Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PZ - Geotech Report
CONSULTANTS rGeotechnical Engineering Report Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital Rackham Way Meridian, ID Prepared For: AlignSphere Ventures, LLC Prepared By: JLT Consultants LLC February 10, 2026 JLT Project # 26-006 a ri Pm P LT ��j CONSULTANTS February 10, 2026 JLT Project#26-006 Mark Jang AlignSphere Ventures, LLC 7121 Crossroads Boulevard Brentwood, TN 37027 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital Rackham Way Meridian, ID Dear Mark Jang: JLT is pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital. The investigation and report were performed in general accordance with our proposal dated January 19, 2026. This report provides results of our subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering recommendations for the design and construction of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to collaborate on this project. If you have any questions or need further clarification or assistance, please contact the undersigned. We look forward to supporting the successful completion of this project. Respectfully submitted, JLT Consultants LLC Elizabeth Brown, PE Timothy R Morgan, PE, PMP Principal Geotechnical Engineer Project Manager JLT Consultants LLC liz.brown@jltconsultants.com 208-921-2771 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC L ri Pm PF LTJ CONSULTANTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 2 2. SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................ 2 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 2 4. SITE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 2 5. SITE INVESTIGATION....................................................................................................... 3 5.1. Field Exploration......................................................................................................... 3 5.2. Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................... 3 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS................................................................ 4 6.1. Geology...................................................................................................................... 4 6.2. Subsurface Profile ...................................................................................................... 4 6.3. Groundwater............................................................................................................... 5 6.4. Infiltration.................................................................................................................... 5 7. SEISMIC PARAMETERS................................................................................................... 6 7.1. Site Classification ....................................................................................................... 6 7.2. Seismic Design Parameters........................................................................................ 6 8. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 6 8.1. Site Preparation.......................................................................................................... 7 8.1.1. Building Pad Areas.............................................................................................. 7 8.1.2. Foundation Areas................................................................................................ 7 8.1.3. Pavement and Exterior Flatwork......................................................................... 7 8.2. Foundations................................................................................................................ 8 8.2.1. Foundation Construction Considerations ............................................................ 8 8.3. Floor Slabs ................................................................................................................. 9 8.4. Pavement................................................................................................................... 9 8.4.1. Pavement Design Considerations......................................................................10 8.4.2. Pavement Construction Considerations .............................................................10 8.5. Earthwork..................................................................................................................10 8.5.1. Structural Fill......................................................................................................10 8.5.2. Fill Placement and Compaction..........................................................................11 8.5.3. Grading and Drainage........................................................................................12 8.5.4. Backfill of Walls..................................................................................................12 8.5.5. Temporary Excavations......................................................................................12 8.5.6. Weather Considerations.....................................................................................13 8.5.7. Soft Subgrade Soils ...........................................................................................13 8.5.8. Groundwater Control..........................................................................................14 9. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DURING CONSTRUCTION........................................14 10. LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................15 Pagel ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC L ri Pw PF LTJ CONSULTANTS 11. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................16 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Site Map APPENDIX B Test Pit Logs General Notes APPENDIX C Shear Wave Velocity Survey Results APPENDIX D Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 2 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC ari Vm�r LT CONSULTANTS 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation and analysis for the project. If the scope of the proposed project changes from that described in this report, JLT must be notified to determine if changes in the recommendations of this report are required. If deviations of subsurface conditions described in this report are encountered during construction JLT must be contacted. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated January 19, 2026 and authorized on January 21, 2026. This report presents results of the following: • Exploration and evaluation of subsurface conditions via test pits. • Infiltration testing for stormwater management planning. • Laboratory testing on selected samples. • Design recommendations for: o Stormwater o Foundations o Pavements • Construction activity recommendations for: o Earthwork, grading, and excavation o Difficult soil conditions o Backfill 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital project is located at Rackham Way, Meridian, Idaho. Site location and exploration locations are provided on the site map included in the Appendix. The site to be developed is approximately 2.43 acres. It is our understanding that the project will consist of a micro-hospital structure to be approximately 21,380 square feet. No below-grade levels are anticipated for this structure.Asphalt parking areas and drive lanes will be developed surrounding the structure. Onsite stormwater infiltration facilities are expected. Rackham Way will be rerouted to the eastern portion of the site. Grading information has not been provided. 4. SITE DESCRIPTION The following information regarding the site characteristics is based on a review of available imagery, topographic maps, and visual site observations: Page 2 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC L ri Pm PF LTJ CONSULTANTS Historical Site Conditions — The portion of the site to the east of Rackham Way previously contained a residential structure with associated outbuildings and agricultural buildings until sometime between 2004 and 2005.An aerial from 1981 shows a residential structure on the portion of the site west of Rackham Way. Current Site Conditions—The site is currently bare land. Rackham Way runs north-south through a portion of the site. Eagle Road is present along the western property boundary and Eagle Road is along the southern property boundary. Eightmile Creek is present to the north of the site. Topography — The site is lower in elevation than Eagle Road and Overland Road. From the north the site gradually slopes downwards to the south. Vegetation—Bunchgrass and other weeds and grasses are present in the western portion of the site and along the roadways. The eastern portion of the site is generally bare land. Stormwater Drainage — It appears that stormwater drainage for the site is achieved by percolation and runoff. The site may receive offsite stormwater drainage from the south and west. 5. SITE INVESTIGATION 5.1. Field Exploration Subsurface conditions at the project site were explored by advancing 6 test pits to depths between 8.6 and 13.6 feet below ground surface (bgs) using a backhoe.Approximate test pit locations are provided on a Site Map in the Appendix. Test pit locations were chosen by Kimley-Horn and JILT. Test pits were backfilled with loose materials at completion of exploration. These areas will require re-excavation and compaction prior to construction. Subsurface materials in each test pit have been visually classified in the field and detailed descriptions are presented on the test pit logs in the Appendix. Note that stratification lines shown on the logs represent approximate transitions between soil types. In-situ stratum changes may be gradual, indistinct, or at slightly different depths. Collected samples have been identified and placed in sealed containers. 