PZ - Geotechnical Evaluation EdgehillGeoTek.Inc.
320 East Corpc r w Drive Stine 306 Merid wr, ID 83642-3S I I
(208)98&7016. )2011)95.7424 www,Vo kum.cnm
July 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3
J -U -B Engineers, Inc.
250 Beechwood Dr # 201
Boise, ID 83709
Attention: Scott Wonders
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation for a 40+ Acre Residential Development Located at the
Southeast Corner of W. Victory Rd. and S Linder Rd., Meridian, Idaho
In accordance with your request, GeoTek, Inc. (GTI) has completed a geotechnical evaluation of the
subject property for the construction of one- to two-story residential structures and associated
improvements. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the earth materials underlying the site and to
provide recommendations for project design and construction based on our findings. This report outlines
the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the site based on current data, and provides earthwork and
construction recommendations with respect to those conditions.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
Review of soils and geologic reports and maps for the site (Appendix A).
2. Site reconnaissance and geotechnical mapping.
3. Review of aerial photographs.
4. Excavating and logging of eight test pits (Appendix B).
5. Obtaining samples of representative earth materials, as the excavations were advanced.
6. Performing laboratory and chemical testing on representative soil samples (Appendix D).
7. Assessment of potential geologic constraints.
8. Engineering and geologic analysis regarding; foundation settlement, site preparation and
foundation design/construction.
9. Preparation of this report.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC.
W.O. 1747-ID3
SITE DESCRIPTION
JULY 15, 2015
PAGE 2
The site is a roughly rectangular shaped 40+ acre parcel and is generally bound by existing irrigation
ditches and farmland with existing housing to the North, East, and West of the parcel. The site's
approximate location is indicated on the enclosed Site Location Map (Figure 41). Currently, the
majority of the property consists of farmland which has been cultivated overmany years for crops. One
residence with existing outbuildings is located within the northwestern portion of the site. A canal
bisects the site in a northwest to southeast direction. From topographic maps, the site's elevation is
approximately 2,690+ to 2,705+ feet above mean sea level. Historically, topography generally directs
surface water to the southwest of the southwestern portion of the parcel, and to the northeast of the
northeastern portion. Some spread fills were observed along the perimeter of the site and near the
existing residences as well as along the interior unimproved roads and irrigation ditches. This fill is
generally associated with the construction of the unimproved roads and irrigation ditches that exist
onsite.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that site development would consist of performing typical cut and fill earthwork
to attain the desired graded configuration(s) for the construction of a residential development with
associated improvements.
FIELD STUDIES
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by using a rubber -tired backhoe. Eight test pits were
advanced onsite and a log of each excavation is included with this report in Appendix B. Three
percolation tests were also performed on the subject site as well as Two initial ground water
measurements (Appendix C). Field studies were completed during June of 2015 by one of our field
personnel who conducted field mapping, logged the excavations, and obtained samples of representative
material for laboratory testing. The approximate locations of the test pits are indicated on the enclosed
Geotechnical Map (Figure #2).
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject site is situated within the Boise River Valley, which comprises the northwestern portion of
the Snake River Plain physiographic province. The western portion of the Snake River Plain is aligned
in a northwest -southeast direction and generally divides the Owyhee Mountains to the south from the
Central Idaho Mountains toward the north (Wood and Clemens, 2004). The headwaters of the Boise
River are located in the Central Idaho Mountains east of Boise, Idaho. The river leaves the central
mountains and enters the Snake River Plain near Barber and drains toward the west into the Snake
River near Parma. The Owyhee Mountains and the Central Idaho Mountains are composed
predominantly of volcanic and igneous rocks. The western portion of the Snake River Plain is a
northwest trending complex graben formed by extension and regional uplift along the northern
boundary of the basin and range province (Wood and Clemens, 2004). The graben generally forms a
basin which has been partially filled with younger sedimentary and volcanic rocks (Malde, 1991).
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 3
The Boise River Valley is bounded on the northeast by the Boise Front, which is a northwest trending
topographic high extending generally from Boise to Emmett, Idaho. The Boise Front consists of
Cretaceous aged granitic and metamorphic rocks cut by Tertiary aged rhyolite and overlain with
Miocene aged lake sediments (Wood and Clemens, 2004). These units have been cut by northwest
trending faults which down drop these units toward the southwest. The faults also provide conduits for
Quaternary aged basalt intrusions and flows (Malde, 1991).
The depositional environment for the valley floor is dominantly lake laid deposits of sand, silt and clay.
These materials were deposited during two periods of lake activity, one during the Miocene and the
other during the Pleistocene. This valley infilling process has been subsequently truncated by down
faulting within the valley ranging in height from a few feet to over 50 feet. Younger alluvium has been,
and continues to be, transported dominantly by water and deposited on the basins gently sloping valley
floor and within low-level flood plains. Portions of the alluvial deposits are being down cut by
intermittent streams to the flood plain, and as a result stream terraces are being formed.
EARTH MATERIALS
Artificial Fill
Based on our field studies, some spread fills were observed along the perimeter of the site and near the
existing residences as well as along the interior dirt roads and irrigation ditches. This fill is generally
associated with the construction of the unimproved roads and irrigation ditches that exist onsite. This
spread fill shall be considered artificial fill. Much of the property has been cultivated for agricultural
use, the upper 24 inches of material has been disturbed and consists of a dark brown lean clay with a
moderate amount of organics and roots overlying layers of clays, silts, and sand, this shall be considered
artificial fill. Deeper fills may be encountered onsite. The "Artificial Fills" are loose/soft and contain
organics/roots and are not considered suitable for support of foundations. All artificial fill material
should be removed as described in the "Removals" section of this report.
Alluvium
Alluvial materials encountered belowthe artificial fill generally consisted of surficial layers of silts and
clays underlain by sands containing gravels. The moisture content within the alluvial materials was
generally moist near surface and wet to saturated at depth and the consistency of these materials ranged
from firm to stiff near surface and medium dense to dense at depth. Partially cemented layers of
material were encountered in many of our excavations; however, we anticipate that the onsite soils can
be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment equivalent to CAT D9R dozers and CAT 235
excavators. Special excavation equipment and techniques may be necessary dependant upon if harder
materials are encountered during construction.
