Groundwater

Infiltration Testing

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Geotechnical Design Considerations

Shallow Foundations

3.2.1 Minimum Footing Widths and Design Bearing Pressure

3.2.2 Footing Embedment Depths

3.2.3 Footing Preparation

3.2.4 Lateral Resistance

Floor Slabs

Seismic Design Considerations

3.4.1 Code-Based Seismic Design Parameters

3.4.2 Liquefaction Potential

Temporary and Permanent Slopes

Ground Moisture

Pavement Design

4 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation

4.1.1 Proofrolling/Subgrade Verification

4.1.2 Wet/Freezing Weather and Wet Soil Conditions

4.1.3 Compacting Test Pit Locations

Excavation

Structural Fill

4.3.1 On-Site Soil

4.3.2 Borrow Material

4.3.3 Select Granular Fill

ii

4.3.4 Crushed Aggregate Base

4.3.5 Utility Trench Backfill

4.3.6 Stabilization Material

5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

6 LIMITATIONS

7 REFERENCES

Supporting Data

TABLES

Table 1. Infiltration Test Results Table 2. 2019 OSSC Seismic Design Parameters Table 3. Minimum AC Pavement Sections

FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

Figure 2. Site Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Field Explorations

Table A-1. Terminology Used to Describe Soil

Table A-2. Key to Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols

Figures A1–A15. Logs for Test Pits TP-1 through TP-15

Appendix B: Laboratory Testing

Figure B1. Particle-Size Analysis Test Results

1 INTRODUCTION

General

This report presents results of PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. (PBS) geotechnical engineering services for the proposed barracks located at Date Street in Hermiston, Oregon (site). The general site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The locations of PBS’ explorations in relation to existing and proposed site features are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of PBS’ services was to develop geotechnical design and construction recommendations in support of the planned barracks. This was accomplished by performing the following scope of services.

1.2.1 Literature and Records Review

PBS reviewed various published geologic maps of the area for information regarding geologic conditions and hazards at or near the site. PBS also reviewed reports for other projects completed at the site.

1.2.2 Subsurface Explorations

PBS observed the excavation of 15 test pits within the proposed building areas to depths of up to 12 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The test pits were logged and representative soil samples collected by a member of the PBS geotechnical engineering staff. Interpreted test pit logs are included as Figures A1 through A15 in Appendix A, Field Explorations.

1.2.3 Field Infiltration Testing

Three open-hole, falling-head field infiltration tests were completed in test pits TP-1, TP-5, and TP-7 within the proposed development at depths of approximately 4 feet bgs. Infiltration testing was monitored by PBS geotechnical engineering staff.

1.2.4 Soils Testing

Soil samples were returned to our laboratory and classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil

Classification System (ASTM D2487) and/or the Visual-Manual Procedure (ASTM D2488). Laboratory tests included natural moisture contents and grain-size analyses. Laboratory test results are included in the exploration logs in Appendix A, Field Explorations; and in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.

1.2.5 Geotechnical Engineering Analysis

Data collected during the subsurface exploration, literature research, and testing were used to develop site-specific geotechnical design parameters and construction recommendations.

1.2.6 Report Preparation

This Geotechnical Engineering Report summarizes the results of our explorations, testing, and analyses, including information relating to the following:

• Field exploration logs and site plan showing approximate exploration locations

• Laboratory test results

• Infiltration test results

• Groundwater levels and considerations

• Liquefaction potential

• Shallow foundation recommendations:

o Minimum embedment o Allowable bearing pressure o Estimated settlement o Sliding coefficient

• Lateral earth pressures for embedded/retaining wall design, including:

o Active, passive, and at-rest earth pressures o Seismic lateral force o Sliding coefficient o Groundwater and drainage considerations

• Earthwork and grading, cut, and fill recommendations:

o Structural fill materials and preparation o Utility trench excavation and backfill requirements o Slab and pavement subgrade preparation o Wet weather considerations

• Seismic design criteria in accordance with the 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)

• Slab and pavement subgrade preparation recommendations

• Recommended asphalt concrete (AC) pavement sections

Project Understanding

PBS understands plans include design and construction of four new structures designated EB1-EB4. Both EB1 and EB3 will be approximately 14,000-square-foot, two-story structures and EB2 and EB4 will be approximately

3,600-square-foot, single-story structures, constructed in the undeveloped area at the north end of existing development at the facility, west of Building 34. Structure loads will include column loads of 30 to 125 kips and wall loads of 2 to 4 kips per foot with estimated floor loads of less than 250 psf. PBS previously completed three borings and geophysical testing for other projects in the immediate vicinity.