5.2. Laboratory Testing Selected samples obtained from the field exploration were tested to evaluate soil classification and pertinent engineering properties. Laboratory testing for this report consisted of the following: Atterberg Limits Testing —ASTM D4318 Grain Size Analysis —ASTM C117/C136 Page 3 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC ari VM�r LT �iiiiiiiiiiiiij CONSULTANTS 6. GEOLOGYAND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6.1. Geology The project site is located within the western Snake River Plain of southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon. The plain is a northwest trending rift basin, about 45 miles wide and 200 miles long, that developed about 14 million years ago (Ma) and has since been occupied sporadically by large inland lakes. Geologic materials found within and along the plain's margins reflect volcanic and fluvial/lacustrine sedimentary processes that have led to an accumulation of approximately 1 to 2 km of interbedded volcanic and sedimentary deposits within the plain. Along the margins of the plain, streams that drained the highlands to the north and south provided coarse to fine-grained sediments eroded from granitic and volcanic rocks, respectively. About 2 million years ago the last of the lakes was drained and since that time fluvial erosion and deposition has dominated the evolution of the landscape. The southwest corner of the project site is underlain by "Gravel of Sunrise Terrace" as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). The Sunrise terrace is the third terrace above the modern Boise River in the eastern Boise Valley, composed of sandy pebble and cobble gravel, and is about 115 feet above river level. Quaternary faulting has probably truncated and tilted this terrace along with older surfaces. The surface of this deposit is mantled with 3-7 feet of loess containing a weakly to moderately developed duripan. Based on stratigraphic correlation the Sunrise terrace may be correlative with the Wilder terrace further to the west. The majority of the site is underlain by "Sandy Alluvium of Side-Stream Valleys and Gulches" as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). Locally, these deposits are composed of medium to coarse sand interbedded with silty fine sand and silt and are mostly derived from weathered granite and reworked Tertiary sediments of the Boise Foothills. The thickness of this unit is variable. Because of the relative youthfulness of these deposits they contain only minor pedogenic clay and calcium carbonate. 6.2. Subsurface Profile A general characterization of the subsurface profile is provided below. Conditions encountered at each exploration location can be found on the individual logs in the Appendix. Demarcation between the soil layers represent approximate transitions as actual strata transitions may be gradual. Onsite conditions between exploration locations may vary from the individual profiles described in the logs. Page 4 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC a ri Pm P LT ��j CONSULTANTS Table 1 —Subsurface Profile Approximate Depths Layer General Description 0 to 5 feet Fill Materials Varying amounts of clay, silt, sand and gravel. 2 to 7.5 feet Clays and Silts' Various clayey and silty soils with varying sand content. 4.5 to 13.5 feet Sands and Gravels Dense to very dense with varying silt and clay content. 'Not encountered in test pits 3 and 4. 6.3. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation. Fluctuations of the presence and depth of groundwater may occur due to seasonal changes, topography, runoff, water levels in nearby waterways, irrigation and other factors not evident at the time of this investigation. Water seepage may be encountered because of leakage from Eightmile Creek. During previous investigation performed on the project site in 2007, 2008, and 2022 no groundwater was encountered to depths of 26.5 feet. Groundwater monitoring near the northeast corner of Overland Road and Rackham Way indicates that water was present at depths varying between 9.8 and 13.6 feet in the months of May, June, and July. It is anticipated that this perched water within the clayey gravels and not actual groundwater. Idaho Department of Water Resources Well Driller's Reports indicate groundwater is present at depths of 14 feet to 36 feet. Based on observations made during this investigation and research, JLT estimates that groundwater will remain below the expected depth of construction. However, perched water within the poorly graded gravel with clay and sand and clayey sand may be encountered during portions of the year. 6.4. Infiltration Soil permeability indicates how well soil allows fluid to pass through. Infiltration of stormwater into the subsurface soil is expected. JLT performed field infiltration testing using an open test pit method after the hole was presoaked. Testing was performed in test pit 4 at a depth of 12 feet within poorly graded gravel with clay and sand sediments. A stabilized field infiltration rate of 0.18 inch per hour was achieved during testing. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the stabilized field infiltration rate by the designer.The factor of safety is necessary because with time less permeable soils, organics, and other debris settle to the bottom of the infiltration facility. Page 5 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC L ri PW PF LTJ CONSULTANTS Infiltration into uncontrolled fill can cause settlement. JLT recommends that the infiltration facility sidewalls within fill materials be lined with a minimum 15-mil PVC or polyethylene liner to restrict lateral water movement. Infiltration facilities should be constructed in accordance with the governing municipality requirements. 7. SEISMIC PARAMETERS 7.1. Site Classification A shear wave velocity survey was conducted on the project site by ECA Geophysics. The shear wave velocity results are included in the Appendix. The average shear wave velocity in the upper 100 feet was determined to be 1,100 feet per second. Per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16 onsite soils are classified as Site Class D. 7.2. Seismic Design Parameters Onsite soils are classified as Site Class D per ASCE 7-16. Structures must be designed to meet IBC seismic requirements for this classification. The online ASCE 7 Hazard Tool was used to obtain the ASCE 7-16 seismic design parameter values provided below. Table 2 —Seismic Design Values Seismic Design Parameter Design Value Site Class D "Stiff Soil" SS I 0.290 S1 0.106 Fa I 1.568 Fv 2.389 SMs I 0.455 SM1 0.252 Sos I 0.303 Soy 0.168 PGAM I 0.198 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on available project details and the recommendations provided in this report are followed, the site is suitable for the proposed construction. The following sections present JLT's recommendations for planning, design and construction of the project. These recommendations are based on the information presented within this report. If the project scope or location changes from those presented in this report JLT must be contacted to determine if changes to these recommendations are required. Page 6 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC ari VM�r LT ��j CONSULTANTS 8.1. Site Preparation Deep fill zones were encountered throughout the site and will require remediation. Existing vegetation, organics, frozen, wet or soft/loose soils, and/or debris or deleterious materials should be completely removed.Additional recommendations for specific areas of the site are provided in the following sections. 8.1.1. Building Pad Areas Up to approximately 4.5 feet of fill were encountered in the test pits in the vicinity of the building pad. Rackham Way also extends through a portion of the building pad. JILT recommend at least 2.5 feet of the existing fill materials must be removed from within the building pad area. Exposed subgrade must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill materials meeting the requirements of the Structural Fill section can be replaced in accordance with the Fill Placement and Compaction section. 