After artificial fill is removed, the upper 12 inches of the surface alluvium will require, at a minimum,
some removal and/or processing efforts to be considered suitable for the support of the proposed site
improvements. Locally deeper processing/removals may be necessary. Refer to the "Recommendations
Earthwork Construction" section of this report for specific site preparation recommendations.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC.
W.O. 1747-ID3
SURFACE & GROUND WATER
JULY 15, 2015
PAGE 4
Irrigation ditches exist onsite and adjacent to the site and they transmit water on a periodic basis.
Generally, irrigation ditches and canals will locally influence groundwater during the irrigation season
(i.e., May through October). Ground water was not encountered in our excavations during our field
investigation. If Ground water is found to exist, it should be expected that special excavation and fill
placement measures may be necessary. Wet materials should be spread out and air-dried or mixed with
drier soils to reduce their moisture content as appropriate for fill placement. Ground water is not
anticipated to adversely affect planned development, provided that earthwork construction methods
comply with recommendations contained in this report or those made subsequent to review of the
improvement plan(s). GTI assumes that the design civil engineer of record will evaluate the site for
potential flooding and set grades such that the improvements are adequately protected. These
observations reflect conditions at the time of this investigation and do not preclude changes in local
ground water conditions in the future from natural causes, damaged structures (lines, pipes etc.), or
heavy irrigation.
TECTONIC FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially active tectonic faults, however no faults
were observed during our field evaluation. There area number of faults in the regional area, which are
considered active and would have an affect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the
source of an earthquake. It is reasonable to assume that structures built in this area will be subject to at
least one seismic event during their life, therefore, it is recommended that all structures be designed and
constructed in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC). Based on our experience in the
general vicinity, references in our library, and field evaluation of the site, a Site Class Designation of
`D' may be used for seismic design.
Secondary Seismic Constraints
The following list includes other potential seismic related hazards that have been evaluated with respect
to the site, but in our opinion, the potential for these seismically related constraints to affect the site is
considered negligible.
* Liquefaction
* Dynamic Settlements
Surface Fault Rupture
* Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
Summary:
It is important to keep in perspective that if a seismic event were to occur on any major fault, intense
ground shaking could be induced to this general area. Potential damage to any settlement sensitive
structures would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of the
structures mass than that created from secondary seismic constraints. Considering the subsurface soil
conditions and local seismicity, it is estimated that the site has a low risk associated with the potential
for these phenomenon to occur and adversely affect surface improvements. These potential risks are no
greater at this site than they are for other structures and improvements developed on the alluvial
materials in this vicinity.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 5
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to
evaluate their physical and chemical characteristics. The tests performed and the results obtained are
presented in Appendix D.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the
subject site is suited for development from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. The recommendations
presented herein should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and construction phases of
development. The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the
recommendations presented below, have been completed using the information provided to us regarding
site development. In the event that the information concerning proposed development is not correct, the
conclusion and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the
changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office.
General
All grading should conform to the International Building Code (IBC), and the requirements ofthe City
of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) except where specifically superseded in the
text of this report. During earthwork construction all removals, drain systems, slopes, and the general
grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested.
If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and
if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. It is recommended that the
earthwork contractor(s) perform their own independent reconnaissance of the site to observe field
conditions first hand. This site has too many individual conditions to cover each separately. Therefore,
if the contractor(s) should have any questions regarding site conditions, site preparation, orthe remedial
recommendations provided, they should contact a representative of GTI for any necessary clarifications
prior to submitting earthwork bids.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Debris, vegetation,
and other deleterious material should be removed from areas proposed for structural fill prior to the start
of construction.
Demolition
The following recommendations are provided as guidelines in the event a structure is encountered that
are not intended to remain.
All existing surface or subsurface structures (not intended to remain), within the area to be
developed, should be razed and moved off site.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC.
W.O. 1747-ID3
JULY 15, 2015
PAGE 6
2. If a septic tank (to be abandoned or below a proposed improvement) is located within the
project site, it is recommended that it be pumped out and with few exceptions likely removed.
Any leach lines, seepage pits, or other pipes associated with this structure should also be
removed or properly abandoned.
3. If any wells are encountered, an attempt should be made to identify the owner and purpose of
the well. Well abandonment should adhere to the recommendations provided by the Idaho
Department of Water Resources, the Public Health Department, or any other government
agencies. If the well is located in the area of a proposed structure, these recommendations
should be reviewed by GTI and ifwarranted, additional geotechnical recommendations will be
offered.
Removals/Processing - General
Presented below are removal/processing recommendations for the various earth materials encountered
on the project. Debris, vegetation, and other deleterious material should be stripped/removed from areas
proposed for structural improvements.
Based on a review ofthe exploratory logs and our site reconnaissance, after the artificial fill is removed,
a minimum removal/processing depth of 24 inches into alluvial materials should be accomplished
across the site. if the left in place soils can be scarified to encounter a competent layer below; they may
be processed in place; otherwise, they should be removed to competent material. Locally deeper
removals/processing may be necessary based on the field conditions exposed
We recommend that all surficial clays (if encountered) be removed from beneath the foundations and
replaced with a low expansive structural fill. The exposed ground surface should be moisture
conditioned and compacted a minimum of 12 inches to provide a more uniform foundation support. A
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum modified density (ASTM D
1557) at moisture content of optimum or above is necessary to generate any near surface settlements.
Locally deeper removals/processing may be necessary based on the conditions exposed. Removal
bottoms should be checked by a representative ofGeoTek, Inc. to see if deeper removals are necessary.
If very hard cemented materials are encountered during over -excavation, excavation may potentially be
terminated, but this will need to be determined on a case by case basis by a representative of GTI.
Foundations for the proposed structures may be founded on cemented material; however, in order to
avoid the potential for differential settlement, the entire foundation would need to be supported entirely
on the cemented material. If this is not possible, cemented materials should be removed to a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the bottom of the footing and replaced with compacted structural fill. This
can best be determined in the field based upon the conditions exposed. Termination of any excavation
on cemented soils will need to be reviewed by GTI and the owner.