2 SITE CONDITIONS

Surface Description

The greater Umatilla Ordnance Depot is an approximately 25-square-mile area located west of the city of

Hermiston, Oregon. The depot is surrounded by agricultural lands to the north, west, and northeast, Interstate

82 to the southeast, and Interstate 84 to the south. The depot is composed of numerous roadways traversing the ordinance depot between storage facilities and other facilities at the site. Several closely spaced buildings are located near the southern entrance to the depot that include existing barracks, landscaped areas, and other support facilities.

Based on available topographic data, the greater depot is located within a dune field characterized by hummocky terrain formed by northeast-southwest oriented low-relief dunes. The eastern portion of the depot is composed of Cayote Coulee, a northeast-southwest trending ravine formed by Pleistocene flooding (Madin and Geitgey, 2007; USGS, 2020).

The location of the proposed barracks is a roughly rectangular site that slopes gently to the east, with a surface elevation of approximately 590 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near the southern site entrance (USGS, 2020).

The barracks site is bordered to the south and east by other Camp Umatilla facilities and to the north and west by undeveloped land and bunker storage facilities.

Geologic Setting

2.2.1 Regional Geology

The site is located within the Umatilla Basin, a sub-province within the greater Deschutes-Columbia Plateau geologic province of Central Oregon, located along the northern Oregon border. The Deschutes-Columbia

Plateau geologic province is bordered to the north by the Columbia Basin geologic province of Washington, to the east by the Blue Mountains, to the south by the High Lava Plains, and to the west by the Cascade Range geologic provinces of Oregon. Topographic relief within the Umatilla Basin is low within the northern reaches of the basin and moderate in the southern highlands, except where the topography is cut by deeply incised stream channels (Madin and Geitgey, 2007).

The province is composed primarily of volcanic basement rocks of the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG) subdivided into smaller recognizable flows and members that are overlain by Quaternary deposits (Derkey et al., 2006). The older basalt flows were generated by volcanic eruptions in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and western Idaho between 16.7 million years ago (Ma) and 5.5 Ma (Reidel, 2004).

2.2.2 Local Geology

The location of the proposed barracks is mapped as underlain by Pleistocene cataclysmic flood deposits

(Madin and Geitgey, 2007). These materials are described as boulder to gravel sized particles with common thicknesses of 16 to 50 feet but extend in areas to a depth of 135 feet.

Subsurface Conditions

The site was explored by excavating 15 test pits, designated TP-1 through TP-15, to depths of up to 12 feet bgs. The excavation was performed by Eastern Oregon Environmental Recovery of Pendleton, Oregon, using a

Komatsu PC78US excavator outfitted with a 24-inch-wide toothed bucket.

PBS has summarized the subsurface units as follows:

Groundwater

Static groundwater was not encountered during our explorations. Previous explorations to depths of over 25 feet bgs in the site vicinity did not encounter groundwater. The OMD previously provided groundwater contour maps that indicate groundwater at the site is generally deeper than 50 feet bgs. This is consistent with review of regional groundwater logs available from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) that indicate groundwater is present at depths of deeper than 50 feet bgs. Please note that groundwater levels can fluctuate during the year depending on climate, irrigation season, extended periods of precipitation, drought, and other factors.

SAND: Brown to dark brown, poorly graded sand with variable silt contents was observed just below the surface of all test pits and extended to depths ranging from 1.5 to 5 feet bgs.

Fine roots were generally seen extending from 2 to 4 feet bgs in the fine- to medium-grained sand. Rare coarse-grained gravel particles were consistently observed intermixed within the sand.

GRAVEL: Gravel was observed below the sand and extended to the termination depth in all test pits. The gravel was generally composed of fine- to coarse-grained gravel particles intermixed with fine- to coarse-grained sand, cobbles, and boulders as large as 24 inches in diameter. The brown to gray gravel ranged from medium dense to very dense.

Infiltration Testing

PBS completed three open-hole, falling-head infiltration tests in test pits TP-1, TP-5, and TP-7 at depths of approximately 4 feet bgs. The unlined test pits were filled with water to achieve a minimum 1-foot-high column of water. After a period of saturation, the height of the water column in the test pit was then measured initially and at regular, timed intervals. Results of our field infiltration testing are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Infiltration Test Results

Test Location Depth (feet bgs) Field Measured

Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Soil Classification

TP-1 4 10 Gravel (GP)

TP-5 4 10 Gravel (GP)

TP-7 4 2.4 Gravel (GP)

The infiltration rates listed in Table 1 are not permeabilities/hydraulic conductivities, but field-measured rates and do not include correction factors related to long-term infiltration rates. We recommend the design engineer should determine appropriate correction factors to account for the planned level of pre-treatment, maintenance, vegetation, siltation, etc. Field-measured infiltration rates are typically reduced by a minimum factor of 2 to 4 for use in design.

Soil types can vary significantly over relatively short distances. The infiltration rates noted above are representative of one discrete location and depth. Installation of infiltration systems within the layer the field rate was measured is considered critical to proper performance of the systems.

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Geotechnical Design Considerations

The subsurface conditions at the site consist of fine- to medium-grained sand overlying gravel. Based on our observations and analyses, conventional foundation support on shallow spread footings is feasible for the proposed new buildings. Excavation with conventional equipment is feasible at the site. However, the depth of some of our explorations was limited by moderate to severe caving of the sand and gravel. The project budget and schedule should include a contingency for additional excavation and backfill volumes.

The grading and final development plans for the project had not been completed when this report was prepared. Once completed, PBS should be engaged to review the project plans and update our recommendations as necessary.

Shallow Foundations

Shallow spread footings bearing on native, medium dense or better sand may be used to support loads associated with the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are followed.

Footings should not be supported on undocumented fill.

3.2.1 Minimum Footing Widths and Design Bearing Pressure

Continuous wall and isolated spread footings should be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively. Footings should be sized using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This is a net bearing pressure and the weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be disregarded in calculating footing sizes. The recommended allowable bearing pressure applies to the total of dead plus long-term live loads. Allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for seismic and wind loads.

Footings will settle in response to column and wall loads. Based on our evaluation of the subsurface conditions and our analysis, we estimate post-construction settlement will be less than 1 inch for the column and perimeter foundation loads. Differential settlement will be on the order of one-half of the total settlement.

3.2.2 Footing Embedment Depths

PBS recommends that all footings be founded a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The footings should be founded below an imaginary line projecting upward at a 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical) slope from the base of any adjacent, parallel utility trenches or deeper excavations.

3.2.3 Footing Preparation

Excavations for footings should be carefully prepared to a neat and undisturbed state. A representative from

PBS should confirm suitable bearing conditions and evaluate all exposed footing subgrades. Observations should also confirm that loose or soft materials have been removed from new footing excavations and concrete slab-on-grade areas. Localized deepening of footing excavations may be required to penetrate loose, wet, or deleterious materials.

PBS recommends a layer of compacted, crushed rock be placed over the footing subgrades to help protect them from disturbance due to foot traffic and the elements. Placement of this rock is the prerogative of the contractor; regardless, the footing subgrade should be in a dense or stiff condition prior to pouring concrete.

Based on our experience, approximately 4 inches of compacted crushed rock will be suitable beneath the footings.

3.2.4 Lateral Resistance

Lateral loads can be resisted by passive earth pressure on the sides of footings and grade beams, and by friction at the base of the footings. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used for footings confined by native soils and new structural fills. The allowable passive pressure has been reduced by a factor of two to account for the large amount of deformation required to mobilize full passive resistance.

Adjacent floor slabs, pavements, or the upper 12-inch depth of adjacent unpaved areas should not be considered when calculating passive resistance. For footings supported on native soils or new structural fills, use a coefficient of friction equal to 0.40 when calculating resistance to sliding. These values do not include a factor of safety (FS).

Floor Slabs

Satisfactory subgrade support for building floor slabs can be obtained from the native sand subgrade prepared in accordance with our recommendations presented in the Site Preparation, Wet/Freezing Weather and Wet

Soil Conditions, and Select Granular Fill sections of this report. A minimum 6-inch-thick layer of imported granular material should be placed and compacted over the prepared subgrade. Thicker aggregate sections may be necessary where undocumented fill is present, soft/loose soils are present at subgrade elevation, and/or during wet conditions. Imported granular material should be composed of crushed rock or crushed gravel that is relatively well graded between coarse and fine, contains no deleterious materials, has a maximum particle size of 1 inch, and has less than 5% by dry weight passing the US Standard No. 200 Sieve.

Floor slabs supported on a subgrade and base course prepared in accordance with the preceding recommendations may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 150 pounds per cubic inch

(pci).

Seismic Design Considerations

3.4.1 Code-Based Seismic Design Parameters

The current seismic design criteria for this project are based on the 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code

(OSSC). Based on the materials encountered during our explorations and the result of geophysical testing

(ReMi) at the site, Site Class C is appropriate for use in design. The seismic design criteria, in accordance with the 2019 OSSC, are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. 2019 OSSC Seismic Design Parameters

Parameter Short Period 1 Second

Maximum Credible Earthquake Spectral Acceleration Ss = 0.39 g S1 = 0.15 g

Site Class C

Site Coefficient Fa = 1.3 Fv = 1.5

Adjusted Spectral Acceleration SMS = 0.51 g SM1 = 0.23 g

Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters SDS = 0.34 g SD1 = 0.15 g

MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration PGA = 0.18 g

Site Amplification Factor at PGA FPGA = 1.22

Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM = 0.22 g= Acceleration due to gravity

3.4.2 Liquefaction Potential

Liquefaction is defined as a decrease in the shear resistance of loose, saturated, cohesionless soil (e.g., sand) or low plasticity silt soils, due to the buildup of excess pore pressures generated during an earthquake. This results in a temporary transformation of the soil deposit into a viscous fluid. Liquefaction can result in ground settlement, foundation bearing capacity failure, and lateral spreading of ground.

Based on a review of the Oregon Statewide Geohazard Viewer (HazVu), the site is shown as having a moderate liquefaction hazard; however, based on the relatively shallow depth to gravel observed in our explorations and expected depth to groundwater, our current opinion is that the risk of structurally damaging liquefaction settlement at the site is low. Subsequently, the risk of structurally damaging lateral spreading is also low.

Temporary and Permanent Slopes

All temporary cut slopes should be excavated with a smooth-bucket excavator, with the slope surface repaired if disturbed. In addition, upslope surface runoff should be rerouted to not run down the face of the slopes.

Equipment should not be allowed to induce vibration or infiltrate water above the slopes, and no surcharges are allowed within 25 feet of the slope crest.

Permanent cut and fill slopes up to 10 feet high can be inclined at 2H:1V in medium dense or better silty sand and sand or compacted structural fill. If slow seepage is present, use of a rock blanket or a suitably revegetated, reinforced erosion control blanket may be required. PBS should be consulted if seepage is present; additional erosion control measures, such as additional drainage elements, and/or flatter slopes, may also be required. Exposed soils that are soft or loose may also require these measures. Fill slopes should be over-built and cut back into compacted structural fill at the design inclination using a smooth-bucket excavator. Erosion control is critical to maintaining slopes.