8.1.2. Foundation Areas Existing fill materials are not suitable to remain below foundations and must be completely removed. Excavation depths of 2 to 4.5 feet bgs should be expected and must extend laterally beyond the foundation extents equal to the depth of excavation or a maximum width of 5 feet. Fill materials meeting the requirements of the Structural Fill section can be replaced in accordance with the Fill Placement and Compaction section. Alternate recommendations for only partial removal of the fill materials can be provided. However, the owner must accept the risk of potential settlement in excess of 1 inch. Additionally, if density test results for the fill materials can be provided removal of the fill materials aren't required. 8.1.3. Pavement and Exterior Flatwork At least 2.5 feet of existing fill materials must be removed from pavement and exterior flatwork areas. The exposed subgrade must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D698. Removed fill materials that are free from organics and debris may be reused and compacted to the requirements outlined in the Fill Placement and Compaction section. Page 7 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC ari Vm�r LT ��j CONSULTANTS 8.2. Foundations Foundations may be designed based on the recommendations presented below provided the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements in the Site Preparation section. Table 3 — Foundation Design Parameters Parameter Requirement Foundation Type Conventional spread and continuous footings Assumed Foundation Loading • Columns: 70 kips • Continuous: 4 kips per linear foot Footings must bear on 12 inches of compacted granular structural fill in Required Bearing Soil',2 accordance with the Structural Fill and Fill Placement and Compaction sections. Fill must be placed on undisturbed native soils. Net Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value)3 200 pci Coefficient of Friction 0.45 for granular structural fill Passive Earth Pressures 523 pcf for granular structural fill Required Embedment Depth 24 inches Approximate Total Settlement 1 inch or less Approximate Differential Settlement Typically '/z of total settlement If soft or unstable soils are encountered over-excavation and replacement with granular structural in accordance with the Structural Fill and Fill Placement and Compaction sections is required.The use of geotextile or chemical stabilization may also be used. 2 The Geotechnical Engineer should assess the bearing subgrade in foundation excavation areas and recommend mitigation measures if unexpected conditions arise. 3 Based on correlation to values typically resulting from a 1 foot by 1 foot plate test.The value will need to be modified based on slab shape and loading. 8.2.1. Foundation Construction Considerations The Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the footing excavations. Bottom of all foundation excavations must be clear of water, loose or disturbed soil and excessively wet or dry soil prior to concrete placement. JTL recommends adequately reinforcing continuous footings to enhance rigidity and reduce the impact of minor differential movement caused by varying soil conditions and seasonal moisture changes. Page 8 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC ari VM�r LT �iiiiiiiiiiiiij CONSULTANTS 8.3. Floor Slabs Prior to placement of concrete floor slabs the requirements in the Site Preparation section should be followed. Fill used for elevating the floor slab should be suitable structural fill or granular structural fill that meets the Structural Fill section requirements. Floor slabs must bear on at least 4 inches of compacted aggregate base in accordance with the Structural Fill and Fill Placement and Compaction sections. A moisture retarder should be considered under floor slabs to reduce ground moisture impact on sensitive floor coverings or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. For guidance regarding use and placement of moisture retarder refer to ACI 302.1 R and ASTM E1745. 8.4. Pavement Asphalt parking areas and drive lanes are anticipated for the project. The following information has been used to determine the necessary pavement sections for the project: • AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures • Estimated Traffic Loading: o Light Duty - 45,000 equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) o Heavy Duty— 150,000 ESALs • 20 Year Design Life • Estimated California Bearing Ratio — 7 for various fill materials Recommended minimum pavement section thicknesses presented below are applicable provided the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements in the Site Preparation section. Table 4— Flexible Pavement Thicknesses Layer Light Duty Section Heavy Duty Section (inches) (inches) Asphalt Concrete 2.5 3.0 Aggregate Base 4.0 4.0 Subbase 6.0 6.0 Subgrade See Site Preparation section See Site Preparation section 1. All materials should conform to ISPWC requirements. 2. Asphalt should be PG 64-28 Performance Grade Asphalt. Page 9 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC ari VM�r LT ��j CONSULTANTS 8.4.1. Pavement Design Considerations Pavement longevity depends on several factors including minimizing subgrade moisture, providing preventive maintenance, and subgrade soil type. Excess moisture can weaken subgrade strength, increase frost susceptibility, and cause premature deterioration. JLT recommends a pavement management program to include preventative maintenance such as regular crack sealing and potential seal coating to extend pavement life. For areas with heavy, repetitive loading like dumpster pads, truck docks, and ingress/egress aprons, JILT recommends 6-inch thick portland cement concrete pavement to prevent damage from concentrated loads. The concrete should be reinforced with welded wire fabric, include control joints every 12 feet or less, and bear on a 4-inch thick drainage fill course of aggregate base per the Structural Fill section. 8.4.2. Pavement Construction Considerations Pavement areas should be prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section. Subgrade soil must be proof rolled using heavy, fully loaded, tandem-axle, rubber-tired equipment, with JLT personnel verifying competence. Rutting, pumping, or soft areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned or removed and replaced with granular structural fill. Limit traffic on prepared subgrade or placed base materials as heavy vehicles on these surfaces can cause damage leading to deterioration. 8.5. Earthwork Earthwork will involve clearing, grubbing, excavation, and fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations to prepare the site for critical areas such as foundations, floor slabs, and pavements. Recommendations may be adjusted based on actual field conditions observed during grading. 8.5.1. Structural Fill The following table defines materials acceptable for use on the project and the maximum loose lift thickness prior to compaction that material should be placed. Recommendations for fill placement location and compaction requirements are provided in the Fill Placement and Compaction section. Page 10 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC a ri VW P LT �iiiiiiiiiiiiiiij CONSULTANTS Table 5— Fill Material Specifications Fill Designation Acceptable Material Maximum Lift Thickness (in) ISPWC 1-inch, 3-inch, or 6- Granular Structural Fill inch Uncrushed Aggregate 12 ISPWC Aggregate Base Aggregate Base ISPWC Type 1 Crushed 12 Aggregate Base Structural Subbase ISPWC 3-inch or 6-inch 12 Uncrushed Aggregate ML, SM, SP-SM, SP, GM, Site Grading Fill 6 GP-GM, GP 1. CL, CH, MH, SC, and GC soils are not suitable for use as fill material. 2. Frozen material cannot be used as fill material. 3. All fill must be free of organics and debris. 8.5.2. Fill Placement and Compaction Fill material requirements are based on the intended use of the material. The following table summarizes the acceptable fill placement location and compaction requirements. Table 6 — Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements Fill Location Fill Designation Compaction Requirement Foundations Granular Structural Fill 95% of ASTM D1557 Aggregate Base Floor Slab' Granular Structural Fill Rigid Pavement Subgrade Aggregate Base 95% of ASTM D1557 Site Grading Fill Granular Structural Fill Below Flexible Pavement 95% of ASTM D698 Exterior Flatwork Aggregate Base 92% of ASTM D1557 Site Grading Fill Granular Structural Fill Wall Backfi112 Aggregate Base 95% of ASTM D1557 Site Grading Fill Granular Structural Fill Utility Trench Aggregate Base Per ISPWC Section 306 Site Grading Fill 'Top 4 inches must consist of Aggregate Base. 2Wall backfill materials must have a maximum particle size of 4-inches. Page 11 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC a ri VM P LT ��j CONSULTANTS Surfaces must be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation section prior to placement of fill materials. Fill materials must be placed in horizontal lifts with lift thicknesses determined by material type as specified in the Structural Fill section. All fill materials must be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content before compaction. During placement, monitor and test to confirm specified compaction is achieved. Compacted surfaces must be in a firm and unyielding condition and protected from degradation resulting from construction traffic or subsequent construction. Each lift of fill material should be tested for density and moisture content as follows: • Building Areas— 1 test every 5,000 square feet, but no less than 2 tests per lift • Pavement Areas— 1 test every 10,000 square feet, but no less than 2 tests per lift • Wall Backfill — 1 test every 500 square feet, but no less than 2 tests per lift • Utility Trench Backfill — 1 test every 100 linear feet 8.5.3. Grading and Drainage Ensure positive grading around structures, pavements, and exterior slabs to direct drainage away from site elements. Slope ground surfaces at least 5 percent away from the building for 10 feet to provide positive drainage. Adjustments may be needed in localized areas to transition to ADA access requirements. JILT recommends that roof drains direct stormwater at least 10 feet away from structures. 