If existing improvements or property line restrictions limit removals, condition specific
recommendations would be provided on a case-by-case basis. During earthwork construction, care
should be taken by the contractor so that adverse ground movements or settlements are not generated
affecting existing improvements.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 7
Transitional Pads
Transitional pads are defined in this report as pads which are partially cut and partially fill. To mitigate
some of the differential settlement which will occur on transitional pads, the cut side should be over-
excavated/processed to a minimum depth equal to 2 feet below the bottom of the footings or to the
depth of the fill, which ever is less. On transitional pads with more than 7.5 feet of fill, plans need to be
reviewed by GTI and site-specific recommendations will be provided.
Excavation Difficulty
Partially cemented layers of material were encountered in most of our excavations; we anticipate that
the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment equivalent to CAT D9R
dozers and CAT 235 excavators. However, special excavation equipment and techniques may be
necessary dependant upon if harder materials are encountered during construction.
Seasonal conditions could cause wet soil conditions to occur onsite and dependent upon the depth of
cuts, it should be expected that special excavation and fill placement measures may be necessary. Wet
materials should be spread out and air-dried or mixed with drier soils to reduce their moisture content as
appropriate for fill placement.
Frozen soils, if encountered, should be removed and allowed to thaw prior to any fill placement or
construction. Removal bottoms should be checked by a representative of GTI to see if deeper removals
are necessary.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to completing removals/processing and ground preparation, the excavated onsite and/or
imported soils maybe placed in relatively thin lifts (less than 8 inches thick), cleaned of vegetation and
debris, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction
of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
Import Material
Potentially, soils will be imported to the site for earthwork construction purposes. A sample of any
intended import material should first be submitted to GTI so that, if necessary, additional laboratory or
chemical testing can be performed to verify that the intended import material is compatible with onsite
soils. In general, import material should be within the following minimum guidelines:
* Free of organic matter and debris.
* Maintain less than 0.2 percent sulfate content.
* Maintain less than 3.0 percent soluble material.
* Maintain less than 0.02 percent soluble chlorides.
* Maintain less than 0.2 percent sodium sulfate content.
* Maintain less than 4.0 percent expansion (i.e., low expansive).
* One hundred percent passing a six-inch screen.
* At least seventy-five percent passing a three-inch screen.
Observation and Testing
During earthwork construction all removal/processing and the general grading procedures should be
observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GTI. If unusual or unexpected
conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by GTI and if warranted, modified and/or
additional recommendations will be offered.
GEOTEK, INC
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 8
Ground Water
Ground water was not encountered during our field evaluation. Based on site conditions in the future, a
transient high ground water condition could develop over a clay or less permeable layer and this
condition could generate down gradient seepage. The possible effect these layers could have on this
and adjacent sites should be considered, and can best be evaluated in the field during grading. If
warranted by exposed field conditions, it may be recommended that a drainage system be established to
collect and convey any subsurface water to an appropriate location for drainage. Typically, potential
areas of seepage are difficult to identify prior to their occurrence; therefore, it is often best to adopt a
"wait and see" approach to determine if any seepage conditions do develop, at which time specific
recommendation to mitigate an identified condition can be provided.
Earthwork Settlements
Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression. The
total amount of settlement and time over which it occurs is dependent upon various factors, including
material type, depth of fill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of
subsurface materials. Compacted fills, to the heights anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive
settlement. However, some settlement of the left in-place alluvium is expected and the majority of this
settlement is anticipated to occur during grading.
Slope Stability
No significantly high (greater than ten feet) slopes are anticipated to be constructed onsite. All slopes
should be designed at gradients of 2 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical) or flatter. All slopes should be
constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the City of Meridian and the International
Building Code. Cut and fill slopes are anticipated to perform adequately in the future with respect to
gross and surficial stability if the soil materials are maintained in a solid to semi-solid state (as defined
by the soils Atterberg Limits) and are limited to the heights prescribed herein.
The importance of proper compaction to the face of a slope cannot be overemphasized. In order to
achieve proper compaction, one or more of the three following methods should be employed by the
contractor following implementation of typical slope construction guidelines: 1) track walk the slopes
at grade, 2) use a combination ofsheeps foot roller and track walking, or 3) overfill the slope 3 to 5 feet
laterally and cut it back to grade.
Random testing will be performed to verify compaction to the face of the slope. If the tests do not meet
the minimum recommendation of 90 percent relative compaction, the contractor will be informed and
additional compactive efforts recommended. A final evaluation of cut slopes during grading will be
necessary in order to identify any areas of adverse conditions. The need for remedial stabilization
measures should be based on observations made during grading by a representative of this office.
Based on our observations, and if warranted, specific remedial recommendations will be offered for
stabilization.
Earthwork Balance
The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary
with material type and location. it is anticipated that the alluvial materials will subside approximately
0. 10 to 0. 15 feet due to soil consolidation and the static and dynamic loading conditions created by
earthwork equipment. The overall earthwork shrinkage may be approximated by using the following
parameters:
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC.
W.O. 1747-ID3
Artificial Fill...........
Alluvium .................
Cemented Alluvium
JULY 15, 2015
PAGE 9
............. 20% to 25% shrinkage
............. 15% to 20% shrinkage
.....................0%u to 5%u bulking
It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Final earthwork
balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where
grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any
yardage imbalance for the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS — FOUNDATIONS
General
Foundation design and construction recommendations are based on preliminary laboratory testing and
engineering analysis performed on near surface earth materials. The proposed foundation systems
should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained herein and in the
International Building Code.
Based on our experience in the area, the soils onsite should have a negligible corrosive potential to
concrete and metal, materials selected for construction purposes should be resistant to corrosion. Where
permitted by building code PVC pipe should be utilized. All concrete should be designed, mixed,
placed, finished, and cured in accordance with the guidelines presented by the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Based on our grading recommendations, the soils beneath the foundations are anticipated to be low
expansive. Therefore, foundation recommendations for low expansive soil conditions are provided
below. If more expansive soils are encountered, the pad(s) will either need to be regraded and the more
expansive soils removed by the contractor or increased foundation recommendations will need to be
provided.
Conventional Foundation Recommendations
Column loads are anticipated to be 50 kips or less while wall loads are expected to be 3 kips per lineal
foot or less. The conventional recommendations provided are from a geotechnical engineering
perspective (i.e., for expansive conditions) and are not meant to supersede the design by the project's
structural engineer.
Design:
Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. The specific
criteria to be used should be verified on evaluation of the proposed buildings, structural loads, and
expansion and chemical testing performed after grading is complete. The bearing values indicated are
for the total dead plus frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one third for short duration
loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. When combining passive pressure and
friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 10
A grade beam, reinforced as below and at least 12 inches wide, should be utilized across all large
entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjacent
footings. Footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent ground
surface as required by local codes to extend below the frost line. AI I continuous wall footings should be
reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near
the bottom of the footings. Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project's
structural engineer. All footings should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of seven feet from the
outside bottom edge of the footing to the face of an adjacent descending slope.
For foundations systems including a crawl space, it is recommended that it be designed so that water is
not allowed to penetrate the crawl space. Proper grading and backfill forthe foundations is critical and
should adhere to the "fill placement" and "drainage" recommendations of this evaluation as well as
local building codes.
The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values recommended are working values. Strip
footings should have a minimum width of one foot and spread footings should have a minimum soil to
concrete area of foursquare feet. Increases are allowed for the bearing capacity of the footings at a rate
of 250 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width and 250 pounds per square foot for each
additional foot of depth into the recommended bearing material, up to a maximum outlined. If the
bearing value exceeds 3,000 psi,, an additional review by GTI is recommended. As mentioned earlier,
the exposed ground surface should be moisture conditioned and compacted a minimum of 12 inches
below bottom of footings.
Foundation Settlement
Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction phase of development, total settlement is estimated to be less than one inch and differential
settlement is estimated to be less than 0.75 inches for a 25 -foot span. Two-way angular distortions due
to settlements are not estimated to exceed 1/400. The structures should be loaded uniformly so as to
avoid any localized settlements.
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Pavement sections presented in the following table are based on an R -value of 15, Ada County
Highway District Development (ACHD) pre -assigned traffic index(s) for residential construction and
estimated traffic index(s) for commercial construction, and the guidelines presented in the latest edition
of the ACRD Development Policy Manual. These pavement sections are presented for planning
purposes only and should be verified based on specific laboratory testing performed subsequent to
rough grading of the site.
GEOTEK, INC.
Soil
Minimum
Allowable
Passive
Maximum
Footing
Expansion
Footing
Bearing
Coefficient
Earth
Earth
Type
Classification
Depth
Pressure
of Friction
Pressure
Pressure
(inches)
(psf)
(psf/ft)
(psf)
Strip/Spread
Low
24
2,000
0.35
250
3,000
The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values recommended are working values. Strip
footings should have a minimum width of one foot and spread footings should have a minimum soil to
concrete area of foursquare feet. Increases are allowed for the bearing capacity of the footings at a rate
of 250 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width and 250 pounds per square foot for each
additional foot of depth into the recommended bearing material, up to a maximum outlined. If the
bearing value exceeds 3,000 psi,, an additional review by GTI is recommended. As mentioned earlier,
the exposed ground surface should be moisture conditioned and compacted a minimum of 12 inches
below bottom of footings.
Foundation Settlement
Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction phase of development, total settlement is estimated to be less than one inch and differential
settlement is estimated to be less than 0.75 inches for a 25 -foot span. Two-way angular distortions due
to settlements are not estimated to exceed 1/400. The structures should be loaded uniformly so as to
avoid any localized settlements.
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Pavement sections presented in the following table are based on an R -value of 15, Ada County
Highway District Development (ACHD) pre -assigned traffic index(s) for residential construction and
estimated traffic index(s) for commercial construction, and the guidelines presented in the latest edition
of the ACRD Development Policy Manual. These pavement sections are presented for planning
purposes only and should be verified based on specific laboratory testing performed subsequent to
rough grading of the site.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 11
Pavement Construction and Maintenance
All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the
preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. All
subgrade materials should be processed to a minimum depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent near optimum moisture content. All aggregate base should be
compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent at optimum moisture content.
The recommended pavement sections provided are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable
pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair should be expected. If the ADT
(average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected
by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the
pavement section. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be
allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas,
measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Site Improvements
As is commonly known, expansive soils are problematic with respect to the design, construction and
long term performance of concrete flatwork. Due to the nature of concrete flatwork, it is essentially
impossible to totally mitigate the effects of soil expansion. Typical measures to control soil expansion
for structures include; low expansive soil caps, deepened foundation system, increased structural
design, and soil presaturation. As they are generally not cost effective, these measures are very seldom
utilized for flatwork because it's less costly to simply replace any damaged or distressed sections than
to "structurally" design them. Even if "structural" design parameters are applied to flatwork
construction, there would still be relative movements between adjoining types of structures and other
improvements (e.g., curb and sidewalk). This is particularlytrue as the level of care during construction
of flatwork is often not as meticulous as that for structures. Unfortunately, it is fairly common practice
for flatwork to be poured on subgrade soils, which have been allowed to dry out since site grading.
Generally after flatwork construction is completed, landscape irrigation begins, utility lines are
pressurized, and drainage systems are utilized; presenting the potential for water to enter the dry
subgrade soils, causing the soil to expand.
GEOTEK, INC.
MINIMUM
MINIMUM AGGREGATE
ASSUMED TRAFFIC
SU13GRADE
ASPHALT
THICKNESS (in,)
Aggregate
Subbase
RIGHT -OF -AWAY
R -VALUE
CONCRETE
THICKNESS
Base (3/4"
(m•)
minus)
(Pitrun)
Residential
Normal Traffic
15
2.5
4.0
10.0
TI = 6.0
Collector
Normal Traffic
15
3.0
6.0
14.0
TI = 8.0
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Site Improvements
As is commonly known, expansive soils are problematic with respect to the design, construction and
long term performance of concrete flatwork. Due to the nature of concrete flatwork, it is essentially
impossible to totally mitigate the effects of soil expansion. Typical measures to control soil expansion
for structures include; low expansive soil caps, deepened foundation system, increased structural
design, and soil presaturation. As they are generally not cost effective, these measures are very seldom
utilized for flatwork because it's less costly to simply replace any damaged or distressed sections than
to "structurally" design them. Even if "structural" design parameters are applied to flatwork
construction, there would still be relative movements between adjoining types of structures and other
improvements (e.g., curb and sidewalk). This is particularlytrue as the level of care during construction
of flatwork is often not as meticulous as that for structures. Unfortunately, it is fairly common practice
for flatwork to be poured on subgrade soils, which have been allowed to dry out since site grading.
Generally after flatwork construction is completed, landscape irrigation begins, utility lines are
pressurized, and drainage systems are utilized; presenting the potential for water to enter the dry
subgrade soils, causing the soil to expand.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 12
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request.
If, in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the
geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided
upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading, or trench
backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and
retaining wall backfills.
Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is
significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite
materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by
establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover as soon as possible after construction.
Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is
established. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types, which require
little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. From a geotechnical standpoint
leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the
purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction. Only the
amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the landscape
areas could adversely affect proposed site improvements. We recommend that any proposed open
bottom planter areas adjacent to proposed structures, be eliminated for a minimum distance of 5 feet
and desert landscape using xeriscape technology be used outside of this buffer zone. As an alternative,
closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet, placed in the bottom of the planter, could be
installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. Irrigation timers
should be adjusted on a monthly basis.
Soil Corrosion
Based on our experience in the area, the soils onsite should have a negligible corrosive potential to
concrete and metal, materials selected for construction purposes should be resistant to contusion. Where
permitted by building code PVC pipe should be utilized. All concrete should be designed, mixed,
placed, finished, and cured in accordance with the guidelines presented by the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Mining of Construction Materials
GTI will recommend that the onsite materials be utilized as utility trench backfill. GTI could provide
additional consultation and input regarding this matter upon request.
Trench Excavation
All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing
reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations
should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site.
Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a
factor in subsurface excavations. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose
(typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated in non-cemented soils. All
excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to national and local safety
codes.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. JULY 15, 2015
W.O. 1747-ID3 PAGE 13
Utility Trench Backfill
Considering the overall nature ofthe soil -encountered onsite, it should be anticipated that materials will
need to be imported to the site for use as pipe bedding and pipe zone material. Utility trench backfill
should be placed to the following standards. All onsite interior and exterior utility trench backfill
should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Compaction testing and observation, along with
probing should be performed to verify the desired results. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the
trench, should not be used adjacent to perimeter footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction testing
and observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the desired results. Offsite utility
trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 relative compaction. Compaction testing and
observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the desired results.
Drainaee
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times in accordance with the IBC. Drainage should
not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations
and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street
or other approved area. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from
the building at a minimum of 5 -percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicularly to
the face of the wall. If physical obstructions prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5 -percent slope
shall be provided to an approved alternate method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales
used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 -percent where located within 10 feet of the
building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a
minimum of 2 -percent away from the building. Roof gutters and down spouts should be utilized to
control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet onto paved areas or a minimum of five feet from
proposed structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to
irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop,
recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request.
GEOTEK, INC.
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC.
W.O. 1747-I133
PLAN REVIEW
JULY 15, 2015
PAGE 14
Final grading, foundation, and improvement plans should be submitted to this office for review and
comment as they become available, to minimize any misunderstandings between the plans and
recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and earthwork construction
performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ
substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed
representative of the area; however, soil materials vary in character between excavations and conditions
exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or
provided by others. Since our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory
F' testing and engineering analysis, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions.
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is
expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report
or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
David C. Waite, PE
Senior Engineer
GEOTEK, INC.
* APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION
Source: Google Maps 2015, GeoTelc Field Observations, 201 S.
Not to Scale
FIGURE I
SITE LOCATION MAP
Victory —Linder Project
Meridian, Idaho
G E O T E K Prepared for: JUB
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS 11
Project No.: Repott Date: Drawn By:
320 E. Corporate Dr, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642 1747- ID I July 2015 JJK
(208) 888-7010 (phone) 1(208) 888-7924 (FAX)
-
W FI'.2nklm Rd
F Frna6n'e.'
Tenwnde'C1eey r
n
z
c,
F Con W pi
Vevdx�eu, pr
- .
b3
Rd
m
W OvMand Rd
L Overland Rd
c
�
d
�
w
:n
UP
ro
9
N
3)
5
a
x
n
W Lonrnnl Rd
'-
0
m
a
n
n
m
laa
1
N
m
W Victory Rd
®
E Victory Rd
9
m
a
W Amity Rd
E Amity Rd
N
tf
C
s
�
3
n
rt
.may
V;
P
O
* APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION
Source: Google Maps 2015, GeoTelc Field Observations, 201 S.
Not to Scale
FIGURE I
SITE LOCATION MAP
Victory —Linder Project
Meridian, Idaho
G E O T E K Prepared for: JUB
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS 11
Project No.: Repott Date: Drawn By:
320 E. Corporate Dr, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642 1747- ID I July 2015 JJK
(208) 888-7010 (phone) 1(208) 888-7924 (FAX)
APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS
® PERCOLATION TEST LOCATIONS
GROUNDWATER PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS
` SITE OUTLINE
Source: Google Earth 2015, GeoTek Field Observations, 201 S.
Not to Scale
'r�
GEOTEK
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Project No.:
320 E. Corporate Dr, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642 1747-ID3
(208) 888-7010 (phone) / (208) 888-7924 (FAX)
pzll
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN
Victory — Linder Project
Meridian, Idaho
Prepared for: TO Engineers
Report Date: Drawn By.
July 2015 JJK
APPENDIX A
GEOTEK, INC.
REFERENCES
Ada County Highway District Development Policy Manual, Revised by Resolution No. 690, October
2003
ASTM, 200, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test
methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-
4943 to highest number.
Breckinridge, R.M., Lewis, R.S., Adema, G.W., Weisz, D.W., 2003, Map of Miocene and Younger
Faults in Idaho, Idaho Geological Survey, University of Idaho
Collett, Russell A., 1980, Soil Survey of Ada County, Eastern Part, United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conversation Service, United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land
Management, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, University of Idaho College of Agriculture.
Day, Robert W., 1999, Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering — Design and Construction
Day, Robert W., 2002, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Idaho Department of Water Resources, Treasure Valley Hydrology— Geology, January 2003
Idaho Department of Water Resources, Well Information, Well Driller Reports, 2002
Idaho Transportation Department CD-ROM Publications, September 2003
Johnson, Bruce R. and Raines, Gary L., 1995, Digital representation of the Idaho state geologic map: a
contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. USGS Open -File
Report 95-690
Malde, H.E., 1991. Quaternary geology and structural history of the Snake River Plain, Idaho and
Oregon. In: The Geology of North America, Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous
U.S., Vol. K-2,252-281 pp.
Othberg, K.L., 1994. Geology and geomorphology of the Boise Valley and adjoining areas, western
Snake River Plain, Idaho. Idaho Geological Survey Bulletin 29: 54 pp.
USGS, Cloverdale Quadrangle, 7.5 -Minute Series Topographic Map, 1979.
USGS, 2003, Seismic Hazard Map of Idaho, Peak Acceleration (%g) with 2% Probability of
Exceedance in 50 years.
GEOTEK, INC.
APPENDIX B
GEOTEK, INC.
BORING LOG GENERAL NOTES
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength, Qu,
psf
Standard
Penetration or N -
Value (SS)
Blows/Ft
Consistency
< 500
<2
Very Soft
500-1,000
2 - 3
Soft
1,001 -2,000
4-7
Firm
2,001 - 4,000
8-16
Stiff
4,001 - 8,000
17-32
Very Stiff
> 8,001
32+
Hard
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Standard Penetration (SPT)
or N -Value (SS) Blows/Ft
Relative Density
0 - 3
Very Loose
4 - 9
Loose
10-29
Medium Dense
30-49
Dense
50+
Very Dense
SPT penetration test using 140 pound hammer, with 30 inch free fall on 2 inch outside diameter(1-3/8 ID) sampler
For ring sampler using 140 Ib hammer, with a 30 inch free fall on 3 inch outside diameter (2-1/2 ID) sample,
use N -value x 0.7 to get Standard N -value
For fine grained soil consistency, thumb penetration used per ASTM D-2488
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
Descriptive Term of other
constituents
Percent of Dry
Weight
Trace
< 15
With
15-2
Modifier
> 30
GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Major
Component of
Sample
Particle Size
Boulders
Over 12 inches
Cobbles
3 inches to 12 inches
Gravel
#4 Sieve to 3 inches
Sand
#200 Sieve to #4 Sieve
Silt or Cla
Passing #200 Sieve
RELATIVE HARDNESS OF CEMENTED SOILS (CALICHE)
Description
General Characteristics
Very Dense to Moderately Hard
Partially Cemented Granular Soil - Can be carved with a knife and broken
with force by hand.
Very Stiff to Moderately Hard
Partially Cemented Fine -Grained Soil - Can be carved with a knife and
broken with force by hand.
Moderately Hard
Moderate hammer blow required to break a sample
Hard
Heavy hammer blow required to break a sample
Very Hard
Repeated heavy hammer blow required to break a sample
LOG LEGEND
SAMPLING
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Pattern
USCS Symbol
USCS Classification
NR
FILL
Artificial Fill
Soft
GP or GW
Poorly/Well graded GRAVEL
L
GM
Silty GRAVEL
Firm
GC
Clayey GRAVEL
MD
GP -GM or GW -GM
Poorly/Well graded GRAVEL with Silt
Stiff
GP -GC or GW -GC
Poorly/Well graded GRAVEL with Clay
D
SP or SW
Poorly/Well graded SAND
Very Stiff
SM
Silty SAND
k T tr
SC
Clayey SAND
SP -SM or SW -SM
Poorly/Well graded SAND with Silt
" a
SP -SC or SW -SC
Poorly/Well graded SAND with Clay
SC -SM
Silty Clayey SAND
ML
SILT
MH
Elastic SILT
CL -ML
Silty CLAY
CL
Lean CLAY
\�\
CH
Fat CLAY
PCEM
PARTIALLY CEMENTED
CEM
CEMENTED
BDR
BEDROCK
SAMPLING
Cohesionless
Soils
SPT
Ring Sample
No Recovery
Bulk Sample
Water Table
Cementation
NR
Very Loose
Q
CONSISTENCY
Cohesionless
Soils
Cohesive Soils
Cementation
VL
Very Loose
So
Soft
MH
Moderately Hard
L
Loose
F
Firm
H
Hard
MD
Medium Dense
S
Stiff
VH
Very Hard
D
Dense
VS
Very Stiff
VD
Very Dense
TEST PIT LOG
320
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECT#: 1747-ID1 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 615115
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5720-, -116.4135- ELEVATION: 2700 Feet
SAMPLES
c
6
>1
CL
W
_
a
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -1
a
rn
T
REMARKS
CL
O
a
y
p
c
O
rn
m
to
U
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
CL
Dark Brown, Lean CLAY with Organics
So
Moist to Saturated
1
F
2
PCEM
Light Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
Irrigation Water Seepage
Saturated
Observed
3
4
5
6
Moist
7
8
SC
Dark Brown, Clayey SAND
D
Irrigation Water Seepage
Saturated
Observed
9
10
PCEM
Light Tan Partially CEMENTED sands and Gravels
H
Groundwater Monitoring
11
Moist to Saturated
Well Installed @ 11'- 0"
Bottom of Test Pit @ 11'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
12
Irrigation Seepage Into Test Pit Observed
13-
314151617181920
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECT #: 1747-ID1 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 6/5/15
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5751', -116.4131- ELEVATION: 2706 Feet
SAMPLES
T
d
E
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -2
a
a
A
REMARKS
o
TEO
o
v
o
N
W
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
CL
Dark Brown, Lean CLAY with Organics
So
Slightly Moist to Moist
1
F
2
PCEM
Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
Sligthly Moist to Moist
3
4
GW
Brown, Well -Graded GRAVEL with Sand and Silt and Trace
MD
Well Rounded 6" Minus Cobbles
5
Slightly Moist to Moist
Occasional Lenses of Mod -Hard PCEM
6
7
PCEM
Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
8
Sligthly Moist -Moist
SP
Tan, Poorly Graded SAND with Gravel and
D -V
Trace Well Rounded 3" Minus Cobbles
9
Moist
10
11
Larger Cobbles 6" Minus with Depth
12-
21314
13-
14—
Bottom of Test Pit @ 14'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
15
16-
617181920
17-
18-
19-
20
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECT M 1747-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 6/5/15
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5754', -116.4125' ELEVATION: 2705 Feet
SAMPLES
C
T
5
`m
M
E
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -3
c
N
REMARKS
a
a
y
N
to
p
M
m
M
j
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
CL
Dark Brown, Lean CLAY with Organics
So
Slightly Moist to Moist
1
F
2
PCEM
Light Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
Slightly Moist to Moist
3
4
5
SP -SM
Tan, Poorly Graded SAND with silt, trace 3" Minus Well
D
Percolation Tube
Rounded 3" Minus Cobbles
Installed @ 5'- 0"
6
Slightly Moist to Moist
7
8
Brown, Well -Graded GRAVEL with Sand and Silt, with 6"
D -VD
GW
Cobbles, Slightly Moist -Moist
9
Occasional Lenses of Mod -Hard PCEM
10
Bottom of Test Pit @ 10'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
11
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECTM 1747-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
'0000c� PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 6/5/15
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5750° ,-116.4115° ELEVATION: 2703 Feet
SAMPLES
C
T
Ea�TEST
PIT NUMBER: TP -4
MQ
REMARKS
TEO
N
yo
o
y
j
v
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
CL
Dark Brown, Lean CLAY with Organics
So
1
Slightly Moist to Moist
F
2
PCEM
Light Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
Slightly Moist to Moist
3
4
5
6
7
GW
Tan, Well Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand and Trace
D -V
3" Minus Well Rounded Cobbles
8
Slightly Moist to Moist
9
10
Bottom of Test Pit @ 10'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
11
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECT #: 1747-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 6/5/15
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5748', -116.4108' ELEVATION: 2702 Feet
SAMPLES
6
T
CLItc
E
E
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -5
ya
y
hREMARKS
c
N
N
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
m
D
CL
Dark Brown, Lean CLAY with Organics
So
Previously Corrugated for
Slightly Moist to Moist
Agriculture
1
2
F
3
PCEM
Light Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
Slightly Moist
4
GW
Brown, Well -Graded GRAVEL with Sand and Silt and
MD
Trace 6" Minus Well Rounded Cobbles
5
Slightly Moist to Moist
6
Occasional Lenses of Mod -Hard PCEM
7
8
SP
Tan, Poorly Graded SAND with Gravel and Trace
D -V
Well Rounded 3" Minus Cobbles
9
Slightly Moist to Moist
10
Larger Well Rounded Cobbles 6" Minus with Depth
11
12
GM
Light Tan, Silty GRAVEL with Sand
D -VE
Groundwater Monitoring
Slightly Moist to Moist
Well Installed @ 14'- 0"
13
14
Bottom of Test Pit @ 14'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
15
16-
617181920
17-
18-
19-
201
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECT #: 1747-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 6/5/15
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5734° , -116.4091. ELEVATION: 2704 Feet
SAMPLES
c
O
T
CLIRL
E
E
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -6
v
REMARKS
CL
h(y
n
p
to
N
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
m
Z)
CL
Dark Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY with Trace Organics
So
1
Slightly Moist
F
2
PCEM
Light Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
Slightly Moist
3
SP
Tan, Poorly Graded SAND with Gravel
MD
Trace Well Rounded Cobbles 3"
4
Moist
Larger Well Rounded Cobbles 6" Minus with Depth
5
GW
Tan, Well Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand and Trace 3"
D -V
3" Minus Well Rounded Cobbles
6
Slightly Moist to Moist
7
Occasional Lenses of Mod -Hard PCEM
8
9
Bottom of Test Pit @ 9'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
10
11
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECT #: 1747-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 6/5/15
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5751-, -116.4095° ELEVATION: 2692 Feet
SAMPLES
T
T
x
E
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -7
a
N
a
n
2
REMARKS
CL
OC
N
U
m
m
N
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
CL
Dark Brown, Lean CLAY with Trace Organics
So
Slightly Moist
1
2
PCEM
Light Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
H-
Slightly Moist
3
SP
Tan, Poorly Graded SAND with Gravel
D -V
Trace Well Rounded Cobbles 3"
4
Moist
Larger Cobbles 6" Minus with Depth
5
GW
Tan, Well Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand and Trace
D -VE
Percolation Tube
3" Minus Well Rounded Cobbles
Installed at 5'- 0"
6
Slightly Moist to Moist
7
8
9
Bottom of Test Pit @ 9'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
10
11
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: LJL
PROJECT #: 1747-03 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Victory & Linder Seepage Beds EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: JUB DATE: 6/8/15
G E O T E K LOCATION: 43.5720',-116.4116- ELEVATION: 2703 Feet
SAMPLES
o
T
m
a
E
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP-8REMARKS
c
N
Mn
o
Tm�
w
N
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Dark Brown, Lean CLAY with Trace Organics
So
Moist to Saturated
1
ICIL
F
PCEM
Light Tan, Partially CEMENTED Sands and Gravels
MH
Slightly Moist to Moist
2
SC
Light Brown, Clayey SAND and Trace Gravel
D
Percolation Tube
Moist
Installed @ 3"-0"
3
Bottom of Test Pit @ 3'- 0"
No Groundwater Observed
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
APPENDIX C
GEOTEK, INC.
FIELD TESTS AND OBSERVATIONS (1747-ID3)
PERCOLATION TESTS
The infiltration rate was determined by conducting percolation tests for onsite earth materials. The infiltration
rate was determined in inches per hour in general accordance with the Boise Storm Water Management Design
Manual Appendix D. Infiltration rate results are presented below.
LOCATION
INFILTRATION RATE
(Inches/Hour)
TP -3 @ 10'
24.0+
TP -7 @ 5.2'
24.0+
TP -8 @ 3.0'
24.0+
GROUND WATER MONITORING RESULTS
Groundwater monitoring results are presented below. Groundwater elevation results are recorded in feet below
existing grade.
DATE
TP -1
TP -5
6/5/15
11.01+
14.0'+
+ Indicates a dry reading to the bottom of piezometer
GEOTEK, INC.
APPENDIX D
GEOTEK, INC.
LABORATORY TESTS RESULTS (1747-ID3)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Atterberg limits were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The
results are shown in the following plates.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve analyses were performed in general accordance with AASHTO test method T 27. It should be noted that
materials over 3 inches in size were selectively screened to better reflect the native materials that will be left after
processing efforts of the contractor. Test results are presented in the following plates.
GEOTEK, INC.
u i ,
raa 10 + oI 2.61
96 s9"
_ . ti_
SIEVE
SIZE
L`_",.
3,V'
H.F
R38i
?100
naCq
X. Gravel %3
coarse Fine coarse Med.um
PERCENT 9PEC" PASS?
FINER PERCENT [%=IDI
I+Ji7
lS]{I
UAU
law
I b+D
9�)
98
96
92
Iain clay
Fine silt Clay
INist+trl�!l��rtptlon
AtllerWig- l lits
PL= LL- PI=
Classification
USCSs AA8HT4=
Remarks
F.N[, U,CIT
7m, .rpccili<arion pf�rvi,�leill
Sample Number: TP -1 Depth: u' -i'
Date.
-= - B.A.,. anazo Client: JUB Eaginceh
Project: ie.Iunand Linder Gcnlaehnienl l:v;rlual,nn
I,F [aGFlN0.el9
Fa. 1-w7 atT�PT:!
G E 0 T EMC project NO;' 7.t7 Pleura
Tested By: JK__. . - ...—_.._--. Checked By: D Waite
Particle Size
Distribution
Report
106.
71)
IK
2 86
.. _._.�... _ . .. _.— ....... _ ..-m_
_.. .... ..
`—_..._.
k
hf
rtl 46
4e..
i
26
u i ,
raa 10 + oI 2.61
96 s9"
_ . ti_
SIEVE
SIZE
L`_",.
3,V'
H.F
R38i
?100
naCq
X. Gravel %3
coarse Fine coarse Med.um
PERCENT 9PEC" PASS?
FINER PERCENT [%=IDI
I+Ji7
lS]{I
UAU
law
I b+D
9�)
98
96
92
Iain clay
Fine silt Clay
INist+trl�!l��rtptlon
AtllerWig- l lits
PL= LL- PI=
Classification
USCSs AA8HT4=
Remarks
F.N[, U,CIT
7m, .rpccili<arion pf�rvi,�leill
Sample Number: TP -1 Depth: u' -i'
Date.
-= - B.A.,. anazo Client: JUB Eaginceh
Project: ie.Iunand Linder Gcnlaehnienl l:v;rlual,nn
I,F [aGFlN0.el9
Fa. 1-w7 atT�PT:!
G E 0 T EMC project NO;' 7.t7 Pleura
Tested By: JK__. . - ...—_.._--. Checked By: D Waite
GRAIN 512E - min _
!Y Graval %Sand - ` Finn
Chane Fide Clouse 67O&UM Fine SUt Clay,
-- 0 11 --- _ b 16 48 'r
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NOI
1)3
],4 89
n4 8'?
9$ S4 16 38
,`3i1 GG
IY511 5?
.. I 11 79
ink, 'Nali Mwil plot lddd)
Sample Number- 1P-3 Depth: S'
.,. 1161sc tlHlse. _. -- 1169 "a
Sullr N9
H..Mi...l6 tlii3
YumaVw
bifs91,
e (low,w, IER]Yl]
4 E 4 i E IE wwn-apouMnuxem
Material Description
puvrly graded ;.nnd with silt
AtLflJAfil9 -Omits
PL= 0 LL- n P'l=
Classiticatian
IJSCS= SV -SM AASHTO= A-3
Rworb
Date:
Clltalt: !F.'R F:ni{il]rr3�
Project 4'inzxy :md t-iluicr Grnte.hn[cul F aldrtic]I
I
Tested By: JK..— -. - .. Checked By: D.Wade . --
Particle Size Distribution Report
5 S = 5
I \
I _
I Ji
LL '
%rdravel %Sand %Fines
Coarse Film Correa '/,ladlum Fina Slit Clay
_ h U 1 . 4 — - 10 23 61)
91EVE
912E
� s•
i 10
a3G
'3n
=109
1:00
PERCENT SPEC,- PASS7
FINER PERCENT 4X=NO)
AUU
Inn
qkj
99
98
94
Rd
71
tin
Material Description
I
Atterhemimlts
PL=
LL= pl=
ClassltIrMiciri
USCS=
AASHTO=
Remarks
RM. osr�
— ---- --
I
Pte_
10
1
G'
0.01
1{10
%rdravel %Sand %Fines
Coarse Film Correa '/,ladlum Fina Slit Clay
_ h U 1 . 4 — - 10 23 61)
91EVE
912E
� s•
i 10
a3G
'3n
=109
1:00
PERCENT SPEC,- PASS7
FINER PERCENT 4X=NO)
AUU
Inn
qkj
99
98
94
Rd
71
tin
i,w pecificm.imr widcdl
Sample Numtler: rp-6 Depth: G'
Date:
Nan. er6re Cllent: !lila Lnrineers
M..... 10 uu pr6Ject; li iarr an+55 LnxicrG.ntechniwl Evaluation
Yo q3. by bitl.MY.
L t= 0 T tE K Proluct No. 4747 Flaure
Tested By; JK Checked By: U.t^laile
Material Description
sandy lean eta.'
Atterhemimlts
PL=
LL= pl=
ClassltIrMiciri
USCS=
AASHTO=
Remarks
RM. osr�
— ---- --
i,w pecificm.imr widcdl
Sample Numtler: rp-6 Depth: G'
Date:
Nan. er6re Cllent: !lila Lnrineers
M..... 10 uu pr6Ject; li iarr an+55 LnxicrG.ntechniwl Evaluation
Yo q3. by bitl.MY.
L t= 0 T tE K Proluct No. 4747 Flaure
Tested By; JK Checked By: U.t^laile