Ground Moisture

The perimeter ground surface and hard-scape should be sloped to drain away from all structures and away from adjacent slopes. Gutters should be tight-lined to a suitable discharge and maintained as free-flowing. All crawl spaces (if present) should be adequately ventilated and sloped to drain to a suitable, exterior discharge.

Pavement Design

The provided pavement recommendations were developed based on our experience with similar developments and references the associated Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications for construction. Our evaluation considered a maximum of two trucks per day for a 20-year design life. These recommendations can be updated if site-specific traffic data is available.

The minimum recommended pavement section thicknesses are provided in Table 3. Depending on weather conditions at the time of construction, a thicker aggregate base course section could be required to support construction traffic during preparation and placement of the pavement section.

Table 3. Minimum AC Pavement Sections

Traffic Loading AC (inches) Base Course (inches) Subgrade

Parking Areas, Drive Lanes, and Access Roads 3 9

Stiff subgrade as verified by

PBS personnel*

* Subgrade must pass proofroll

The asphalt cement binder should be selected following ODOT SS 00744.11 – Asphalt Cement and Additives.

The AC should consist of ½-inch hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) with a maximum lift thickness of 3 inches.

The AC should conform to ODOT SS 00744.13 and 00744.14 and be compacted to 91% of the maximum theoretical density (Rice value) of the mix, as determined in accordance with ASTM D2041.

Heavy construction traffic on new pavements or partial pavement sections (such as base course over the prepared subgrade) will likely exceed the design loads and could potentially damage or shorten the pavement life; therefore, we recommend construction traffic not be allowed on new pavements, or that the contractor take appropriate precautions to protect the subgrade and pavement during construction.

If construction traffic is to be allowed on newly constructed road sections, an allowance for this additional traffic will need to be made in the design pavement section.

4 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation

Construction of the proposed structure will involve clearing and grubbing of the existing vegetation or demolition of possible existing structures. Demolition should include removal of existing pavement, utilities, etc., throughout the proposed new development. Underground utility lines or other abandoned structural elements should also be removed. The voids resulting from removal of foundations or loose soil in utility lines should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. The base of these excavations should be excavated to firm native subgrade before filling, with sides sloped at a minimum of 1H:1V to allow for uniform compaction.

Materials generated during demolition should be transported off site or stockpiled in areas designated by the owner’s representative.

4.1.1 Proofrolling/Subgrade Verification

Following site preparation and prior to placing aggregate base over shallow foundation, floor slab, and pavement subgrades, the exposed subgrade should be evaluated either by proofrolling or another method of subgrade verification. The subgrade should be proofrolled with a fully loaded dump truck or similar heavy, rubber-tire construction equipment to identify unsuitable areas. If evaluation of the subgrades occurs during wet conditions, or if proofrolling the subgrades will result in disturbance, they should be evaluated by PBS using a steel foundation probe. We recommend that PBS be retained to observe the proofrolling and perform the subgrade verifications. Unsuitable areas identified during the field evaluation should be compacted to a firm condition or be excavated and replaced with structural fill.

4.1.2 Wet/Freezing Weather and Wet Soil Conditions

Due to the presence of fine-grained silt and sands in the near-surface materials at the site, construction equipment may have difficulty operating on the near-surface soils when the moisture content of the surface soil is more than a few percentage points above the optimum moisture required for compaction. Soils disturbed during site preparation activities, or unsuitable areas identified during proofrolling or probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill.

Site earthwork and subgrade preparation should not be completed during freezing conditions, except for mass excavation to the subgrade design elevations.

Protection of the subgrade is the responsibility of the contractor. Construction of granular haul roads to the project site entrance may help reduce further damage to the pavement and disturbance of site soils. The actual thickness of haul roads and staging areas should be based on the contractors’ approach to site development, and the amount and type of construction traffic. The imported granular material should be placed in one lift over the prepared undisturbed subgrade and compacted using a smooth-drum, non-vibratory roller. A geotextile fabric should be used to separate the subgrade from the imported granular material in areas of repeated construction traffic. The geotextile should meet the specifications of ODOT SS Section 02320.10 and

SS 02320.20, Table 02320-4 for soil separation. The geotextile should be installed in conformance with ODOT

SS Section 00350 – Geosynthetic Installation.

4.1.3 Compacting Test Pit Locations

The test pit excavations were backfilled using the excavator bucket and relatively minimal compactive effort;

therefore, soft spots can be expected at these locations. We recommend that the relatively uncompacted soil be removed from the test pits to a depth of at least 3 feet below finished subgrade elevation in pavement areas and to full depth in building areas. The resulting excavation should be backfilled with structural fill.

Excavation

The near-surface soils at the site can be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment. Due to the presence of loose sand and caving observed in the test pit explorations, sloughing and caving should be anticipated. All excavations should be made in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) and state regulations. The contractor is solely responsible for adherence to the OSHA requirements. Open excavation techniques may be used provided the excavation is configured in accordance with the OSHA requirements, groundwater seepage is not present, and with the understanding that some sloughing/caving will likley occur. Trenches/excavations should be flattened if sloughing occurs or seepage is present. Use of a trench shield or other approved temporary shoring is recommended if vertical walls are desired for cuts deeper than 4 feet bgs.

Structural Fill

The extent of site grading is currently unknown; however, PBS estimates that cuts and fills will be less than 2 feet. Structural fill should be placed over subgrade that has been prepared in conformance with the Site

Preparation and Wet/Freezing Weather and Wet Soil Conditions sections of this report. Structural fill material should consist of relatively well-graded soil, or an approved rock product that is free of organic material and debris, and contains particles not greater than 4 inches nominal dimension.

The suitability of soil for use as compacted structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (material finer than the US Standard No. 200 Sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Soils containing more than about 5% fines cannot consistently be compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is significantly greater (or significantly less) than optimum.

4.3.1 On-Site Soil

On-site soils encountered in our explorations are generally suitable for placement as structural fill during moderate, dry weather when moisture content can be maintained by air drying and/or addition of water. The fine-grained fraction of the site soils are moisture sensitive, and during wet weather, may become unworkable because of excess moisture content. In order to reduce moisture content, some aerating and drying of fine-grained soils may be required. The material should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of approximately 8 inches and compacted to at least 92% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM

D1557 (modified proctor).

4.3.2 Borrow Material

Borrow material for general structural fill construction should meet the requirements set forth in ODOT SS

00330.12 – Borrow Material. When used as structural fill, borrow material should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of approximately 8 inches and compacted to not less than 92% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557.

4.3.3 Select Granular Fill

Selected granular backfill used during periods of wet weather for structural fill construction should meet the specifications provided in ODOT SS 00330.14 – Selected Granular Backfill. The imported granular material should be uniformly moisture conditioned to within about 2% of the optimum moisture content and compacted in relatively thin lifts using suitable mechanical compaction equipment. Selected granular backfill should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 8 to 12 inches and be compacted to not less than 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557.

4.3.4 Crushed Aggregate Base

Crushed aggregate base course below floor slabs, spread footings, and asphalt concrete pavements should be clean crushed rock or crushed gravel that contains no deleterious materials and meets the specifications provided in ODOT SS 02630.10 – Dense-Graded Aggregate, and has less than 5% by dry weight passing the US

Standard No. 200 Sieve. The crushed aggregate base course should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 8 to 12 inches and be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557.

4.3.5 Utility Trench Backfill

Pipe bedding placed to uniformly support the barrel of pipe should meet specifications provided in ODOT SS

00405.12 – Bedding. The pipe zone that extends from the top of the bedding to at least 8 inches above utility lines should consist of material prescribed by ODOT SS 00405.13 – Pipe Zone Material. The pipe zone material should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557, or as required by the pipe manufacturer.

Under pavements, paths, slabs, or beneath building pads, the remainder of the trench backfill should consist of well-graded granular material with less than 10% by dry weight passing the US Standard No. 200 Sieve, and should meet standards prescribed by ODOT SS 00405.14 – Trench Backfill, Class B or D. This material should be compacted to at least 92% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 or as required by the pipe manufacturer. The upper 2 feet of the trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557. Controlled low-strength material (CLSM), ODOT SS

00405.14 – Trench Backfill, Class E, can be used as an alternative.

Outside of structural improvement areas (e.g., pavements, sidewalks, or building pads), trench material placed above the pipe zone may consist of general structural fill materials that are free of organics and meet ODOT SS

00405.14 – Trench Backfill, Class A. This general trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557, or as required by the pipe manufacturer or local jurisdictions.

4.3.6 Stabilization Material

Stabilization rock should consist of pit or quarry run rock that is well-graded, angular, crushed rock consisting of 4- or 6-inch-minus material with less than 5% passing the US Standard No. 4 Sieve. The material should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. ODOT SS 00330.16 – Stone Embankment Material can be used as a general specification for this material with the stipulation of limiting the maximum size to 6 inches.

5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

In most cases, other services beyond completion of a final geotechnical engineering report are necessary or desirable to complete the project. Occasionally, conditions or circumstances arise that require additional work that was not anticipated when the geotechnical report was written. PBS offers a range of environmental, geological, geotechnical, and construction services to suit the varying needs of our clients.

PBS should be retained to review the plans and specifications for this project before they are finalized. Such a review allows us to verify that our recommendations and concerns have been adequately addressed in the design.

Satisfactory earthwork performance depends on the quality of construction. Sufficient observation of the contractor's activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications. We recommend that PBS be retained to observe general excavation, stripping, fill placement, footing subgrades, and/or pile installation. Subsurface conditions observed during construction should be compared with those encountered during the subsurface explorations. Recognition of changed conditions requires experience; therefore, qualified personnel should visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect whether subsurface conditions change significantly from those anticipated.

6 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the addressee, and their architects and engineers, for aiding in the design and construction of the proposed development and is not to be relied upon by other parties. It is not to be photographed, photocopied, or similarly reproduced, in total or in part, without express written consent of the client and PBS. It is the addressee's responsibility to provide this report to the appropriate design professionals, building officials, and contractors to ensure correct implementation of the recommendations.

The opinions, comments, and conclusions presented in this report are based upon information derived from our literature review, field explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. It is possible that soil, rock, or groundwater conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil, rock, or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is responsible for ensuring that PBS is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the recommendations of this report.

Unanticipated fill, soil and rock conditions, and seasonal soil moisture and groundwater variations are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by merely taking soil samples or completing explorations such as test pits. Such variations may result in changes to our recommendations and may require additional funds for expenses to attain a properly constructed project; therefore, we recommend a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs.

The scope of work for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site.

If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if the basic project scheme is significantly modified from that assumed, this report should be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. Land use, site conditions (both on and off site), or other factors may change over time and could materially affect our findings; therefore, this report should not be relied upon after three years from its issue, or in the event that the site conditions change.

7 REFERENCES

ASCE. (2016). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16).

Derkey, R. E., Stradling, D. F., Lindsey, K. A., and Tolan, T. L. (2006). Geologic map of the College Place and Walla

Walla 7.5-minute quadrangle, Walla Walla County, Washington, and Umatilla County, Oregon: Washington

Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geologic Map GM-62, scale 1:24,000.

Madin, I. P., and Geitgey, R. P. (2007). Preliminary geologic map of the Umatilla Basin, Morrow, and Umatilla

Counties, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). Open File Report O-

07-15.

ODOT SS. (2021). Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. Salem, Oregon. Oregon Department of

Transportation.

OSSC. (2019). Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). Based on IBC. (2018 International Building Code).

Country Club Hills, IL International Code Council, Inc.

Reidel, S. P. (2004). The Geologic Development of the Pasco Basin, South-Central Washington. Northwest

Geological Society. Society Field Trips in Pacific Northwest Geology.

US Geological Survey (2020). Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, accessed May 2020, from USGS web site: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/.

US Geological Survey (USGS). (2020) Topographic Map of the Ordnance 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. US Geological

Survey. NGA REF No. USGSX24K33376.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/

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.