8.5.4. Backfill of Walls Backfill materials must meet the requirements of the Structural Fill section. A maximum particle size of 4 inches is required to limit point loads on the wall and ensure proper compaction can be achieved. Backfill should not begin until walls gain sufficient strength to withstand placement and compaction forces. Backfill should be conducted in a way to limit the potential for damage from equipment or compaction methods. Only small hand-operated compaction equipment should be used within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height from the back face of the wall. Compact backfill materials per the requirements of the Fill Placement and Compaction section. In nonstructural areas, JILT recommends that the top 12 inches be backfilled with low permeability soil (silt or clay) to reduce water infiltration. 8.5.5. Temporary Excavations Shallow excavations up to 4 feet deep can have near-vertical sides, while deeper temporary excavations must follow OSHA regulations (Section 1926, Subpart P)for Type C soils, with slopes no steeper than 1.5H:1 V for depths up to 20 feet. These slopes are stable short-term and will not be stable for long-term durations. Excavations exceeding 20 feet require further analysis. Page 12 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC a ri VM P LT CONSULTANTS Exposure to weather conditions could have detrimental effects to exposed slopes resulting in soughing or erosion. Daily inspections are required to identify instability, sloughing, or raveling. Avoid stockpiling excavated soils, placing surcharge loads, or allowing vehicle access within 20 feet of the top excavation. Spoils should be placed to direct water away from the excavation and prevent falling back into the excavation. Test pits exhibited stable sidewalls but noted sloughing of fill and granular sediments. Deep excavations should not be expected to remain stable and may collapse. 8.5.6. Weather Considerations Weather conditions will affect earthwork activities. Construction during dry seasons can minimize soft soil issues, though rutting may occur due to shallow groundwater from spring runoff or late summer/fall irrigation. Soft subgrade solutions are detailed in the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Dry native soils and fill may require water addition to reach optimum moisture. Low-cohesion soils in excavations may become friable, risking sloughing or caving. Soft soil issues should be expected for construction during wet seasons. Fine grained soils like silts and clays become unstable and may deform or run with increased moisture. Low temperatures hinder drying wet soils to optimum moisture content. Fill materials and foundation elements are not to be placed on frozen subgrade soils. In addition, frozen fill materials should be allowed to thaw prior to placement. Shallow fine-grained soils are prone to frost heave in freezing conditions. Ensure proper drainage away from subgrades, use compacted granular structural fill, or remove frost-susceptible soils to full frost depth and replace with non-frost-susceptible fill to mitigate heave. 8.5.7. Soft Subgrade Soils Soft subgrade conditions, often caused by high moisture content in fine-grained soils like silts and clays, can compromise pavement and foundation stability.These issues are most prevalent during wet seasons or in areas with shallow groundwater, such as from spring runoff or irrigation. Soft soils may deform, rut, or exhibit pumping under construction traffic or loading, leading to reduced strength and potential settlement. Soft subgrade conditions should be expected after asphalt removal and in areas where significant cracking was present. Options to address soft subgrade soils are as follows: • Excavate and Replace — Remove soft or unstable soils and replace with compacted granular structural fill, as specified in the Structural Fill section. Ensure fill is moisture- conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted per the Fill Placement and Compaction section. Page 13 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC a ri VW P LT CONSULTANTS • Improve Drainage—Maintain positive grades to divert water away from subgrades. Install temporary drainage measures during construction to prevent ponding or saturation. • Limit Traffic — Restrict heavy equipment on soft subgrades to essential construction machinery to minimize disturbance and rutting. Tracked vehicles should be used and rubber tired equipment should be prohibited. • Drying—To reduce moisture in wet subgrade soils, scarify and aerate by ripping or disking the exposed subgrade. It may take 2 to 4 weeks for the soils to dry sufficiently. Additional disking on a weekly basis may be needed. • Stabilization — Alternate stabilization techniques such as lime or cement treatment, or use of geosynthetic reinforcement can be utilized, pending further evaluation by the Geotechnical Engineer. 8.5.8. Groundwater Control Groundwater was not observed during the investigation and is expected to remain below anticipated construction depths. Excavations reaching the water table will require dewatering before fill placement. Concrete can be placed through water using a tremie if needed. Contact JLT for updated groundwater control measures if project scope changes. Manage surface runoff and seepage by directing water away from excavations. Silty and clayey soils may soften under heavy traffic during runoff, so prevent ponding with trenching, sloping, crowning, nightly smooth drum rolling, or French drains. Though groundwater is below anticipated construction depths, seasonal seepage may occur, especially in deeper excavations, areas near waterbodies such as canals and drainage ditches, or at lower elevations. Conventional dewatering, like sump pumping, should suffice, but saturated excavation bases may require adjacent sumps, wells, or well points. The dewatering system should be determined based on field conditions at the time of construction. 9. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DURING CONSTRUCTION JLT should review project plans, grading plans, and earthwork specifications before bidding and construction to ensure the recommendations in this report are incorporated and to assess if updates are needed due to changes in the project scope. The Geotechnical Engineer should monitor and assess all project earthwork, including site clearing, subgrade preparation, fill placement, foundation construction, and other geotechnical conditions during construction. If encountered conditions differ from those anticipated, our onsite presence will allow timely modifications or additional recommendations as needed. Page 14 ©2026 JLT Consultants LLC ari VM�r LT ��j CONSULTANTS 10.LIMITATIONS This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for the specific purposes outlined in the project scope and is intended for use by the Client and their authorized representatives. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based on the following: • Scope of Investigation - The subsurface data were obtained from a limited number of explorations and/or laboratory tests conducted at specific locations on the site. These investigations reflect conditions only at the points and times of exploration. Variations in subsurface conditions may exist between and beyond the explored locations due to the inherent heterogeneity of soil, rock, and groundwater conditions. • Data Interpretation -The analyses and recommendations are based on the data collected during the investigation, supplemented by our professional judgment and standard geotechnical engineering practices. Assumptions regarding site conditions, material properties, and project requirements were made where data were incomplete or unavailable. • Site Conditions - The report assumes that site conditions, including groundwater levels and soil/rock properties, remain consistent with those observed during the investigation. Changes in site conditions due to natural processes (e.g., seasonal groundwater fluctuations, erosion) or human activities (e.g., excavation, fill placement) may affect the validity of the recommendations. • Use of Report - This report is specific to the proposed project as described by the client and/or their authorized representatives at the time of the investigation. Any changes in project design, location, loading conditions, or intended use must be communicated to JILT to evaluate their impact on the findings and recommendations. This report should not be applied to other projects or sites. • Third-Party Reliance - Use of this report by parties other than the client or their authorized representatives is at their own risk. JILT assumes no responsibility for misinterpretation or improper use of this report by third parties. • Regulatory Compliance-The recommendations provided are based on our understanding of applicable codes, standards, and regulations at the time of the investigation. Changes in regulations or standards may necessitate revisions to the recommendations. • Environmental Considerations - Unless explicitly stated, this report does not address environmental concerns such as contamination, hazardous materials, or other non- geotechnical issues. A separate environmental assessment may be required to evaluate such conditions. Page 15 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC a ri V P LT ��j CONSULTANTS The findings and recommendations in this report are professional opinions based on the data available and should be considered in the context of these limitations. JLT is not responsible for damages or liabilities arising from conditions not identified during the investigation or from misuse of this report. 11.REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993. Washington D.C.: AASHTO. American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2015). Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction: ACI 302.1 R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE Hazard Tool. [Online] Available: <https://ascehazardtool.org> (2026). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures: ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-um (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing: ASTM C117. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2019). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates: ASTM C136. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2021). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort: ASTM D698. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2021). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort: ASTM D1557. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2021). Standard Test Methods for California Bearing Ratio: ASTM D1883. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2025). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes(Unified Soil Classification System):ASTM D2487.West Conshohocken, PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D4318. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2023). Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs: ASTM E1745. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Well Construction & Drilling, Find a Well Mapping Tool. [Online] Available: <https://idwr.idaho.gov/wells/find-a-well-map/> (2026). Page 16 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC a ri V P LT ��j CONSULTANTS International Building Code Council (2018). International Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL: Author. Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2020). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction. Boise, ID: Author. Othberg, K. L. and Stanford, L. A., Idaho Geologic Society (1993). Geologic Map of the Boise Valley and Adjoining Area, Western Snake River Plain, Idaho. (scale 1:100,000). Boise, ID: Joslyn and Morris. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2020 . CFR 29, Part 1926, Subpart P Appendix A: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Excavations. Washington D.C.: OSHA. Page 17 ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC L ri Pm PF LTJ CONSULTANTS Appendix A Site Map ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC Site Map Figure 1 w M r I 4 I if TP-1 ,o Lea 'a I v FRW RALK OF SIDE,aY . I @ I 8 South Rackham Way ° TP-2 w -- — o TP-5 Tom° PROPOSED MICRO HOSPITAL &K I 24,000 GSF I 57 PARKING SPOTS PROVIDED +I-2.4306 ACRES n E U I �uanMu :i. P �, ,P 4-7AW GSF 71lJEr,.IyW r 18 PA PM PRMEED io TP-4 . ,UN A&9Q% i TP-3 TP-6 02 a di East Overland Road NOTES: LEGEND Nutex Micro-Hospital -Not to Scale Approximate Project Rackham Way Meridian, ID JLTconsultants.com Boundary Boise, ID 83709 Approximate JILT8 January 20 208 Test Pit Location Project#: 26-006 ( ) 921-2771 CONSULTANTS L ri Pm PF LTJ CONSULTANTS Appendix B Test Pit Logs General Notes ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC JILT Consultants Geotechnical Log - Testpit GBoise,Idaho CONSULTANTS Phone: 208-921-2771 T P-1 Latitude :43.59170 Location :3330 E Overland Rd,Meridian,ID 83642,USA Job Number :26-006 Longitude :-116.35419 Logged By :Elizabeth Brown Client :AlignSphere Ventures,LLC Total Depth:12 Ft Date :01/29/2026 Project :Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital N � o O C O Y 3 Material Description e c E ) LL PI %<#4 %<#200 o Q. t7 c N N N o- o r�-' POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND FILL(GP-GM-FILL):light brown,dry, CF7medium dense,fine to medium-grained sand,fine gravel,4-inch minus cobbles,organics to 0.6 foot LEAN CLAY FILL(CL-FILL):brown,dry,hard,intermittent 4 inch minus cobbles 1.o SILTY SAND FILL(SM-FILL):light brown,dry,medium dense,fine-grained sand, cementation debris and intermittent 4 inch minus cobbles 2.0 0.0 4.0 , 5.o SANDY SILT(ML):light brown,dry,very stiff to hard,fine-grained sand,weak to moderateinduration 6.0 7.0 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND(GP-GM):light brown,dry,dense to s.o 6 very dense,fine to coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,8-inch minus cobbles o; R 9.o ~ VQi 10.0 a O • O; D•_ u 11.0 z a o^ TP-1 Terminated at 12 Ft Page 1 of 1 JILT Consultants Geotechnical Log - Testpit GBoise,Idaho CONSULTANTS Phone: 208-921-2771 T P-2 Latitude :43.59129 Location :3330 E Overland Rd,Meridian,ID 83642,USA Job Number :26-006 Longitude :-116.35381 Logged By :Elizabeth Brown Client :AlignSphere Ventures,LLC Total Depth:13.6 Ft Date :01/29/2026 Project :Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital N � o O C J N f o m n .2 Material Description o E o. LL PI %<#4 %<#200 3 d a o E w o _ t7 C N . N o a �o POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND FILL(GP-FILL):tan,dry to slightly moist, namedium dense,fine to coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,10-inch minus cobbles 4 a•�o 1.o d.' a�Q 00 4rye 2.0 1 f a' •' CLAYEY SAND FILL(SC-FILL):brown,slightly moist,medium dense,fine-grained sand 3.0 4.0 6.0 CLAYEY SAND(SC):brown,slightly moist,medium dense,fine to medium-grained sand 6.0 7.0 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND(GP-GC):orange brown,dry to a'• slightly moist,dense to very dense,fine to medium-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel, a'• 10-inch minus cobbles o; 8.0 8 9.0 t. `d. O 4 10.0 R" ti Q. iz.0 4 13.0 / a• a . o• TP-2 Terminated at 13.6 Ft Page 1 of 1 JILT Consultants Geotechnical Log - Testpit GBoise,Idaho CONSULTANTS Phone: 208-921-2771 T P-3 Latitude :43.59082 Location :3330 E Overland Rd,Meridian,ID 83642,USA Job Number :26-006 Longitude :-116.35398 Logged By :Elizabeth Brown Client :AlignSphere Ventures,LLC Total Depth:8.8 Ft Date :01/29/2026 Project :Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital N � m O C o N f C m n t Material Description o E o. U LL PI %<#4 %<#200 3 d a o E w o _ (7 C N . a o POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND FILL(GP-FILL):light brown,dry to slightly moist, nan medium dense to dense,fine to coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,12-inch minus V cobbles °•q o a. 09 4 00 2.0 Pa POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND(GP):light brown,dry,medium dense to dense, p•P o . fine to medium-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,8-inch minus cobbles 3.0 tv � r 0 P 4.0 0' o . 1! o'er o s.o Qom.' O c O.' C3 6.0 �•fl� POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND(GP-GC):orange brown,dry,very a'• dense,fine to medium-grained sand,coarse gravel,12-inch minus cobbles o; R i s.o / `d. O TP-3 Refusal at 8.8 Ft(because of very dense gravels) Page 1 of 1 JILT Consultants Geotechnical Log - Testpit GBoise,Idaho CONSULTANTS Phone: 208-921-2771 T P-4 Latitude :43.59081 Location :3330 E Overland Rd,Meridian,ID 83642,USA Job Number :26-006 Longitude :-116.35311 Logged By :Elizabeth Brown Client :AlignSphere Ventures,LLC Total Depth:12 Ft Date :01/29/2026 Project :Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital N � m O C o N f C 3 Material Descriptiono o o E w ILL PI %<#4 %<#200 in a f7 C 00 3 N N a o O_ POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND FILL(GP-FILL):light brown,dry to slightly moist, q Pmedium dense,fine to coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,8-inch minus cobbles Q °�q o 1.o lz . 