The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20932 67th Ave NE_PWD766_2026 741 Marine Drive PHONE Bellingham, WA 98225 360 733_7318 20611-67th Avenue NE FAX TOLL FREE 360 733_7418 Arlington, WA 98223 888 251_5276 July 13, 2016 Job No. 16-0327 Axis Roof and Gutter 20932 67th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98223 Attn: Mr. Casey Groves Re: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation New Building Construction 20932 67th Avenue NE Arlington, Washington Dear Mr. Groves: As requested, GeoTest Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering report summarizing the results of our subsurface evaluation for the proposed Axis Roof and gutter building to be located at 20932 67th Avenue NE in Arlington, Washington. The purpose of this evaluation was to establish general subsurface conditions beneath the site from which conclusions and recommendations for site development could be formulated. Specifically, our scope of services included the following tasks: â€¢ Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site by advancing five test pit explorations with a subcontracted backhoe to depths ranging from between 4 and 10 feet below ground surface (BGS). â€¢ Laboratory testing on representative samples in order to classify and evaluate the engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. â€¢ Provide this written report containing a description of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, exploratory test pit logs, findings and recommendations pertaining to site preparation and earthwork, fill and compaction, wet weather earthwork, seismic design considerations, foundation support, slab-on-grade construction, foundation and site drainage, utilities, stormwater infiltration and geotechnical consultation and construction monitoring. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GTS understands that an approximately 2,450 square foot building will be constructed on the property referenced above. The building will be a office/workshop facility. We understand that new construction is likely to consist of shallow conventional foundations with slab on grade floors. Foundation loads are anticipated to be relatively light. GTS also anticipates new asphalt drive paths and parking facilities around the perimeter of new construction. Page 1 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 SITE CONDITIONS This section discusses the general surface and subsurface conditions observed at the project site at the time of our field investigation. Interpretations of site conditions are based on the results of our review of available information, site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and laboratory testing. General Geologic Conditions Geologic information for the project site was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Arlington West Quadrangle (Minard, 1985), published by the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the referenced map, near surface soils in the vicinity of the project site consist of Marysville Sand Member recessional glacial outwash (Qvrm) and Arlington Gravel Member (Qvra). According to Minard, Marysville Sand recessional glacial outwash generally consists of well-drained, stratified to massive, outwash sand with some pebble gravel with localized areas of silt and clay. Arlington Gravel Member is well-drained and stratified sand and gravel deposited by meltwater from the stagnating and receding glacier. Native soils encountered during our subsurface exploration were generally consistent with the mapped Marysville Sand deposit. Surface Conditions The subject property is currently occupied by Axis Roof and Gutter, with a job trailer, equipment yard, and out-building. GTS understands that a building was recently removed from the site, with the former building footprint being where new construction will occur. The bulk of the project site is covered with gravel surfacing with only the north portion of the site having any notable vegetation. The vegetation to the north consists of grass and is in close proximity to a septic system. The site is flat with less than a few feet of elevation differential across the property. Tree cover has been completely removed from the site. GTS anticipates that some grading is likely to occur, but that changes to site grades will be minimal. Subsurface Soil Conditions Subsurface conditions were explored by advancing 5 test pit explorations (TP-1 through TP-5) on June 27, 2016 with an excavator subcontracted to GTS. Test pit exploration were advanced to depths of between 4 and 10 feet below ground surface (BGS). The on-site subsurface soils generally consisted of 2 or 3 inches of surfacing gravel overlying a relict topsoil horizon. Underlying the topsoil was a loose to medium dense gravelly sand with variable, but relatively low, silt contents. These materials were interpreted to be representative of Marysville Sand. In exploration test pit TP-1, GTS encountered previously placed fill materials that contained organic, glass, and metal debris to a depth of about 3 feet BGS. Underlying the fill materials were gravelly sands interpreted to be representative of Marysville Sand. Fill materials of varying thickness may exist elsewhere on site. Page 2 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Please refer to the attached logs at the end of this report for more detail at specific locations. Groundwater At the time of our subsurface investigation in July of 2016, no groundwater seepage was encountered within our explorations. Our explorations occurred in late June, so it is unlikely that groundwater elevations are at â€œseasonal lowsâ€ at the time of our exploration. It is, however, notable that GTS did not encounter groundwater within our deepest explorations. GTSâ€™s deepest explorations were terminated at 10 feet BGS. The groundwater conditions reported on the exploration logs are for the specific locations and dates indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other locations and/or times. Groundwater levels are not static and it is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, season, precipitation, changes in land use both on and off site, and other factors. Liquefaction Hazard Potential Based on the online interactive Geologic Map of Washington State, published by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the subject site is rated as a low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility area. However, this map only provides an estimate of the likelihood that soil will liquefy as a result of earthquake shaking and is meant as a general guide to delineate areas prone to liquefaction. Near-surface conditions at the site typically consist of medium dense recessional outwash deposits. Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface soil explorations. The lack of near surface water and the presence of medium dense soil at depth suggest that the subject site has low liquefaction susceptibility during a design- level earthquake. As such, it is our opinion that no specific mitigations are required to address liquefaction below the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the subsurface soil conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project design. Soil conditions observed in the explorations located within the areas of proposed improvements consist of loose to medium dense Marysville Sand deposits with variable, but generally low, silt contents. For the proposed structure, foundation support may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on firm native soil or properly prepared and compacted structural fill placed directly over firm, undisturbed native soil to promote uniform support of foundation elements. Site Preparation and Earthwork The portions of the site to be occupied by foundations, slab-on-grade floors, or sidewalks should be prepared by removing any existing fill, topsoil, debris, significant accumulations of organics, or loose native soil from the area to be developed. Prior to Page 3 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 placement of any structural fill, the exposed subgrade under all areas to be occupied by soil-supported foundations, floor slabs, or sidewalks should be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition and proof rolled with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or equivalent piece of equipment applicable to the size of the excavation. The purpose of this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soil deposits and recompact the soil exposed during site preparation and excavation activities. Proof rolling should be carefully observed by qualified geotechnical personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or are over optimum moisture contents cannot be readily compacted should be overexcavated to firm soil. Overexcavated areas should be backfilled with compacted granular material placed in accordance with subsequent recommendations for structural fill. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, qualified geotechnical personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Fill and Compaction Structural fill used to obtain final elevations for foundations must be properly placed and compacted. In general, any suitable, non-organic, predominantly granular soil may be used for fill material provided the material is properly moisture conditioned prior to placement and compaction, and the specified degree of compaction is obtained. Reuse of Onsite Soil It is our opinion that the near-surface native soil is suitable for re-use as structural fill when placed at or near optimum moisture contents as determined by ASTM D1557 and if allowed for in the project plans and specifications. GTS does not recommend that existing fill or organic top soils be used in structural fill applications. Gravel surfacing can be scraped from the surface, but careful consideration must be taken such that the underlying organic top soils are not removed during scraping. Provided that the gravel can be segregated from the topsoil, it is our opinion that it may be reused in structural fill applications provided that it is placed and compacted in general accordance with the plans and specifications for this project. If on-site materials are proposed for reuse as structural fill on the project site, GTS recommends that these materials be submitted at least 7 days in advance for laboratory analysis. Onsite soils that contain elevated organic contents will be disallowed for use in structural fill applications. Imported Structural Fill We recommend that imported structural fill consist of clean, well-graded sandy gravel, gravelly sand, or other approved naturally occurring granular material (pit run) with at least 30 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve, or a well-graded crushed rock. Structural fill for dry weather construction may contain on the order of 10% fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) based on the portion passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot consistently be compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is greater than optimum. Accordingly, we recommend that imported structural fill with less than 5% fines be used Page 4 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 during wet weather conditions. Due to wet weather or wet site conditions, soil moisture contents could be high enough that it may be very difficult to compact even â€œcleanâ€ imported select granular fill to a firm and unyielding condition. Soils with over-optimum moisture contents should be either scarified and dried back to more suitable moisture contents during periods of dry weather or removed and replaced with fill soils at a more suitable range of moisture contents. Compaction of Structural Fill Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness and thoroughly compacted. All structural fill placed under load bearing areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. The top of the compacted structural fill should extend outside all foundations and other structural improvements a minimum distance equal to the thickness of the fill. We recommend that compaction be tested periodically throughout the fill placement. Wet Weather Earthwork It is our experience that the near-surface native soil is more susceptible to degradation during wet weather. As a result, it may be difficult to control the moisture content of the site soils during the wet season. If construction is accomplished during wet weather, we recommend that structural fill consist of imported, clean, well-graded sand or sand and gravel as described above. If fill is to be placed or earthwork is to be performed in wet weather or under wet conditions, the contractor may reduce soil disturbance by: â€¢ Limiting the size of areas that are stripped of topsoil and left exposed â€¢ Accomplishing earthwork in small sections â€¢ Limiting construction traffic over unprotected soil â€¢ Sloping excavated surfaces to promote runoff â€¢ Limiting the size and type of construction equipment used â€¢ Providing gravel "working matsâ€ over areas of prepared subgrade â€¢ Removing wet surficial soil prior to commencing fill placement each day â€¢ Sealing the exposed ground surface by rolling with a smooth drum compactor or rubber-tired roller at the end of each working day â€¢ Providing upgradient perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and using temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from ponding and damaging exposed subgrades. Seismic Design Considerations The Pacific Northwest is seismically active and the site could be subject to ground shaking from a moderate to major earthquake. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the project, and the proposed structure should be designed to resist earthquake loading using appropriate design methodology. Page 5 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 Site Class Definition For structures designed using the seismic design provisions of the 2012 International Building Code, the underlying Marysville Sand classifies as Site Class D according to 2010 ASCE -7 Standard â€“ Table 20.3-1, Site Class Definitions. The corresponding values for calculating a design response spectrum for the assumed soil profile type is considered appropriate for the site. Please use the following values for seismic structural design purposes: Conterminous 48 States â€“ 2012 International Building Code Zip Code 98223 Central Latitude = 48.186124, Central Longitude = -122.137354 Short Period (0.2 sec) Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of Ss = 1.059 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fa = 1.076 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SMS = Ss x Fa = 1.140 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SDS = 2/3 x SMs = 0.760 (g) One Second Period (1 sec) Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of S1 = 0.412 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fv = 1.588 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SM1 = S1 x Fv = 0.654 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 = 0.436 (g) Foundation Support and Settlement Foundation support for the proposed improvements may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on proof-rolled, undisturbed, medium dense native soils or on properly compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed, medium dense native soil. We recommend that qualified geotechnical personnel confirm that suitable bearing conditions have been reached prior to placement of structural fill or foundation formwork. To provide proper foundation support, we recommend that existing topsoil, existing fill, and/or loose upper portions of the native soil be removed from beneath the building foundation area(s) or replaced with properly compacted structural fill as described elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, localized overexcavation could be backfilled to the design footing elevation with lean concrete or foundations may be extended to bear on undisturbed native soil. In areas requiring overexcavation to competent native soil, the limits of the overexcavation should extend laterally beyond the edge of each side of the footing a distance equal to the depth of the excavation below the base of the footing. If lean concrete is used to backfill the overexcavation, the limits of the overexcavation need only extend a nominal distance beyond the width of the footing. In addition, we recommend that foundation elements for the proposed structure(s) bear entirely on similar soil conditions to help prevent differential settlement from occurring. Page 6 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 Continuous and isolated spread footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade for freeze/thaw protection. Perimeter footings should be at least 14 inches wide and sized in accordance with the structural engineerâ€™s prescribed design criteria and seismic considerations. Allowable Bearing Capacity Assuming the above foundation support criteria are satisfied, continuous or isolated spread footings founded directly on medium dense native soils or on compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed, medium dense native soils may be proportioned using a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The term "net allowable bearing pressure" refers to the pressure that can be imposed on the soil at foundation level resulting from the total of all dead plus live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing or any backfill placed above the footing. The net allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient wind or seismic loads. Foundation Settlements Settlement of shallow foundations depends on foundation size and bearing pressure, as well as the strength and compressibility characteristics of the underlying soil. Assuming construction is accomplished as previously recommended and foundations donâ€™t exceed the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure recommended above, we estimate the total settlement of building foundations under static conditions should be less than about one inch and differential settlement between two adjacent load-bearing components supported on competent soil should be less than about one half the total settlement. Floor Support Conventional slab-on-grade floor construction is considered feasible for the planned site improvements. Floor slabs may be supported on properly prepared medium dense native subgrade or on structural fill placed over properly prepared medium dense native soil. New floor slabs should not be founded on existing pavement sections, topsoil, existing fill, or loose native soils. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the native soil should be proof-rolled as recommended in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. For design purposes, a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be expected for slab-on-grade floors constructed over properly prepared medium dense native soils or structural fill placed over medium dense native soil. The planned use of the building will likely require large open sections of concrete that will be more susceptible to differential settlements and cracking than shorter, more conventional sections of concrete. As such, GTS recommends that the structural engineer review the design and determine if additional precautions are warranted to prevent excessive cracking of floor slabs by placing grade beams, extra reinforcement, or similar mitigation techniques against cracking of the slab. We recommend that interior concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of compacted, clean, free-draining gravel with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the Page 7 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The purpose of this layer is to provide uniform support for the slab, provide a capillary break, and act as a drainage layer. To help reduce the potential for water vapor migration through floor slabs, at a minimum a continuous impermeable membrane of 10-mil polyethylene sheeting with tape-sealed joints should be installed below the slab. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines suggest that the slab may either be poured directly on the vapor retarding membrane or on a granular curing layer placed over the vapor retarding membrane depending on conditions anticipated during construction. We recommend that the architect or structural engineer specify if a curing layer should be used. If moisture control within the building is critical, we recommend an inspection of the vapor retarding membrane to verify that all openings have been properly sealed. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade, such as sidewalks, may be supported directly on undisturbed native or on properly placed and compacted structural fill; however, long- term performance will be enhanced if exterior slabs are placed on a layer of clean, durable, well-draining granular material. Foundation and Site Drainage To reduce the potential for groundwater and surface water to seep into interior spaces we recommend that an exterior footing drain system be constructed around the perimeter of new building foundations as shown in the Typical Footing and Wall Drain Section, Figure 3. The drain should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, surrounded by a minimum 12 inches of filtering media with the discharge sloped to carry water to a suitable collection system. The filtering media may consist of open- graded drain rock wrapped by a nonwoven geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent) or a graded sand and gravel filter. The drainage backfill should be carried up the back of the wall to within approximately 1 foot of the ground surface and contain less than 3 percent by weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The invert of the footing drain pipe should be placed at approximately the same elevation as the bottom of the footing or 12 inches below the adjacent floor slab grade, whichever is deeper, so that water will not seep through walls or floor slabs. The footing drain should discharge to an approved drain system and include cleanouts to allow periodic maintenance and inspection. Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the proposed building to direct surface water away from the foundation and toward suitable discharge facilities. Roof drainage should not be introduced into the perimeter footing drains, but should be separately discharged directly to the stormwater collection system or other appropriate outlet at a suitable distance away from the structure. Pavement and/or sidewalk areas should be sloped and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water away from the building towards the local stormwater collection system. Surface water should not be allowed to pond and soak into the ground surface near buildings or paved areas during or after construction. Construction excavations should be sloped to drain to sumps where water from seepage, rainfall, and runoff can be collected and pumped to a suitable discharge facility. Page 8 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 Resistance to Lateral Loads The lateral earth pressures that develop against retaining walls will depend on the method of backfill placement, degree of compaction, slope of backfill, type of backfill material, provisions for drainage, magnitude and location of any adjacent surcharge loads, and the degree to which the wall can yield laterally during or after placement of backfill. If the wall is allowed to rotate or yield so the top of the wall moves an amount equal to or greater than about 0.001 to 0.002 times its height (a yielding wall), the soil pressure exerted will be the active soil pressure. When a wall is restrained against lateral movement or tilting (a nonyielding wall), the soil pressure exerted is the at-rest soil pressure. Wall restraint may develop if a rigid structural network is constructed prior to backfilling or if the wall is inherently stiff. We recommend that yielding walls under drained conditions be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic ft (pcf) for structural fill in active soil conditions. Nonyielding walls under drained conditions should be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf for structural fill in at-rest conditions. Design of walls should include appropriate lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads located within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure equal to 35 percent and 50 percent of the vertical surcharge pressure should be added to the lateral soil pressures for yielding and nonyielding walls, respectively. Passive earth pressures developed against the sides of building foundations, in conjunction with friction developed between the base of the footings and the supporting subgrade, will resist lateral loads transmitted from the structure to its foundation. For design purposes, the passive resistance of well-compacted fill placed against the sides of foundations may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic ft. The recommended value includes a safety factor of about 1.5 and is based on the assumption that the ground surface adjacent to the structure is level in the direction of movement for a distance equal to or greater than twice the embedment depth. The recommended value also assumes drained conditions that will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure in the compacted fill. Retaining walls should include a drain system constructed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in the Foundation and Site Drainage section of this report. In design computations, the upper 12 inches of passive resistance should be neglected if the soil is not covered by floor slabs or pavement. If future plans call for the removal of the soil providing resistance, the passive resistance should not be considered. An allowable coefficient of base friction of 0.35, applied to vertical dead loads only, may be used between the underlying imported granular structural fill and the base of the footing. If passive and frictional resistance are considered together, one half the recommended passive soil resistance value should be used since larger strains are required to mobilize the passive soil resistance as compared to frictional resistance. A safety factor of about 1.5 is included in the base friction design value. We do not recommend increasing the coefficient of friction to resist seismic or wind loads. Page 9 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 Utilities It is important that utility trenches be properly backfilled and compacted to reduced the risk of cracking or localized loss of foundation or slab support. It is anticipated that excavations for new underground utilities will be in medium dense Marysville Sand deposits. Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface explorations and is not expected to be encountered in typical utility trenches. Trench backfill should consist of structural fill as defined earlier in this report. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the report section Compaction of Structural Fill. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 ft should be shored or sloped in accordance with Safety Standards for Construction Work Part N, WAC 296-155-657. Temporary unsupported excavations in the medium dense granular soils generally encountered in our exploration are classified as a Type C soil according to WAC 296-155-657 and may be sloped as steep as 1Â½H:1V. Flatter slopes or temporary shoring may be required in areas where groundwater seepage is present and unstable conditions develop. Surcharge loads on trench support systems due to construction equipment, stockpiled material, and vehicle traffic should be included in the design of any anticipated shoring system. The contractor should implement measures to prevent surface water runoff from entering trenches and excavations. In addition, vibration as a result of construction activities and traffic may cause caving of the trench walls. Actual trench configurations should be the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes shall be followed. All open cuts should be monitored by the contractor during excavation for any evidence of instability. If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. If groundwater or groundwater seepage is present, and the trench is not properly dewatered, the soil within the trench zone may be prone to caving, channeling, and running. Trench widths may be substantially wider than under dewatered conditions. TEST PIT GRADATION RESULTS From the explorations excavated in the areas of interest, seven near-surface soil samples were selected and mechanically tested for grain size distribution and interpretation according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification. Subsurface infiltration rates corresponding to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification were obtained from the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Table 3.7 and are reproduced in Table 1 below. Page 10 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 TABLE 1 Test Pit Soil Sample Infiltration Rates Based On The 2005 DOE Stormwater Management Manual Table 3.7 Test Pit Sample Classification Cation Exchange Infiltration Rate Number Depth (ft) USDA Capacity (meg/100 g) (Inches/Hour) TP-1 4 Sand N/A 2.0 TP-3 1.5 Loamy Sand N/A 0.5 TP-3 3 Sand 2.6 2.0 TP-3 5.5 Sand N/A 2.0 TP-3 8.5 Sand 1.9 2.0 TP-4 2 Sand N/A 2.0 TP-4 4.5 Sand N/A 2.0 Note: Listed infiltration rates are long-term (design) rates as stated in Table 3.7. NT: Not Tested Based on the results of our USDA textural analysis and our interpretation of our soil logs, infiltration into the Marysville Sand correlates to a long-term infiltration rate of about 2 inches per hour. Locally, silty soils may be present at or near the existing ground surface that have the potential to reduce infiltration rates, but soils at depth were generally granular with low quantities of silt. Therefore, it is recommended that infiltration facilities penetrate into the more granular and free draining Marysville Sand if 2 inches per hour is to be used for the purposes of design. GTS recommends that we be allowed to view the bottom of infiltration facilities during construction to confirm that the soil type and consistency is as anticipated. Cation Exchange Capacity The Marysville Sand does not have substantial quantities of organic material and has a cation exchange capacity of less than 5. Per the Stormwater Manual, these materials do not have adequate stormwater treatment properties for an amended soil. The Marysville Sand could be amended by mixing higher fines and organic content soils or adding mulch (or other admixtures) to elevate the cation exchange capacity. It has been our experience, however, that it is challenging to obtain a uniformly blended amended soil using conventional construction equipment to mix on-site soils and imported materials. On-site amended soil would require additional testing of the amended soil to confirm compliance with Ecology-recommended soil properties. Additionally, amendment of the Marysville Sand has the potential to reduce the infiltration potential the soil. GTS is available to perform additional laboratory testing and provide revised recommendations as part of an expanded scope of services if the soil is to be amended. Alternatively, the Owner may elect to import amended soils with the desired properties for planned treatment facilities. Page 11 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 Geotechnical Consultation and Construction Monitoring GeoTest Services recommends that a geotechnical engineer familiar with the project design review the earthwork and foundation portions of the design drawings and specifications. The purpose of the review is to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated in the design and specifications. We recommend that geotechnical construction monitoring services be provided. These services should include observation by geotechnical personnel during fill placement/compaction activities and subgrade preparation operations to verify that design subgrade conditions are obtained beneath the proposed building. We also recommend that periodic field density testing be performed to verify that the appropriate degree of compaction is obtained. The purpose of these services would be to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations of this report, and in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before the start of construction, provide revised recommendations appropriate to the conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest Services would be pleased to provide these services for you. GeoTest Services is also available to provide a full range of materials testing and special inspection during construction as required by the local building department and the International Building Code. This may include specific construction inspections on materials such as reinforced concrete, reinforced masonry, structural steel and other inspections. These services are supported by our fully accredited materials testing laboratory. USE OF THIS REPORT GeoTest Services has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Axis Roof and Gutter and their design consultants for specific application to the design of the proposed Axis Roof and Gutter building. Use of this report by others or for another project is at the userâ€™s sole risk. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession; no other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Our site explorations indicate subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions to the limited depth of our explorations at the time of our exploration program, a brief geological reconnaissance of the area, and review of published geological information for the site. We assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site during the preparation of our recommendations. If variations in subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction operations at or adjacent to the project site, we recommend that we review this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. Page 12 of 13 GeoTest Services, Inc. July 13, 2016 Axis Roof Building, Arlington, WA Job No. 16-0327 The earthwork contractor is responsible to perform all work in conformance with all applicable WISHA/OSHA regulations. GeoTest Services, Inc. should not be assumed to be responsible for job site safety on this project, and this responsibility is specifically disclaimed. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project and look forward to assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTest Services, Inc. Justin Brooks, L.E.G. Edwardo Garcia, P.E. Engineering Geologist / CESCL Project Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 Typical Wall and Footing Drain Section Figure 4 Soil Classification System and Key Figure 5-7 Exploration Test Pit Logs Figure 8-9 Grain Size Distribution Appendix A Cation Exchange Test Results REFERENCES Minard, J.P., 1985, Geologic map of the Arlington West 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Snohomish County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1740 Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. August 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication Number 05-10-029 through 05-10-033. Page 13 of 13 Project Site NORTH Map from ACME Mapper 2.1 Date: 7-5-16 By: JB Scale: none Project GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. VICINITY MAP 16-0327 741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER Figure phone: (360) 733-7318 20932 67TH AVENUE NE fax: (360) 733-7418 A RLINGTON, WASHINGTON 1 TP-5 TP-4 TP-3 TP-1 TP-2 NORTH TP-# = Test Pit Exploration Location Date: 7-5-16 By: JB Scale: As Shown Project GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN 16-0327 741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 AXISROOF ANDGUTTER Figure phone: (360) 733-7318 20932 67THAVENUENE fax: (360) 733-7418 A 2 RLINGTON, WASHINGTON SHALLOW FOOTINGS WITH INTERIOR SLAB-ON-GRADE Typical Framing Compacted Impervious Soil (12 inch minimum) Floor Slab or Pavement (2 inch minimum) Vapor Barrier Slope to drain away from structure. Coarse Gravel Capillary Break (6 inch minimum typically clear crushed) Suitable Soil Free Draining Sand and Gravel Fill Approved Non-woven Geotextile Filter Fabric (18 inch minimum fabric lap) Suitable Soil Drainage Material (Drain Rock or Clear Crushed Rock w/ no fines) Appropriate Waterproofing Applied to Exterior of Wall Four Inch Diameter, Perforated, Rigid PVC Pipe (Perforations oriented down, wrapped in non-woven geotextile filter fabric, directed to suitable discharge) Notes: Footings Should be properly buried for frost protection in accordance with International Building Code or local building codes (Typically 18 inches below exterior finished grades) Date: 7-5-16 By: JB Scale: None Project GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. TYPICAL FOOTING & WALL DRAIN SECTION 16-0327 741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER Figure phone: (360) 733-7318 20932 67TH AVENUE NE fax: (360) 733-7418 A 3 RLINGTON, WASHINGTON Soil Classification System USCS MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS(1)(2) CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well-graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOIL (Little or no fines) GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines (More than 50% of GRAVEL WITH FINES GM Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s) coarse fraction (Appreciable amount of retained on No. 4 fines) GC Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) sieve) CLEAN SAND SW Well-graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SAND AND SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines COARSE-GRAINED SOIL(More than 50% of material islarger than No. 200 sieve size)(More than 50% of SM Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) coarse fraction passed SAND WITH FINES through No. 4 sieve) (Appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s) ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey fine SILT AND CLAY sand or clayey silt with slight plasticity CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy (Liquid limit less than 50) clay; silty clay; lean clay OL Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand sieve size) SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay is smaller than No. 200(Liquid limit greater than 50) FINE-GRAINED SOIL (More than 50% of material OH Organic clay of medium to high plasticity; organic silt HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content GRAPHIC LETTER OTHER MATERIALS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS PAVEMENT AC or PC Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement ROCK RK Rock (See Rock Classification) WOOD WD Wood, lumber, wood chips DEBRIS DB Construction debris, garbage Notes: 1. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), as outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487. 2. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: > 50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. Secondary Constituents: > 30% and <_ 50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. > 12% and <_ 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. Additional Constituents: > 5% and <_ 12% - "slightly gravelly," "slightly sandy," "slightly silty," etc. <_ 5% - "trace gravel," "trace sand," "trace silt," etc., or not noted. Drilling and Sampling Key Field and Lab Test Data SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL SAMPLER TYPE Code Description Code Description Sample Identification Number a 3.25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon PP = 1.0 Pocket Penetrometer, tsf b 2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon TV = 0.5 Torvane, tsf Recovery Depth Interval c Shelby Tube PID = 100 Photoionization Detector VOC screening, ppm d Grab Sample W = 10 Moisture Content, % 1 Sample Depth Interval e Other - See text if applicable D = 120 Dry Density, pcf Portion of Sample Retained 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop -200 = 60 Material smaller than No. 200 sieve, % for Archive or Analysis 2 140-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop GS Grain Size - See separate figure for data 3 Pushed AL Atterberg Limits - See separate figure for data 4 Other - See text if applicable GT Other Geotechnical Testing Groundwater CA Chemical Analysis Approximate water elevation at time of drilling (ATD) or on date noted. Groundwater ATD levels can fluctuate due to precipitation, seasonal conditions, and other factors. Axis Roof and Gutter Figure 20932 67th Ave NE Soil Classification System and Key 4 Arlington, Washington TP-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 GP Approximately 2 inches of crushed gravel cover SM/ Medium dense, mixed brown to orange tan, 1 d Groundwater not encountered. OL moist, very silty, SAND (Mixed Fill and Topsoil) 2 with numerous roots and scattered glass and metal debris SM Medium dense, orange tan, moist, silty, gravelly, 4 W = 4 SAND (Weathered Outwash) 2 d SP GS Medium dense, tan, damp, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (Glacial Outwash - Marysville 6 Test Pit Completed 06/27/16 Sand) Total Depth of Test Pit = 5.0 ft. 8 10 12 TP-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 GP Approximately 2 inches of crushed gravel cover OL Medium dense, brown, moist, slightly organic, 3 d Groundwater not encountered. SM very silty, SAND (Topsoil) with scattered roots 2 Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, 4 d SP silty, gravelly, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with trace roots 4 Loose to medium dense, tan grey, slightly mottled, slightly gravelly, SAND (Recessional SP Outwash - Marysville Sand) with moderate 6 caving 5 d Medium dense, grey, damp, gravelly, SAND (Recessional Outwash - Marysville Sand) 8 Test Pit Completed 06/27/16 Total Depth of Test Pit = 8.0 ft. 10 12 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 16-0327 7/5/16 C:\USERS\JUSTIN\DESKTOP\JOB FILES\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Figure Axis Roof and Gutter 20932 67th Ave NE Log of Test Pits 5 Arlington, Washington TP-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 GP Mixed Crushed Rock and Gravel Fill OL Medium dense, brown, moist, slightly organic, Groundwater not encountered. 6 d W = 14 SM very silty, SAND (Topsoil) with scattered roots 2 GS Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, W = 6 SP silty, gravelly, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with 7 d GS scattered roots 4 Loose to medium dense, tan, damp, gravelly, W = 13 SAND (Recessional Outwash - Marysville Sand) 8 d SP- GS Dense, tan grey, moist, potentially lightly 6 SM cemented, slightly silty, slightly gravelly, SAND (Recessional Outwash - Possible Lahar Deposit?) SP 8 Medium dense, tan grey, damp, gravelly, SAND W = 6 (Recessional Outwash - Marysville Sand) 9 d GS 10 Test Pit Completed 06/27/16 Total Depth of Test Pit = 10.0 ft. 12 TP-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM/ Medium dense, brown, moist, slightly organic, OL gravelly, very silty, SAND (Mixed Topsoil and 10 d SM Native Fill) with scattered roots Groundwater not encountered. 2 11 d W = 5 SP Medium dense, orange tan, moist, silty, gravelly, GS SAND (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots 4 Medium dense, tan grey, damp, gravelly, SAND W = 10 SW- 13 d SM (Recessional Outwash - Marysville Sand) GS Dense, tan, moist, potentially lightly cemented, 6 SP slightly silty, SAND (Recessional Outwash - Possible Lahar Deposit?) Medium dense, grey, damp, gravelly, SAND 8 Test Pit Completed 06/27/16 (Recessional Outwash - Marysville Sand) Total Depth of Test Pit = 7.0 ft. 10 12 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 16-0327 7/5/16 C:\USERS\JUSTIN\DESKTOP\JOB FILES\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Figure Axis Roof and Gutter 20932 67th Ave NE Log of Test Pits 6 Arlington, Washington TP-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SP- Medium dense, tan grey, damp, slightly silty, SM gravelly, SAND (Mixed Import and Native Fill) Groundwater not encountered. SM Medium dense, orange tan, moist, silty, gravelly, 2 SAND (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots 13 d SP Medium dense, tan grey, damp, gravelly, SAND 4 (Recessional Outwash - Marysville Sand) Test Pit Completed 06/27/16 Total Depth of Test Pit = 4.0 ft. 6 8 10 12 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 16-0327 7/5/16 C:\USERS\JUSTIN\DESKTOP\JOB FILES\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Figure Axis Roof and Gutter 20932 67th Ave NE Log of Test Pits 7 Arlington, Washington U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu TP-1 4.0 Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (USDA Sand) (SP) 0.70 6.53 TP-3 1.5 Silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (USDA Loamy Sand) (SM) 1.01 24.70 TP-3 3.0 Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (USDA Sand) (SP) 0.71 4.56 TP-3 5.5 Slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (USDA Sand) (SP-SM) 1.40 18.09 TP-3 8.5 Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (USDA Sand) (SP) 0.64 8.43 %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines TP-1 4.0 19 1.339 0.808 0.438 0.205 0.0 20.4 12.2 38.3 27.7 1.3 TP-3 1.5 19 1.443 0.762 0.292 0.058 0.0 23.2 12.0 26.1 26.3 12.5 TP-3 3.0 19 1.288 0.85 0.51 0.283 0.0 14.6 14.8 47.8 21.9 0.9 TP-3 5.5 19 1.149 0.808 0.32 0.064 0.0 6.5 17.2 40.9 24.2 11.2 TP-3 8.5 19 2.42 1.566 0.665 0.287 0.0 23.4 21.2 37.6 15.4 2.4 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 16-0327 7/5/16 C:\USERS\JUSTIN\DESKTOP\JOB FILES\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Axis Roof and Gutter 20932 67th Ave NE Grain Size Test Data 8 Arlington, Washington U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu TP-4 2.0 Gravelly, medium to coarse SAND (USDA Sand) (SP) 0.75 6.31 TP-4 4.5 Slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND (USDA Sand) (SW-SM) 1.15 11.32 %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines TP-4 2.0 25 2.575 1.8 0.887 0.408 2.2 20.8 24.0 42.4 9.9 0.7 TP-4 4.5 19 1.277 0.877 0.407 0.113 0.0 5.9 22.2 41.0 24.3 6.6 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 16-0327 7/5/16 C:\USERS\JUSTIN\DESKTOP\JOB FILES\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER\16-0327 - AXIS ROOF AND GUTTER.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Axis Roof and Gutter 20932 67th Ave NE Grain Size Test Data 9 Arlington, Washington Northwest Agricultural Consultants GEOTEST SERVICES INC 2545 West Falls 741 MARINE DR Kennewick, WA 99336 BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 (509) 783-7450 Fax: (509) 783-5305 SOIL 39111 Client No.: 9678 Date Received: 07-04-2016 Report No.: 38630 Page: 1 of 1 cfbc62-80744 Grower Sampler Field No. Field Name Crop Year Crop Yield Goal Job #16-0327 Depth Available NO3-N NH4-N Sulfur pH Soluble Organic P(bic) K(bic) P(ace) K(ace) Calcium Magne- Sodium Eff. Boron Zinc Manga- Iron Copper CEC % Base Chloride Bray 1P Total SampleI (ft.) Inches lbs/acre lbs/acre ppm Salts Matter ppm ppm ppm ppm (meq. sium (meq. ppm ppm nese ppm ppm (meq. Sat. lbs. per. ppm Bases D (mmhos Percent per 100 (meq. per 100 ppm per 100 acre (meq. /cm) grams) per 100 grams) grams) per 100 grams) grams) 1 6.0 1.28 2.6 2 6.2 1.02 1.9 Total 0.00 Estimated Nitrogen Release from Organic Matter Estimated Total Nitrogen Available to Crop Last Year's Crop Fertilizer Comments Sample ID pH Loss on Ignition OM Cation Exchange Capacity TP-3 @ 3.0 ft 6.0 1.28% 2.6 meq/100g TP-3 @ 8.5 ft 6.2 1.02% 1.9 meq/100g CEC Method: EPA 9081 X____________________________________________ REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR ITS USE1 Subsurface issues may cause construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help: Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects At GeoTest our geotechnical engineers and geologists structure their services to meet specific needs of our clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of an owner, a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one â€“ not even you â€“ should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors GeoTestâ€™s geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless GeoTest, who conducted the study specifically states otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: â€¢ not prepared for you, â€¢ not prepared for your project, â€¢ not prepared for the specific site explored, or â€¢ completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: â€¢ the function of the proposed structure, as when itâ€™s changed, for example, from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, â€¢ elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed construction, â€¢ alterations in drainage designs; or â€¢ composition of the design team; the passage of time; man-made alterations and construction whether on or adjacent to the site; or by natural alterations and events, such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater fluctuations; or project ownership. Always inform GeoTestâ€™s geotechnical engineer of project changes â€“ even minor ones â€“ and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. 1Information in this document is based upon material developed by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences(asfe.org) Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on the findings and conclusions of this report, whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoTest before applying the report to determine if it is still relevant. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis will help determine if the report remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoTestâ€™s engineers and geologists review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ â€“ sometimes significantly â€“ from those indicated in your report. Retaining GeoTest who developed this report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with anticipated or unanticipated conditions. A Reportâ€™s Recommendations are Not Final Do not over-rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers or geologists develop them principally from judgment and opinion. GeoTestâ€™s geotechnical engineers or geologists can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest cannot assume responsibility or liability for the reportâ€™s recommendations if our firm does not perform the construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report may be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. Lower that risk by having GeoTest confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also, we suggest retaining GeoTest to review pertinent elements of the design teams plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having GeoTest participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do not Redraw the Exploration Logs Our geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors of omissions, the logs included in this report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable; but recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, consider advising the contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the reportâ€™s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the GeoTest and/or to conduct 1Information in this document is based upon material developed by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences(asfe.org) additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. In addition, it is recommended that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in your project budget and schedule. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering or geology is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that can lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce risk, GeoTest includes an explanatory limitations section in our reports. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions and we encourage our clients or their representative to contact our office if you are unclear as to how these provisions apply to your project. Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered in this Geotechnical or Geologic Report The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated containments, etc. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on environmental report prepared for some one else. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Biological Pollutants Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts biological pollutants from growing on indoor surfaces. Biological pollutants includes but is not limited to molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional biological pollutant prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe biological infestations, a number of prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of this study, the geotechnical engineer or geologist in charge of this project is not a biological pollutant prevention consultant; none of the services preformed in connection with this geotechnical engineering or geological study were designed or conducted for the purpose of preventing biological infestations. 1Information in this document is based upon material developed by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences(asfe.org) CONTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEE WORKSHEET Community & Economic Development Department City of Arlington l 18204 59th Avenue NE l Arlington WA 98223 l (360) 403-3551 This form is to be completed and submitted with Type I , Type II Type III Construction Permit Application. 1) Based on permit type requested (Type I, Type II or Type III), complete the form as follows: l Type I permits complete all sections. l Type II permits complete as follows: - Grading Only - Complete Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC). - Stormwater Drainage Only - Complete the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Drainage Section for Public or Private l Type III permits complete the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC). 2) The developer shall enter the quantities shown on the construction drawings into the Construction Calculation Worksheet. This document is used to determine the amount of plan reivew and inspection fees due to the city. 3) Excel will auto-calculate the relevant fields and subtotals throughout the document. Only the 'Quantity' columns should be completed. 4) The summary page calculates the fees due at intake for Civil and Stormwater Drainage construction permits only. This does not include fees for Grading or those required by other departments or agencies. Grading fees are based on Cubic Yard Quantity and shall be calculated at time of permit submittal. Grading fees shall be paid at permit submittal. 5) If an item that is part of your project does not exist in the spreadsheet complete the Write-In-Items section with the item, quantity and associated unit cost. There are a few unit prices that are blank, please complete them accordingly. 6) Inspection fees shall be calculated for Private Development during the review process and shall be paid upon permit issuance. PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEES PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEE (6% of Project Value) $ - GRADING FEE (4) (Cubic Yard ) $ - Review fees due at time of submittal Total Review Fees Due $ - An Assurance Device such as a Performance Bond or Assignment of Funds needs to be on file with the City of Arlington prior to permit issuance. The Assurance Device shall be 150% of the Construction Calculation Worksheet which are as follows: l Road and Alley (Public) l Stormwater Drainage and Grading (Public) l Utilities (Public) l Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (Public and Private) ASSURANCE DEVICE Base Calculation of Performance Device $ 21,154.38 PERFORMANCE DEVICE 150% Amount Due $ 31,731.56 Base Calculation of Maintenance Device $ 17,868.75 MAINTENANCE DEVICE 20% Amount Due $ 3,573.75 1 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET TEMPORARY EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL Include Public Improvements & Private Development Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Reference # Backfill & compaction-embankment $ 6.50 CY 40 $ 260.00 Check dams $ 78.00 EACH $ - BMP C207 Catch Basin Protection $ 35.50 EACH 7 $ 248.50 Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minus $ 18.00 TON $ - WSDOT 9-03.9(3) Ditching $ 8.00 CY $ - Excavation-bulk $ 3.00 CY 300 $ 900.00 Fence, silt $ 2.00 LF 415 $ 830.00 BMP C233 Fence, Temporary (NGPA) $ 2.00 LF $ - Geotextile Fabric $ 2.50 SY $ - Hay Bale Silt Trap $ 0.50 EACH $ - Hydroseeding $ 4,200.00 ACRE $ - BMP C120 Interceptor Swale / Dike $ 1.00 LF $ - Jute Mesh $ 2.00 SY $ - BMP C122 Level Spreader $ 1.75 LF $ - Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deep $ 3.00 SY $ - BMP C121 Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deep $ 1.00 SY $ - BMP C121 Piping, temporary, CPP, 6" $ 12.50 LF $ - Piping, temporary, CPP, 8" $ 19.00 LF $ - Piping, temporary, CPP, 12" $ 24.00 LF $ - Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbagged $ 3.00 SY $ - BMP C123 Rip Rap, machine placed; slopes $ 50.00 CY $ - WSDOT 9-13.1(2) Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1' $ 1,800.00 EACH $ - BMP C105 Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1' $ 3,600.00 EACH $ - BMP C105 Sediment pond riser assembly $ 3,050.00 EACH $ - BMP C241 Sediment trap, 5' high berm $ 21.00 LF $ - BMP C240 Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spillway berm section $ 79.00 LF $ - BMP C240 Seeding, by hand $ 1.00 SY 90 $ 90.00 BMP C120 Sodding, 1" deep, level ground $ 8.00 SY $ - BMP C120 Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground $ 9.50 SY $ - BMP C120 TESC Supervisor $ 84.00 HR $ - Water truck, dust control $ 130.00 HR $ - BMP C140 WRITE-IN-ITEMS Extra Rock Construction Entrance $ 300.00 1 $ 300.00 BMP C 105 Existing (Access to be re-graveled if needed) $ - $ - SUBTOTAL (TESC Only): $ 2,628.50 MOBILIZATION 10%: $ 262.85 CONTINGENCY 15%: $ 394.28 TOTAL: $ 3,285.63 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET STORMWATER DRAINAGE Public Private Public Improvements Private Development Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Access Road, Retention / Detention $ 26.00 SY $ - $ - * (CBs include frame and lid) Beehive $ 90.00 EACH $ - $ - CB Type I $ 1,650.00 EACH $ - $ - CB Type IL $ 1,850.00 EACH $ - 4 $ 7,400.00 CB Type II, 48" Dia $ 2,550.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 650.00 FT $ - $ - CB Type II, 54" Dia $ 2,700.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 600.00 FT $ - $ - CB Type II, 60" Dia $ 2,900.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 750.00 FT $ - $ - CB Type II, 72" Dia $ 4,000.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 900.00 FT $ - $ - Through-curb Inlet Framework (Add) $ 550.00 EACH $ - $ - Cleanout, PVC, 4" $ 200.00 EACH $ - $ - Cleanout, PVC, 6" $ 250.00 EACH $ - $ - Cleanout, PVC, 8" $ 300.00 EACH $ - $ - Culvert, Box __ ft x __ ft $ - LS $ - $ - Culvert, PVC, 4" $ 12.00 LF $ - 200.5 $ 2,406.00 Culvert, PVC, 6" $ 17.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, PVC, 8" $ 19.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, PVC, 12" $ 30.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 8" $ 23.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 12" $ 35.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 15" $ 42.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 18" $ 47.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 24" $ 69.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 30" $ 100.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 36" $ 150.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 48" $ 194.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 60" $ 310.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 72" $ 400.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 8" $ 36.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 12" $ 43.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 15" $ 52.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 18" $ 55.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 24" $ 85.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 30" $ 136.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 36" $ 165.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 42" $ 196.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 48" $ 210.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 6" $ 16.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 8" $ 22.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 12" $ 28.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 15" $ 34.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 18" $ 39.00 LF $ - $ - CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Culvert, CPP, 24" $ 49.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 30" $ 62.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 36" $ 69.00 LF $ - $ - Ditching $ 12.00 CY $ - $ - Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+) $ 40.00 LF $ - $ - French Drain (3' depth) $ 39.00 LF $ - $ - Geotextile, laid in trench, polypropylene $ 5.00 SY $ - 355 $ 1,775.00 Infiltration pond testing $ 125.00 HR $ - $ - Mid-tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' deep $ 2,025.00 EACH $ - $ - Pipe, High Density Water Pipe (HDWP) $ 160.00 LF $ - $ - Pipe, C900 $ 90.00 LF $ - $ - Pond Overflow Spillway $ 18.00 SY $ - $ - Restrictor/Oil Separator, 12" $ 1,500.00 EACH $ - $ - Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15" $ 1,550.00 EACH $ - $ - Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18" $ 1,680.00 EACH $ - $ - Riprap, placed $ 52.00 CY $ - $ - Tank End Reducer (36" Dia) $ 1,280.00 EACH $ - $ - Thru-Inlet at CB $ 150.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 12" $ 320.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 15" $ 325.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 18" $ 350.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 21" $ 375.00 EACH $ - $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS Restrictor/Oil Separator, 8" $ 300.00 EACH $ - 4 $ 1,200.00 8" pvc schd 40 perforated pipe $ 21.00 LF $ - 235 $ 4,935.00 Washed Rock, 3/4"-1 1/2" $ 20.00 Ton $ - 13.1 $ 262.00 SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 17,978.00 MOBILIZATION 10%: $ - CONTINGENCY 15%: $ - TOTAL: $ - $ 17,978.00 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET GENERAL ITEMS Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Backfill & Compaction- embankment $ 8.00 CY $ - Backfill & Compaction- trench $ 11.00 CY $ - Clear/Remove Brush, by hand (acre) $ 2,363.00 ACRE $ - Bollards - fixed $ 325.00 EACH $ - Bollards - removable $ 600.00 EACH $ - Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal $ 6,000.00 ACRE $ - Excavation - bulk $ 2.50 CY $ - Excavation - Trench $ 5.00 CY $ - Fencing, cedar, 6' high $ 25.00 LF $ - Fencing, chain link, 4' $ 19.50 LF $ - Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' high $ 18.00 LF $ - Fencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coated, 20' $ 1,563.00 EACH $ - Fencing, split rail, 3' high $ 14.00 LF $ - Fill & compact - common barrow $ 27.00 CY $ - Fill & compact - gravel base $ 30.00 CY $ - Fill & compact - screened topsoil $ 45.00 CY $ - Gabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh $ 62.00 SY $ - Gabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh $ 86.00 SY $ - Gabion, 36" deep, stone filled mesh $ 152.00 SY $ - Grading, fine, by hand $ 2.00 SY $ - Grading, fine, with grader $ 1.25 SY $ - Guard Post $ 90.00 EACH $ - Monuments $ 104.00 EACH $ - Sensitive Areas Sign $ 20.00 EACH $ - Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground $ 10.00 SY $ - Topsoil Type A (imported) $ 30.00 CY 15 $ 450.00 Traffic control crew ( 2 flaggers ) $ 98.00 HR $ - Trail, 4" chipped wood $ 9.00 SY $ - Trail, 4" crushed cinder $ 10.00 SY $ - Trail, 4" top course $ 9.50 SY $ - Wall, retaining, concrete $ 66.00 SF $ - Wall, rockery $ 13.00 SF $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 450.00 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET STREET IMPROVEMENT Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost AC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000sy $ 35.00 SY $ - AC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-2000sy $ 8.50 SY $ - AC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000sy $ 2.50 SY $ - AC Removal/Disposal/Repair $ 60.00 SY $ - Barricade, Type I $ 36.00 LF $ - Barricade Type II $ 25.00 LF $ - Barricade, Type III ( Permanent ) $ 55.00 LF $ - Conduit, 2" $ 5.00 LF $ - Curb & Gutter, rolled $ 20.00 LF $ - Curb & Gutter, vertical $ 15.00 LF $ - Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposal $ 20.00 LF $ - Curb, extruded asphalt $ 5.00 LF 260 $ 1,300.00 Curb, extruded concrete $ 4.50 LF $ - Guard Rail $ 30.00 LF $ - Sawcut, asphalt, 3" depth $ 3.50 LF $ - Sawcut, concrete, per 1" depth $ 3.00 LF $ - Sealant, asphalt $ 2.00 LF $ - Shoulder, gravel, 4" thick $ 11.00 SY $ - Sidewalk, 4" thick $ 40.00 SY $ - Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposal $ 36.00 SY $ - Sidewalk, 6" thick $ 45.00 SY $ - Sidewalk, 6" thick, demolition and disposal $ 45.00 SY $ - Signs $ - LS $ - Sign, Handicap $ 100.00 EACH 1 $ 100.00 Striping, per stall $ 7.50 EACH 20 $ 150.00 Street Light System $ - LS $ - Traffic Signal $ - LS $ - Traffic Signal Modification $ - LS $ - Striping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk ) $ 3.50 SF $ - Striping, 4" reflectorized line $ 0.40 LF $ - AC Patching/Trenching Restoration $ 100.00 TON $ - Controlled Density Fill (CDF) $ 90.00 CY $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 1,550.00 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET STREET SURFACING/PAVEMENT Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Asphalt Overlay, 1.5" AC $ 12.00 SY $ - Asphalt Overlay, 2" AC $ 15.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 2", First 2500 SY $ 10.00 SY 730 $ 7,300.00 Asphalt Road 2", Qty. over 2500SY $ 9.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 3", First 2500 SY $ 15.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 3", Qty. over 2500 SY $ 13.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 5", First 2500 SY $ 22.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 5", Qty. Over 2500 SY $ 22.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 6", First 2500 SY $ 25.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 6", Qty. Over 2500 SY $ 24.00 SY $ - Asphalt Treated Base, 4" thick $ 14.00 SY $ - Gravel Base Course 2" $ 7.50 SY $ - Gravel Base Course 4" $ 15.00 SY $ - Gravel Base Course 6" $ 22.50 SY $ - Gravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SY $ 15.00 SY $ - Gravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY $ 11.00 SY $ - Concrete Road, 5", no base, over 2500 SY $ 22.00 SY $ - Concrete Road, 6", no base, over 2500 SY $ 32.00 SY $ - Thickened Edge $ 11.00 LF 45 $ 495.00 WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 7,795.00 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET WATER SYSTEM Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Blowoff $ 1,800.00 EACH $ - Connection to Existing Water Main $ 2,000.00 EACH $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 6 Inch Dia $ 65.00 LF $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 8 Inch Dia $ 85.00 LF $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 10 Inch Dia $ 103.00 LF $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 12 Inch Dia. $ 125.00 LF $ - Gate Valve, 6 inch Dia $ 250.00 EACH $ - Gate Valve, 8 Inch Dia $ 380.00 EACH $ - Gate Valve, 10 Inch Dia $ 425.00 EACH $ - Gate Valve, 12 Inch Dia $ 500.00 EACH $ - Fire Hydrant Assembly, with Guard Posts $ 3,000.00 EACH $ - Fire Hydrant Assembly, without Guard Posts $ 2,500.00 EACH $ - Air-Vac, 8 Inch Dia $ 6,000.00 EACH $ - Air-Vac,10 Inch Dia $ 7,500.00 EACH $ - Air-Vac, 12 Inch Dia $ 12,000.00 EACH $ - Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly, 8 In. Dia $ 3,800.00 EACH $ - Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly, 10 In. Dia $ 4,200.00 EACH $ - Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly, 12 In. Dia $ 5,000.00 EACH $ - Valve Marker Post $ 350.00 EACH $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET SANITARY SEWER Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Connection to Existing Sewer Main $ - EACH $ - Clean Outs $ 500.00 EACH $ - Grease Interceptor, 500 gallon $ 6,000.00 EACH $ - Grease Interceptor, 1000 gallon $ 10,000.00 EACH $ - Grease Interceptor, 1500 gallon $ 15,000.00 EACH $ - Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 4 Inch Dia $ 8.00 LF $ - Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 6 Inch Dia $ 12.00 LF $ - Sewer Pipe, PVC, 8 inch Dia $ 33.00 LF $ - Sewer Pipe, PVC, 12 Inch Dia $ 41.00 LF $ - Sewer Pipe, PVC, ____ Inch Dia $ - LF $ - Lift Station (Entire System) $ - LS $ - Manhole, 48 Inch Dia $ 3,000.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 532.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 54 Inch Dia $ 3,500.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 532.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 60 Inch Dia $ 3,700.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 532.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 72 Inch Dia $ 4,000.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 625.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 96 Inch Dia $ 5,000.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 625.00 FEET $ - Outside Drop $ - LS $ - Inside Drop $ - LS $ - Pipe, C-900 $ 90.00 LF $ - Pipe, High Density Water Pipe (HDWP) $ 160.00 LF $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION Include Public Improvements & Private Development Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Street Trees $ 500.00 EACH 9 $ 4,500.00 Root Barrier EACH 9 $ - Median Landscaping $ - LS $ - Right-of-Way Landscaping $ - LS $ - Wetland Landscaping $ - LS $ - Private Landscaping LS 1 $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 4,500.00 SUBTOTAL OF ALL PAGES $ 14,295.00 MOBILIZATION 10%: $ 1,429.50 CONTINGENCY 15%: $ 2,144.25 GRANDTOTAL: $ 17,868.75 !""#$%&&'( )* + ,-!'.("/'! )* +)0011 232 &4/'5%'6 )* +7879 7: (; 5<&"5=>3?22 8+ 1+ ,-!'.("/'! @+ A BA C * D-!'.E- !(""#-5F<%&&'(GD"H 9IJK L-/ 5<F(- 5-<'!&( M 5< N *O + G 232 &4/'5%'6 P 80 ,6 P11O0 22 CQ1 ?2? 9 O1 ,RSLT6U6 )11V+0 T-%5-W;-DX L-(D';Y FF('!!T'<-;'!D( M& "5RZ5'(-H' RZ5'(L4"5' ["5 5< B232 U\]66,^6_$,\6 R]6^ 8+ 1 ,"5&(-D&"(L( H-(.,"5&-D&L4"5'FF('!!,"5&(-D&"(U.M'T D'5!' T D'5!' Y ,-!D-F'^%(/'. 5<-5F A`BABBBLRW"26 65< 5''( 5<=5D !""#$%&&'(,-!'.("/'! A BA 232 &4/'5%' RZ5'( 6 P+1+1 -&' 5!M'D& "5U.M''!D( M& "5^D4'F%;'F-&',"HM;'&'F-&'5!M'D&"( ^&-&%! `2 > GR>_ (- 5-<'F &D4'D-/-& "5 WaT ,R^Ua,UR D"HM;'&'=H'5F'F!" ;! 5 M;-D'=,Wb! 5M;-D'=F(- 5 ("DX 5M;-D'=F(- 5M M' 5 M;-D'-;;-MM("/'FG !" # " $ %!&'%( ) $ %!&'%*+&,&'% - . '!/0 12 3/ 4$56$7$8 9 : 46$;<75; =>? @ABCDEFGD HI ? 3# * 3/ !# *!/0 < !9 JKL M<,0 *2L 46$;<75; NO?? P Q R S @TFTT U>? '1# *V 5 !WX02 2 Y0# W !01! J2 %&Z J K 12 1 0 32 7,0 *2L [\>P P - .2 '/ << ]^^_`]^abcde fgghdij klmnoh < ]_^p^q]ararrars teeuvo kvwxdymnoh < ]_^^pr^arar_ars bnnwgzvo {gieywu|ydgi k}~iemnoh $ r`]`rqsasÂ€bnn}d|~ydgimnoh $ r`]`rr]a{gieywu|ydgi {~}|u}~ydgi ÂgwÂ‚eÂƒvvyaÂ„t bÂ†mnoh $ r`]`_p_abcde Â‡Âkkkmnoh $ r`]`_p]abcde Âˆw~di~jv fvngwymnoh $ r`]`_pqabcde Â‰vgyv|Âƒ fvngwymnoh $ r`]`_p^abcde Â‡ÂŠkb {Âƒv|Â‚}deymnoh $ r`]`_pÂ‹abcde Â‡dyv k}~iemnoh $ r`]`_pabcde Â‡gd} fvngwymnoh