09 0 �o 4 rye 2.0 V O.' o� 3.a Q o U a 0 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL(SP):light brown,dry,medium dense,fine to coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,6-inch minus cobbles 5.0 '+::•':�•' e.S .S ��-•' POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND(GP-GC):orange brown,dry to 6.0 o slightly moist,very dense,fine to medium-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,8-inch minus a'• cobbles o; R� 7.o t . r s.o �o •v• o; o._ �ti• 9.0 f ti a o• 4 f- TP-4 Refusal at 12 Ft(because of very dense gravels) Page 1 of 1 JILT Consultants Geotechnical Log - Testpit GBoise,Idaho CONSULTANTS Phone: 208-921-2771 T P-5 Latitude :43.59112 Location :3330 E Overland Rd,Meridian,ID 83642,USA Job Number :26-006 Longitude :-116.35338 Logged By :Elizabeth Brown Client :AlignSphere Ventures,LLC Total Depth:11.8 Ft Date :01/29/2026 Project :Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital N � m O C J N T o A n t Material Description o E o. U ILL PI %<#4 %<#200 3 d a o E w o _ C7 C N . N o a �o ;! POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL FILL(SP-FILL):light brown,dry to slightly moist, •"';;S medium dense,fine to medium-grained sand,fine gravel,6-inch minus cobbles io zo '•• 3.a 4.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL):brown,slightly moist,medium stiff to stiff,fine-grained sand, blending of gravel into clay Grab 15.6 27 9 80 51.5 Sample 5.0 s.o POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND(GP-GC):orange brown,dry to a'• slightly moist,very dense,fine to medium-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,6-inch minus a'• cobbles o; R i 8.o / `d. O 9.o �.o. t�a Wo Q. o' ••. 4� TP-5 Refusal at 11.8 Ft(because of very dense gravels) Page 1 of 1 JILT Consultants Geotechnical Log - Testpit GBoise,Idaho CONSULTANTS Phone: 208-921-2771 T P-6 Latitude :43.59081 Location :3330 E Overland Rd,Meridian,ID 83642,USA Job Number :26-006 Longitude :-116.35208 Logged By :Elizabeth Brown Client :AlignSphere Ventures,LLC Total Depth:8.6 Ft Date :01/29/2026 Project :Nutex Meridian Micro-Hospital N � o O C J N f o A n t Material Description o E o. U ILL PI %<#4 %<#200 3 d a o E w o _ C7 C N 3 N a o �ii POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL FILL(SP-SM-FILL):brown,slightly moist,medium dense,fine to medium-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,6-inch minus cobbles 1.o 2.0 3.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL):brown,slightly moist,stiff,fine-grained sand a.o POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND(GP-GC):orange brown,slightly a'• moist,very dense,fine to medium-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel,6-inch minus cobbles o^ .. 5.0 ..�.q• R /. o.o ��p• �QI �6• O 7.0 ` ] 8.0 _O /o �� ti p TP-6 Refusal at 8.6 Ft(because of very dense gravels) Page 1 of 1 ari I=V� GENERAL NOTES CONSULTANTS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PARTICLE SIZE Symbols Boulders >12" Major Divisions Description Graph Letter Cobbles 12"to 3" Gravel Well-graded gravels, gravelfsand Coarse 4 G W 3"to 3W and a mixtures Gravel Gravelly Y - •p Poorly-graded gravels, , Soils � GP gravel/sand mixtures Fine Gravel /4 to#4 sieve Coarse <50%coarse GM Silty gravels,grave llsandlsiIt Coarse Sand #4 to#10 sieve Grained fraction riJ. mixtures Soils passes NoA V. GC Clayey gravels,gravel lsandlclay Medium #10 to 440 sieve sieve 4 mixtures Sand e50°/a Sand and 5W Well-graded sands,gravelly sands Fine Sand 440 to#200 sieve passes Sand No 200 y • •'• Poorly-graded sands, gravelly Passing#200 sieve Sails 'rf.;:,;?': SP sands Silt or Clay sieve >501/6coarse SM Silty sands, sandfgravellsilt fraction mixtures passes NoA Clayey sands, sandfg rave llclay sieve SC mixtures SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS ML Inorganic silts; sandy, gravelly, or fi Standard Silts and Clayey silts 1 Penetration Test Fine Clays CL Inorganic low to medium plasticity I I Modified Grained Liquid Limit cla s; sandy, q velly,or siltV clays California Sampler Soils <5e Organic silts, low-plasticity clays I Shelby Tube I OL and silts >50% MH Inorganic elastic silts; sandy, � Grab Sample passes Silts and ravel)V, or cl aVey silts No-200 sieve lays CH Inorganic high plasticity clays ' Bulk Sample Liquid Limit ,50 r r f OH Organic medium to high plasticity Groundwater r clays and silts — Highly Organic Soils t Ff %I It 1 PT Peat, humus, high organic content NP Non-Plastic soils STRENGTH PARAMETERS Coarse Grained Fine Grained Relative Density 5PT Blow Gaunt Consistency 5PT Blow Count Unconfined Compressive (N-Value) (N-Value} Strength tsf Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-1 <0.25 Loose 5-10 Soft 2-3 D.25-0.50 Medium Dense 11-30 Medium Stiff 4-7 0.50—1.0 Dense 31-50 Stiff 8-14 1.0—2.0 Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 15-30 2A—4.0 Hard >30 >4.0 MOISTURE CONTENT CEMENTATION Dry Dry to touch, no sign of water Weak Breaks under slight finger pressure Slightly Moist Damp to touch, no visible water Moderate Breaks under considerable finger pressure Moist Wet to touch, visible water Strong Will not break under finger pressure Saturated Below water table a ri Pm P LT �iiiiiiiiiiiiiiij CONSULTANTS Appendix C Shear Wave Velocity Survey Results ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC Refraction Microtremor (ReMi "' ) Survey of the Proposed Micro-Hospital Meridian, Idaho �y Poo . ` r January 31, 2026 J L T T J L rey�ared{or: CONSULTANTS I' ,/ Boise,ID 83709 Prepared by: ECA Geophysics 372 S Eagle Road, Suite 146 Eagle,ID 83616 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 Qualifications, Certification and Use Reliance ........................................... 1 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................. 2 3.0 Project Description................................................................................... 2 4.0 Data Acquisition....................................................................................... 2 5.0 Data Processing........................................................................................ 3 6.0 Analysis and Results.................................................................................. 4 7.0 References ............................................................................................... 4 Appendix A Survey Area Map Appendix B Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) Model Vs Velocity Dispersion Picks 1 .0 Qualifications, Certification and Use Reliance ECA Geophysics (ECA), a subsidiary of Environmental Compliance Associates, LLC, has a core competency in the performance of geophysical surveys. Mr. Brett D. Smith performed a refraction microtremor (ReMi") survey over an undeveloped open lot located at the northeast corner of S Eagle Road and E Overland Road, approximately 2.25 miles southeast of downtown Meridian, Idaho (see Survey Area Map in Appendix A). South Rackham Way traverses the Survey Area in a N-S direction,with an Ada County Highway District"Park and Ride"located on its east side. Mr. Smith is a registered environmental engineer (PE registrations in ID, NV, OR and WA) and a licensed geologist (LG registration in WA), who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of Utah and a Master of Science degree in Geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines. Mr. Smith has performed numerous geophysical surveys and environmental site assessments during his 40-year career as an earth scientist and environmental professional. At the request of JLT Consultants, LLC of Boise, Idaho (Client), ECA performed this ReMi TM survey, utilizing methods and procedures consistent with good commercial or customary practices that conform to acceptable industry standards. The findings and conclusions presented in this report are strictly based upon information and data available to ECA during the course of this assignment. ECA did not perform subsurface exploratory drilling, sampling or chemical analyses under the work scope of this project. This report represents ECA's professional opinion only, such that no warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client and may not be utilized by any other person or entity,without the advance written consent of ECA. Designed,surveyed and written by: Brett D. Smith PE,LG ECA Geophysics ReMiTI Survey 372 S Eagle Road, Suite 146 Proposed Micro-Hospital Eagle, ID 83616 1 ECA Project No. 26ECA432 2.0 Introduction ECA was hired by the Client, to acquire shear-wave velocities of the upper 100 feet (VS100) of the soils underlying the above referenced location. On January 27,2026 ECA performed one W-E oriented ReMi T"" survey, as shown on the Survey Area Map. This survey recorded sound energy (microtremors) originating primarily from abundant nearby vehicle traffic and occasional surveyor-supplied high-frequency impulsive energy derived from jumping and sledgehammer impacts near the west end of the linear recording array (line), providing excellent frequency bandwidth for the 21 ReMi" recordings collected at this location. This was confirmed during subsequent data processing, as discussed in Section 5.0 below. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program(NEHRP) /International Building Code (IBC) Site Class, in accordance with Chapter 20 of Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16 (Standard), is often utilized regarding new construction design. The Site Class is important for comparing measured ground motions with building code seismic design levels,as described in the following table(1): Site Class A Vs > 5,000 ft/s Hard Rock that includes unweathered intrusive igneous rock. This Site Class does not contribute greatly to shaking amplification. Rock that includes volcanic bedrock,such as Miocene-aged Site Class B 5,000 ft/s > Vs > 2,500 ft/s Columbia River Basalts.This Site Class does not contribute greatly to shaking amplification. Site Class C 2,500 ft/s > Vs > 1,200 ft/s Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock that includes Quaternary sands, sandstones and mudstones. Site Class D 1,200 ft/s > Vs > 600 ft/s Stiff Soil that includes Quaternary sands,gravels,silts and mud. Significant shaking amplification occurs within this Site Class. Site Class E 600 ft/s > Vs Soft Clay Soil that includes water-saturated mud and artificial fill. The strongest shaking amplification occurs within this Site Class. Site Class F Special Soils Liquefiable, highly organic or high-plasticity soils. 3.0 Project Description The project objective was to determine the shear-wave velocity structure to 100 feet depth at the above referenced location. The shear-wave analysis utilized the ReMi" method, which maps layers of varying acoustic properties within the upper 100 feet and computes VS1oo, as per Chapter 20 of ASCE/SEI 7-16(1). 4.0 Data Acquisition The ReMi"' method enables the rapid recording of surface-wave velocity dispersion, utilizing 12 equally- spaced sensors or geophones along the line. The ReMi"' method exploits ambient "noise" that includes foot and vehicle traffic, vegetation responses to wind and intentional impulsive energy injections associated with jumping and sledgehammer strikes against the ground surface. The equipment used for the survey included a 12-channel seismograph (DAQLink4 system manufactured by Seismic Source of Ponca City, OK) that stored 30-second seismic records from twelve 10 Hz geophones. This geophysical investigation comprised one 275- ft long ReMi T" line with 12 geophones, spaced 25 feet apart. ECA Geophysics ReMiT" Survey 372 S Eagle Road, Suite 146 Proposed Micro-Hospital Eagle, ID 83616 2 ECA Project No. 26ECA432 There was no need to incorporate lat-lon-elevation measurements for the geophone locations, since the maximum '/2-ft deviation from level and the maximum %2-ft lateral bend were both considerably less than the allowed 5 percent (14-ft) elevation and lateral deviation tolerances that the method requires. As previously stated, 21 unfiltered 30-second records were recorded,to provide abundant high-quality data for the derivation ofVsJoo• 5.0 Data Processing The data were processed, utilizing the proprietary SeisOpt ReMi TM software provided by Optim Earth, Inc. of Reno, Nevada, that analyzes ReMi TM data having frequencies as low as 2 Hz and utilizes a simple two- dimensional slowness-frequency (p-f) operator that separates Rayleigh waves from other seismic arrivals, enabling the recognition of true phase velocity amongst apparent velocities (2). Processing of raw ReMiT"' data involves Velocity Spectral Analysis, Rayleigh Phase-Velocity Dispersion Picking and Shear-Wave Velocity Modeling. These processing steps were implemented in the derivation of VS100 and are discussed below: STEP 1 -Velocity (Dispersion Curve) Analysis: A velocity spectrum(p-f image)was created from the noise data and a distinctive slope of dispersive waves was plotted. Because all other arrivals (ie, body waves and airwaves) found in microtremor records have no such slope, the dispersive wave slope (derived from picks) was diagnostically unique to the p-f analysis. The p-f spectral power image indicates where such waves have significant energy. Even when most of the energy in a seismic record comprises phase, rather than Rayleigh waves, the p-f analysis isolates that energy away from the dispersion curves. By recording many channels, retaining complete vertical seismograms, and employing the p-f transform, this method successfully analyzes Rayleigh dispersion where surface wave spectral analysis techniques cannot. STEP 2 -Rayleigh Phase Velocity Dispersion Picking: Rayleigh-wave dispersion picks were made along a "lowest-velocity envelope" that bounded the energy appearing in the p-f image. This ensured that the picks were representative of true velocities rather than apparent velocities, since noise is assumed to come from all directions. Picking a surface-wave dispersion curve along an envelope of the lowest phase velocities having high spectral ratio at each frequency has a further desirable effect. Since higher-mode Rayleigh waves have phase velocities above those of the fundamental mode, the ReMi TM method preferentially yields the fundamental-mode velocities. Higher modes may appear as separate dispersion trends on the p-f images, if they are as energetic as the fundamental. Spatial aliasing of the slowness-frequency spectral-ratio images will create artifacts that have p-f image slopes that trend in the opposite direction to the normal-mode dispersion slope, as shown in Appendix B. Because the seismic waves are not continuously harmonic but arrive in groups, the p-tau transform is performed in the space-time domain, so that even aliased frequencies preserve the information. STEP 3 - Shear-Wave Velocity Modeling: Utilizing software created by Yuehua Zeng and adapted from Saito, the ReMiT"' method interactively performs forward modeling upon the normal-mode dispersion data obtained from the p-f images. This code produces results identical to those of the forward-modeling codes used by Iwata et al and by Xia et al within their inverse modeling procedure (3-6). The modeling iterates upon the phase velocity at each frequency, reports when a solution has not been found within the iteration parameters and continues to model velocity reversals with increasing depth until convergence to a valid solution is achieved in the form of a VS model. Utilizing boring data from a 2021 onsite survey, along with boring data from other surveys performed within the Treasure Valley, seven inversion trials were run, yielding 3 to 6-layer models, with a 4-layer VS model ultimately chosen(see Appendix B), by virtue of its 1) low root mean square (RMS) convergence error, 2) acceptable correlation with the boring data, 3) having just one velocity reversal and 4)no thin layers. ECA Geophysics ReMiT" Survey 372 S Eagle Road, Suite 146 Proposed Micro-Hospital Eagle, ID 83616 3 ECA Project No. 26ECA432 6.0 Analysis and Results As previously discussed,the ReMi'" line was 275 feet long. Due to the broad frequency content(bandwidth), excellent VS data were acquired along the ReMi" line,yielding 162 feet of depth information. Chapter 20 of ASCE/SEI 7-16 for seismic design site classification pertains to the upper 100 feet of the soil profile. The following equation yields VS100, the applicable parameter from which the appropriate Site Class is calculated. The RMS convergence error en route to a reliable VS100 solution ranged from 1.7 to 7.7 percent, over seven qualifying inversion trials. The final VS100 Depth-Velocity model revealed an RMS error of 4.6 percent(see Appendix B),where 5.0 percent error is acceptable. n n 57 d where p! = 100 feet, i=1 i=1 VS100 = vsi = interval shear wave velocity(ft/s) n d = layer thickness(ft) d /vs; i=1 The above equation yielded a VS100 of 1,100 ft/s. The seven inversion trials yielded VS values ranging from 1,016 to 1,222 ft/s,with an average value of 1,113 ft/s,which is 1.2 percent greater than the selected value. VS100 = 1,100 ft/s, placing the site subsurface soils within Site Class D. Because of the excellent data quality confirmed during the processing steps discussed in Section 5.0, ECA selects Site Class D with a high level of confidence. 7.0 References 1. American Society of Civil Engineering / Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE / SEI) Standard 7-16: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2017. 2. Louie, J.N.: Faster, Better: Shear-wave velocity to 100 meters depth from refraction microtremor arrays: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,v. 91,p. 347-364, 2001. 3. Zeng,Yuehua:Personal communication with J.N. Louie of the Nevada Seismological Lab, 1992. 4. Saito, M.: Compound matrix method for the calculation of spheroidal oscillation of the Earth: Seismology Research Letters,v. 59,p. 29, 1988. Saito,M.: Computations of reflectivity and surface wave dispersion curves for layered media;1, Sound wave and SHwave: Butsuri-Tanko,v. 32,no. 5,pp. 15-26, 1979. 5. Iwata, T.,Kawase,H., Satoh, T.,Kakehi,Y., Irikura, K.,Louie,J.N.,Abbott,R. E., and Anderson,J. G.: Array microtremor measurements at Reno, Nevada, USA (abstract): Eos,Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union,v. 79, supplemental to no. 45,p. F578, 1998. 6. Xia,J.,Miller,R. D., and Park, C. B.: Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh wave: Geophysics,v. 64,p. 691-700, 1999. ECA Geophysics ReMiT" Survey 372 S Eagle Road, Suite 146 Proposed Micro-Hospital Eagle, ID 83616 4 ECA Project No. 26ECA432 APPENDIX A SURVEY AREA [�1. w• + • REMIT"' LINE COORDINATES Location Latitude Longitude Elevation,ft rT1 /r ', W end 43.5909050 -116.3540440 2,592 E end 43.5909050 -116.3530010 2,592 Ilk e iw e 3 Survey Area �! ReMi .line 123 feet - land Boa ----.._ --. ECA Geophysics � S U RVEY AREA 372 S Eagle Road, Suite 146 Eagle, ID 83616 1 inch — 125 feet N ECA Project No. 26ECA432 Proposed Micro-Hospital Meridian, Idaho APPENDIX B VS VELOCITY MODEL AND VS VELOCITY DISPERSION PICKS Vs Velocity Model (at midpoint of ReMIT array) prr srtl Shear Velocity .t 2.0 gtos 1272.601 Ns and Graveln 2.0 g/cc 981.504 fl1s DEPTH (ft) VS(ft/s) Sand and Gravel Surface 1,273 with Clayn 12 982 50.49 tt 2.0 gtcc 1169,983 ns 50 1,910 111 2,910 Sa d and Gravel.n V5100 = 1,100 ft/s IBC Site Class D 111.384 ft 2.0 yict 2u1 it 35±fti<_: f2,f2-interpreted lithology,based weathered Basaltn upon nearby boring data from outside sources 162.154ft Layer LI Add V Delete Calculate U Rayleigh Dispersion U Quarter--Wave Approximation[ Automatic Dispersion Inversion Zoom l J 5000.0 Rls = Calculated Dispersion • = Picked Dispersion 100.0 ers 0.02 s Period RMS error= 4.6 percent Vs Velocity Dispersion Picks Frequency, f so r Dispersion Curve pick r Dispersion C�v� � sz a� c 0 Wavefield artifact Averaged ReMi Spectral Ratio 0.Q 2.5 L ri Pw PF LTJ CONSULTANTS Appendix D Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report ©2026 JILT Consultants LLC IMPOPlant InfOPM81100 Rhout Geolechnical-Engineeping SubWhile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cost overruns, claims, and help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly those that affect: a client representative—interpret and apply this the site's size or shape; geotechnical-engineering report as effectively the function of the proposed structure,as when it's as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from changed from a parking garage to an office building,or a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or that,for decades, have been a principal cause of weight of the proposed structure; construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and the composition of the design team;or disputes. If you have questions or want more project ownership. information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise construction project. would have considered. This Report May Not Be Reliable Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects for a different client; Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific for a different project; needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a different site(that may or may not include all or a for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- portion of the original site);or works constructor or even a different civil engineer.Because each before important events occurred at the site or adjacent geotechnical-engineering study is unique,each geotechnical- to it;e.g.,man-made events like construction or engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client.Those who environmental remediation,or natural events like floods, rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client droughts,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations. can be seriously misled.No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first Note,too,that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, -not even you-should apply this report for any purpose or project except because of factors like changed subsurface conditions;new or modified the one originally contemplated. codes,standards,or regulations;or new techniques or tools.If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an`apply-by"date on the report, Read this Report in Full ask what it should be,and,in general,if you are the least bit uncertain Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical engineering report did not read it in its entirety.Do not rely on an engineer before applying it.A minor amount of additional testing or executive summary.Do not read selected elements only.Read this report analysis-if any is required at all-could prevent major problems. in full. Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer Professional Opinions about Change Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. when designing the study behind this report and developing the Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.A few those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed.The typical factors include: data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your • the client's goals,objectives,budget,schedule,and geotechnical engineer,who then applied professional judgment to risk-management preferences; form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual • the general nature of the structure involved,its size, sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from configuration,and performance criteria; those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your the structure's location and orientation on the site;and geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to • other planned or existing site improvements,such as project finish,so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, retaining walls,access roads,parking lots,and whenever needed. underground utilities. This Report's Recommendations Are perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to allow enough Confirmation-Dependent time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in a position The recommendations included in this report-including any options to give constructors the information available to you,while requiring or alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming not final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and preconstruction heavily on judgment and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer conferences can also be valuable in this respect. can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction.If through observation your Read Responsibility Provisions Closely geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do actually do exist,the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other no other changes have occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared engineering disciplines.That lack of understanding has nurtured this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments,delays, dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform cost overruns,claims,and disputes.To confront that risk,geotechnical construction observation. engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled"limitations;'many of these provisions indicate This Report Could Be Misinterpreted where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read these engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical engineer should by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the respond fully and frankly. design team,to: • confer with other design-team members, Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered • help develop specifications, The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an • review pertinent elements of other design professionals' environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental plans and specifications,and site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering a geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical- guidance is needed. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction failures.If you have not yet obtained your own environmental observation. information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance.As a general rule,do not rely on an environmental report Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance prepared for a different client,site,or project,or that is more than six Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift months old. unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the Infiltration and Mold complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,none of the engineer's conspicuously that you've included the material for informational services were designed,conducted,or intended to prevent uncontrolled purposes only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil through that"informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where it can on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.Accordingly, the report,but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations times,locations,and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration.Confront constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold including options selected from the report,only from the design specialists on the design team.Geotechnical engineers are not building- drawings and specifications.Remind constructors that they may envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SEA ASSOCIATION Telephone:301/565-2733 e-mail:info@geoprofessional.org wwwgeoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with GBAs specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation.