Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
20260413_UTC Stormwater Report
University Towne Center Stormwater Report Revision 1 Prepared for: Tyson Cichos - Client City of Rexburg - Reviewing Agent Prepared by: Tyson Knudsen, P.E. April 13, 2026 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 Contents Project Description........................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology Used........................................................................................................................................ 2 Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 2 Proposed Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Stormwater Network Routing Diagram .................................................................................................... 4 Design Storm ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Subbasin Summary .................................................................................................................................... 7 Subbasins .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Pipes ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 Storage Area Summary ........................................................................................................................... 23 Storage Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Results Summary......................................................................................................................................... 36 Inlet Grate Sizing ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Chamber Description (ADS MC-3500) ......................................................................................................... 39 3D Sectional View ................................................................................................................................... 40 Chamber System Results (SA-2) .............................................................................................................. 41 Chamber System Results (SA-3) .............................................................................................................. 42 Chamber System Results (SA-7) .............................................................................................................. 43 Chamber System Results (SA-8) .............................................................................................................. 44 Chamber System Results (SA-9) .............................................................................................................. 45 Chamber System Results (SA-10) ............................................................................................................ 46 Chamber System Results (SA-13) ............................................................................................................ 47 Chamber Description (ADS SC-740) ............................................................................................................ 48 3D Sectional View ................................................................................................................................... 49 Chamber System Results (SA-12) ............................................................................................................ 50 Chamber System Results (SA-14) ............................................................................................................ 51 Appendix A - Geotechnical Report from Rocksmith Engineering, dated 3/27/2025 Appendix B - Percolation Test Report from Allied Consulting Services, date 3/16/2026 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 1 Project Description The project is located at 1537 S Yellowstone Hwy, Rexburg, ID 83440. The study area contains 15.36 acres. There are two adjacent areas (known as Lots 1 and 2 on the proposed Final Plat) along Yellowstone Hwy that have been excluded from the study area as there are no proposed above ground improvements to occur in this area. These excluded areas will require the future lot owner to provide a stormwater analysis with their proposed site plan. Additionally, there are two subbasins (5 and 4) that are proposing temporary surface infiltration areas until these areas fully develop and a final site plan is developed. All other proposed storage/infiltration improvements are below ground chamber infiltrators with the exception of Subbasin 6 which uses a permanent surface infiltration area. University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 2 Purpose The purpose of this stormwater study is to appropriately size infiltration facilities for post-development conditions. Methodology Used EPA SWMM version 5.2.4 computer software was used in this stormwater study. Proposed Conditions This scenario contains: 14 subbasins o 12 subbasins include proposed above ground development and require permanent stormwater solutions. o 2 subbasins require temporary stormwater until a final site plan is developed. 4 manholes/catchbasins – used in a routing scenario to consolidate three subbasins into a single below ground infiltration chamber. 12 storage areas o 3 above ground infiltration ponds. o 9 below ground infiltration chambers. These chamber configurations will include an appropriately sized inlet grate, manhole/catch basin, infiltrator components, and piping. 4 pipes - used in a routing scenario to consolidate three subbasins into a single below ground infiltration chamber. 12 outfalls – the model requires that each storage area is connected to a downstream outfall entity to properly run. Outflow from each storage area is limited to seepage only. University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 3 Proposed Conditions Below is a Figure of the site plan showing the location of the proposed improvements as part of the development plan. The grading plan developed in the construction drawings is consistent with the shown drainage basin layout. Below is a Figure of the site plan showing the proposed landuse geometry and palettes as part of the site development plan. University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 4 Below is a Figure depicting the 3 landuse palettes used in the stormwater model to create the composite curve number for each subbasin. Stormwater Network Routing Diagram Below is a network routing diagram. With the exception of Subbasins 1, 11, and 10 which share a common storage area (SA-10). All other subbasins have a single storage area and corresponding outfall. University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 5 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 6 Design Storm Precipitation data type: IDF Data The design storm for the study area is 1.23 inches per hour and corresponds to 100-year, 1 hour duration. Given the high level of development and surface infrastructure the Time of Concentration (TOC) was selected to be 5.0 minutes for all subbasins. 1 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 7 Subbasin Summary Subbasin ID Runoff Coeff TOC (minutes) Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Subbasin Area (acres) Storm Frequency Factor Peak Runoff (cfs) 1 Sub-1 94.05 5.00 1.23 0.48 1.00 0.60 2 Sub-2 94.93 5.00 1.23 1.83 1.00 2.27 3 Sub-3 95.30 5.00 1.23 1.48 1.00 1.83 4 Sub-4 90.99 5.00 1.23 1.83 1.00 2.27 5 Sub-5 92.26 5.00 1.23 2.81 1.00 3.49 6 Sub-6 92.66 5.00 1.23 0.85 1.00 1.06 7 Sub-7 97.35 5.00 1.23 0.95 1.00 1.17 8 Sub-8 96.99 5.00 1.23 0.97 1.00 1.20 9 Sub-9 96.74 5.00 1.23 0.98 1.00 1.21 10 Sub-10 97.24 5.00 1.23 0.82 1.00 1.01 11 Sub-11 95.87 5.00 1.23 0.48 1.00 0.59 12 Sub-12 94.49 5.00 1.23 0.29 1.00 0.36 13 Sub-13 93.47 5.00 1.23 0.98 1.00 1.22 14 Sub-14 95.60 5.00 1.23 0.61 1.00 0.76 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 8 Subbasins Subbasin ID: Sub-1 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.48 acres Peak runoff rate: 0.60 cfs Runoff coefficient: 94.05 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 2,146.97 ft³ Subbasin ID: Sub-2 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 9 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 1.83 acres Peak runoff rate: 2.27 cfs Runoff coefficient: 94.93 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 8,154.02 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 10 Subbasin ID: Sub-3 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 1.48 acres Peak runoff rate: 1.83 cfs Runoff coefficient: 95.3 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 6,602.64 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 11 Subbasin ID: Sub-4 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 1.83 acres Peak runoff rate: 2.27 cfs Runoff coefficient: 90.99 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 8,177.23 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 12 Subbasin ID: Sub-5 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 2.81 acres Peak runoff rate: 3.49 cfs Runoff coefficient: 92.26 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 12,566.15 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 13 Subbasin ID: Sub-6 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.85 acres Peak runoff rate: 1.06 cfs Runoff coefficient: 92.66 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 3,816.04 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 14 Subbasin ID: Sub-7 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.95 acres Peak runoff rate: 1.17 cfs Runoff coefficient: 97.35 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 4,229.12 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 15 Subbasin ID: Sub-8 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.97 acres Peak runoff rate: 1.20 cfs Runoff coefficient: 96.99 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 4,321.30 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 16 Subbasin ID: Sub-9 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.98 acres Peak runoff rate: 1.21 cfs Runoff coefficient: 96.74 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 4,360.64 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 17 Subbasin ID: Sub-10 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.82 acres Peak runoff rate: 1.01 cfs Runoff coefficient: 97.24 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 3,647.21 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 18 Subbasin ID: Sub-11 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.48 acres Peak runoff rate: 0.59 cfs Runoff coefficient: 95.87 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 2,139.13 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 19 Subbasin ID: Sub-12 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.29 acres Peak runoff rate: 0.36 cfs Runoff coefficient: 94.49 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 1,305.53 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 20 Subbasin ID: Sub-13 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.98 acres Peak runoff rate: 1.22 cfs Runoff coefficient: 93.47 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 4,376.88 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 21 Subbasin ID: Sub-14 Scenario: Default Scenario Drainage area: 0.61 acres Peak runoff rate: 0.76 cfs Runoff coefficient: 95.6 Rainfall intensity: 1.23 in/hr TOC: 5.00 minutes Total runoff: 2,729.48 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 22 Pipes The below pipes are utilized in routing collected stormwater from Subbasin 11, 1, and 10 to the Storage Area 10. Pipe ID Pipe Length (ft) Pipe Slope (%) Pipe Diameter (in) Manning Rough ness Peak Flow (cfs) Max Flow Depth (in) 1 Pipe-1 34.48 0.25 12.000 0.0130 0.59 4.68 2 Pipe-2 38.48 0.25 12.000 0.0130 1.19 7.08 3 Pipe-3 76.83 0.25 12.000 0.0130 1.01 6.48 4 Pipe-4 10.93 2.00 12.000 0.0130 2.20 5.52 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 23 Storage Area Summary The maximum water surface depth for the ADS Stormtech MC-3500 used in the development is 6.75 feet this includes 3.75 feet of chamber with 2 feet of stone/gravel below the chambers, 1 foot of stone above the chamber, see Chamber Reports. Invert Elevation and Initial WSEL are assumed to be the same, meaning the storage area is empty prior to the design storm event. The maximum water surface depth for the ADS Stormtech SC-740 used in the public ROW is 5.08 feet with 2 feet of stone/gravel below the chambers, 7 inches of stone above the chambers, see Chamber Reports. The temporary surface infiltration ponds (SA-4 and SA-5A) have a maximum depth of 2.0 feet allowing for a 1.0-foot freeboard at a minimum. The permanent surface infiltration pond (SA-6) has a maximum depth of 5.0 feet allowing for a 1.0-foot freeboard at a minimum. An infiltration rate of 14.0 and 4.5 inches per hour, was selected for the chamber configurations and SA-6, respectively. An infiltration rate of 0.5 inches per hour was selected for the temporary surface infiltration ponds. These are table values and represent the classified soils observed in the Geotech Report (see Appendix A). Additionally, percolation tests (see Appendix B) were performed at the following locations: SA-2, SA-4, and SA-6, resulting in an average percolation rate of 2.6 minutes per inch or approximately 23 inches per hour. After some discussion with the City, it was determined this report could be regenerated using a value of 14.0 inches per hour for the infiltration chambers. Storage Area ID Invert Elevation (ft) Peak Inflow (cfs) Peak Outflow (cfs) Initial WSEL (ft) Max WSEL (ft) Max Water Surface Depth (ft) Max Storage Volume (ft³) 1 SA-2 4845.43 2.27 0.00 4845.43 4852.18 6.75 5697.15 2 SA-3 4845.03 1.83 0.00 4845.03 4851.73 6.70 4828.84 3 SA-4 4852.00 2.27 0.00 4852.00 4853.01 1.01 7076.64 4 SA-5A 4851.50 3.49 0.00 4851.50 4852.37 0.87 10718.09 5 SA-6 4851.00 1.06 0.00 4851.00 4854.63 3.63 2877.98 6 SA-7 4845.08 1.17 0.00 4845.08 4851.83 6.75 3093.03 7 SA-8 4845.23 1.20 0.00 4845.23 4851.98 6.75 3028.84 8 SA-9 4845.21 1.21 0.00 4845.21 4851.96 6.75 2864.92 9 SA-10 4845.25 2.20 0.00 4845.25 4852.00 6.75 5699.31 10 SA-12 4849.44 0.36 0.00 4849.44 4854.36 4.92 899.32 11 SA-13 4845.22 1.22 0.00 4845.22 4851.97 6.75 2968.90 12 SA-14 4848.84 0.76 0.00 4848.84 4853.70 4.86 1887.10 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 24 Storage Areas These are the storage areas that are defined: Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-2 Invert elevation: 4845.43 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4845.43 ft Peak inflow: 2.27 cfs 0.17 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4852.18 ft Maximum water surface depth: 6.75 ft Maximum storage volume: 5697.15 ft³ Total seepage volume: 5281.25 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4845.43 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4852.18 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 25 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-3 Invert elevation: 4845.03 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4845.03 ft Peak inflow: 1.83 cfs 0.14 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4851.73 ft Maximum water surface depth: 6.70 ft Maximum storage volume: 4828.84 ft³ Total seepage volume: 4703.29 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4845.03 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4851.78 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 26 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-4 Invert elevation: 4852.00 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4852.00 ft Peak inflow: 2.27 cfs 0.17 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4853.01 ft Maximum water surface depth: 1.01 ft Maximum storage volume: 7076.64 ft³ Total seepage volume: 7076.64 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4852.00 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4854.00 ft Spillway length: 25.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 4.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 0.50 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 27 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-5A Invert elevation: 4851.50 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4851.50 ft Peak inflow: 3.49 cfs 0.26 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4852.37 ft Maximum water surface depth: 0.87 ft Maximum storage volume: 10718.09 ft³ Total seepage volume: 10718.09 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4851.50 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4853.50 ft Spillway length: 25.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 1.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 4.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 0.50 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 28 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-6 Invert elevation: 4851.00 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4851.00 ft Peak inflow: 1.06 cfs 0.08 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4854.63 ft Maximum water surface depth: 3.63 ft Maximum storage volume: 2877.98 ft³ Total seepage volume: 2877.98 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4851.00 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4856.00 ft Spillway length: 25.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 4.50 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 29 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-7 Invert elevation: 4845.08 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4845.08 ft Peak inflow: 1.17 cfs 0.09 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4851.83 ft Maximum water surface depth: 6.75 ft Maximum storage volume: 3093.03 ft³ Total seepage volume: 2997.14 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4845.08 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4851.83 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 30 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-8 Invert elevation: 4845.23 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4845.23 ft Peak inflow: 1.20 cfs 0.09 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4851.98 ft Maximum water surface depth: 6.75 ft Maximum storage volume: 3028.84 ft³ Total seepage volume: 2813.79 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4845.23 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4851.98 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 31 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-9 Invert elevation: 4845.21 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4845.21 ft Peak inflow: 1.21 cfs 0.09 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4851.96 ft Maximum water surface depth: 6.75 ft Maximum storage volume: 2864.92 ft³ Total seepage volume: 2495.35 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4845.21 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4851.96 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 32 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-10 Invert elevation: 4845.25 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4845.25 ft Peak inflow: 2.20 cfs 0.17 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4852.00 ft Maximum water surface depth: 6.75 ft Maximum storage volume: 5699.31 ft³ Total seepage volume: 5431.44 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4845.25 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4852.00 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 33 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-12 Invert elevation: 4849.44 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4849.44 ft Peak inflow: 0.36 cfs 0.03 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4854.36 ft Maximum water surface depth: 4.92 ft Maximum storage volume: 899.32 ft³ Total seepage volume: 891.23 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4849.44 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4854.52 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 34 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-13 Invert elevation: 4845.22 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4845.22 ft Peak inflow: 1.22 cfs 0.09 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4851.97 ft Maximum water surface depth: 6.75 ft Maximum storage volume: 2968.90 ft³ Total seepage volume: 2669.04 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4845.22 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4851.97 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 35 Scenario: Default Scenario: 100 Year Storage Area ID: SA-14 Invert elevation: 4848.84 ft Maximum Volume Time of Peak Initial water surface elevation: 4848.84 ft Peak inflow: 0.76 cfs 0.06 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Peak outflow: 0.00 cfs 0.00 ft³ 02Feb2026, 00:10 Maximum water surface elevation: 4853.70 ft Maximum water surface depth: 4.86 ft Maximum storage volume: 1887.10 ft³ Total seepage volume: 1887.10 ft³ Minimum water surface elevation: 4848.84 ft Storage area spillway type: Standard – Rectangular Spillway crest elevation: 4853.84 ft Spillway length: 1.00 ft Spillway side slope (V:H): 0.0000 Spillway discharge coefficient: 3.33 Seepage suction head: 2.00 in Hydraulic conductivity: 14.00 in/hr Initial Deficit: 0.20 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 36 Results Summary Drainage Network Elements Element Type Total Contributing Upstream Drainage Area (acres) Peak Flow (cfs) 1 MH-1 Manhole 0.48 0.59 2 MH-2 Manhole 0.96 1.19 3 MH-3 Manhole 1.78 2.20 4 MH-4 Manhole 0.82 1.01 5 OUT-2 Terminal Outfall 1.83 0.00 6 OUT-3 Terminal Outfall 1.48 0.00 7 OUT-4 Terminal Outfall 1.83 0.00 8 OUT-5 Terminal Outfall 2.81 0.00 9 OUT-6 Terminal Outfall 0.85 0.00 10 OUT-7 Terminal Outfall 0.95 0.00 11 OUT-8 Terminal Outfall 0.97 0.00 12 OUT-9 Terminal Outfall 0.98 0.00 13 OUT-10 Terminal Outfall 1.78 0.00 14 OUT-12 Terminal Outfall 0.29 0.00 15 OUT-13 Terminal Outfall 0.98 0.00 16 OUT-14 Terminal Outfall 0.61 0.00 17 Pipe-1 Pipe 0.48 0.59 18 Pipe-2 Pipe 0.96 1.19 19 Pipe-3 Pipe 0.82 1.01 20 Pipe-4 Pipe 1.78 2.20 21 SA-2 Storage Area 1.83 0.00 22 SA-3 Storage Area 1.48 0.00 23 SA-4 Storage Area 1.83 0.00 24 SA-5A Storage Area 2.81 0.00 25 SA-6 Storage Area 0.85 0.00 26 SA-7 Storage Area 0.95 0.00 27 SA-8 Storage Area 0.97 0.00 28 SA-9 Storage Area 0.98 0.00 29 SA-10 Storage Area 1.78 0.00 30 SA-12 Storage Area 0.29 0.00 31 SA-13 Storage Area 0.98 0.00 32 SA-14 Storage Area 0.61 0.00 33 Sub-1 Subbasin 0.48 0.60 34 Sub-2 Subbasin 1.83 2.27 University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 37 35 Sub-3 Subbasin 1.48 1.83 36 Sub-4 Subbasin 1.83 2.27 37 Sub-5 Subbasin 2.81 3.49 38 Sub-6 Subbasin 0.85 1.06 39 Sub-7 Subbasin 0.95 1.17 40 Sub-8 Subbasin 0.97 1.20 41 Sub-9 Subbasin 0.98 1.21 42 Sub-10 Subbasin 0.82 1.01 43 Sub-11 Subbasin 0.48 0.59 44 Sub-12 Subbasin 0.29 0.36 45 Sub-13 Subbasin 0.98 1.22 46 Sub-14 Subbasin 0.61 0.76 Inlet Grate Sizing Inlet grate sizing is as follows, selection will be according to location and type, and peak flow from subbasin. A 17”x30” or Type 1 Catch Basin will be used on curb lines. A 24” x 24” grate will be used for all area drains with the exception of Subbasin 2 which will require a 30” x 30” grate. Orifice Equation Grate Width 17 in Grate Length 30 in Grate Open Area 50% Grate Obstructions 35% Grate Area 1.15 ft2 Head 0.25 ft Velocity 2.84 fps Cc 0.61 Flow 1.99 cfs Grate Width 24 in Grate Length 24 in Grate Open Area 50% Grate Obstructions 35% Grate Area 1.30 ft2 Head 0.25 ft Velocity 2.84 fps Cc 0.61 Flow 2.25 cfs University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 38 Grate Width 30 in Grate Length 30 in Grate Open Area 50% Grate Obstructions 35% Grate Area 2.03 ft2 Head 0.25 ft Velocity 2.84 fps Cc 0.61 Flow 3.52 cfs University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 39 Chamber Description (ADS MC-3500) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Storage chamber model: MC-3500 Storage chamber height: 45.00 in Storage chamber width: 77.00 in Storage chamber length: 7.17 ft Storage chamber volume: 110 ft³ Stone cover: 12.00 in Stone base: 24.00 in Stone void space: 40 % Space between chamber rows: 12.00 in Additional Information: Cumulative Storage Spreadsheet (URL File) Full Detail Sheet (PDF File) Full Detail Sheet (DWG File) Product Sheet (PDF File) Technical Specification (PDF File) Technical Specification (DWG File) University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 40 3D Sectional View University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 41 Chamber System Results (SA-2) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: MC-3500 Number of chambers: 24 System footprint area (including buffer): 1523.28 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 12084 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 1829 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 2639 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 7644 ft³ Stone void volume: 3058 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 5697 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 42 Chamber System Results (SA-3) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: MC-3500 Number of chambers: 18 System footprint area (including buffer): 1359.06 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 10505 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 1342 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 1980 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 7195 ft³ Stone void volume: 2878 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 4857 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 43 Chamber System Results (SA-7) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: MC-3500 Number of chambers: 12 System footprint area (including buffer): 852.18 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 7047 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 1301 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 1320 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 4433 ft³ Stone void volume: 1774 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 3093 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 44 Chamber System Results (SA-8) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: MC-3500 Number of chambers: 12 System footprint area (including buffer): 828.41 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 6155 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 587 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 1320 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 4273 ft³ Stone void volume: 1709 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 3029 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 45 Chamber System Results (SA-9) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: MC-3500 Number of chambers: 12 System footprint area (including buffer): 767.69 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 6965 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 1780 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 1320 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 3863 ft³ Stone void volume: 1546 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 2865 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 46 Chamber System Results (SA-10) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: MC-3500 Number of chambers: 24 System footprint area (including buffer): 1524.08 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 12388 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 2107 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 2639 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 7649 ft³ Stone void volume: 3060 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 5699 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 47 Chamber System Results (SA-13) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: MC-3500 Number of chambers: 12 System footprint area (including buffer): 806.21 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 7087 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 1655 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 1320 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 4123 ft³ Stone void volume: 1650 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 2969 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 48 Chamber Description (ADS SC-740) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Storage chamber model: SC-740 Storage chamber height: 30.00 in Storage chamber width: 51.00 in Storage chamber length: 7.12 ft Storage chamber volume: 46 ft³ Stone cover: 7.00 in Stone base: 24.00 in Stone void space: 40 % Space between chamber rows: 6.00 in Additional Information: Cumulative Storage Spreadsheet (URL File) Full Detail Sheet (DWG File) Full Detail Sheet (PDF File) Product Sheet (PDF File) Technical Specification (DWG File) Technical Specification (PDF File) University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 49 3D Sectional View University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 50 Chamber System Results (SA-12) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: SC-740 Number of chambers: 7 System footprint area (including buffer): 358.67 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 2223 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 402 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 322 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 1502 ft³ Stone void volume: 601 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 950 ft³ University Towne Center Stormwater Report, Revision 1 51 Chamber System Results (SA-14) Storage chamber manufacturer: ADS StormTech Chamber model: SC-740 Number of chambers: 16 System footprint area (including buffer): 743.54 ft² Total excavation volume (including buffer & cover): 4672 ft³ Total ground cover volume: 894 ft³ Total storage chamber volume (without stone fill): 736 ft³ Total stone fill required (including void space): 3045 ft³ Stone void volume: 1218 ft³ Total system storage volume (chambers & stone void space): 1733 ft³ Appendix A - Geotechnical Report from Rocksmith Engineering, dated 3/27/2025 2426 Diamond H Lane • Rexburg, Idaho 83440 • (801) 556-6407 • rocksmithllc@gmail.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents geotechnical design and construction considerations for the proposed site improvements, summarized as follows: Our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis conclude that the proposed site is suitable for the proposed structure, provided the outlined recommendations are properly implemented during the design and construction stages. The designated 18-acre site for the proposed new construction consists of a relatively flat, grass- covered field. Beneath the grass, approximately 10 to 18 inches of soft topsoil composed of sandy silt with clay is present, with thick roots extending 18 to 24 inches below the surface. To ensure the stability of future structures, we recommend removing any topsoil and roots beneath roadways and footings, replacing them with structurally sound, compacted select fill. This general recommendation is a minimum; removal of more material may be necessary and will be discussed in this report. Below the topsoil, from approximately 1.5 to 4.5 feet, the soil transitions to medium stiff to stiff sandy silt with clay or, in some areas, poorly graded sand with silt. This layer contains occasional roots, calcareous veins, and slight pinholes. Beneath this, starting at approximately 4.5 feet, the soil consists of dense to very dense silty sand with gravel, well-graded sandy gravel, or poorly graded sand or gravel. Gravel content generally increases with depth, with maximum particle sizes ranging from 3 to 5 inches. However, in TP-15, -17, and -18, a gravelly layer was not encountered. Instead, a poorly graded sand layer extended to the final test depth. All test pits were excavated to 10 feet, except for TP-18, which extended to 12 feet. Subsurface water was not detected in the test pits up to the maximum depth explored during excavation. However, groundwater can exist beneath this site at shallow depths temporarily. Our analysis indicates that isolated footings and continuous wall footings may be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. When placed on native gravels or 24 inches of select fill. During site grading, anticipate encountering soft, compressible, loose, or wet natural soils in the upper 2 to 4 feet. These silty and clayey soils could be prone to rutting and pumping, and special attention should be paid during construction, especially during wet periods. Any obvious soft spots should be replaced with granular material to maintain site stability. GEOTECHNICAL SOIL STUDY For KTRI FARMS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REXBURG, IDAHO Prepared for WILLIAMS ENGINEERING, INC. Prepared by ROCKSMITH ENGINEERING Rexburg, Idaho PROJECT NO. RSE 25002 MARCH 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ II INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 TEST PITS AND LABORATORY TESTS ......................................................................................................... 1 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................................................. 2 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2 STRATIGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 3 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................ 3 GEOLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................................................................................... 3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 7 SITE GRADING ................................................................................................................................................ 7 SHALLOW FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................................... 7 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY .................................................................................................................. 8 FROST PROTECTION ...................................................................................................................................... 8 AREA FLATWORK ........................................................................................................................................... 8 SHALLOW FOOTINGS FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................ 9 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 9 SITE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................................................. 9 SITE PREPARATION ........................................................................................................................................ 9 BACKFILL ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 SELECT FILL .................................................................................................................................................. 10 SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS .................................................................................................... 11 EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING ..................................................................................................... 11 UTILITIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 12 SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 12 DESIGN INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................... 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 13 Garbage Dumpsters .............................................................................................................................. 13 RIGID PAVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 13 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 14 SUBGRADE PREPARATION .......................................................................................................................... 14 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 14 ONSITE FILL .................................................................................................................................................. 15 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ......................................................................................................................... 15 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ................................................................................................................. 15 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 15 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES ...................................................... 15 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 16 TABLES Table 1 – Samples Collected ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2 – Laboratory Tests Performed ............................................................................................................... 2 Table 3 – Seismic Coefficients ............................................................................................................................. 3 Table 4 – Bearing Capacity Design Parameters .................................................................................................. 8 Table 5 – Select Fill Requirements .................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6 – Compaction Requirements ................................................................................................................ 11 PICTURES Picture 1 - Looking west across the site from the south side of the property ............................................. 4 Picture 2 - Looking northeast across the site from the south side of the property ................................... 4 Picture 3 - Looking north at TP-1.................................................................................................................. 5 Picture 4 - Looking into TP-4 ........................................................................................................................ 5 Picture 5 - Looking into TP-3 ........................................................................................................................ 6 Picture 6 - Looking into TP-17 ...................................................................................................................... 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii ATTACHMENTS The following figures are attached and complete this report: Test Pit Location Map ........................................................................................................................ Figure 1 Test Pit Logs ........................................................................................................................... Figures 2 to 19 Key to Terms and Symbols ........................................................................................................ Figures 20a-d Results of Soil Analysis .................................................................................................................. Figures 21+ APPENDIX Appendix ............................................................................................................................... Soil Test Results Appendix II ........................................ Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Project No. RSE 25002 March 27, 2025 1 INTRODUCTION RockSmith Engineering (RSE) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and foundation analysis for a proposed commercial development in Rexburg, Idaho. This report briefly describes the procedures utilized during this study and presents our findings and recommendations for foundation design, construction considerations, and construction guidelines. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This study focuses on a proposed commercial development located in Rexburg, Idaho. The development spans two lots: an 18-acre area and a 1.7-acre area, totaling 19.7 acres. The site is situated northeast of the intersection of Yellowstone Hwy and University Blvd, bordered by Milkan Drive to the east. The proposed development includes commercial structures, access driveways, and designated parking areas. Based on RSE’s understanding of the project, the proposed commercial buildings are expected to consist of single-story stick-frame or steel-frame structures, with auxiliary driveways and parking facilities. Please note that site grading plans and proposed structural loads were not available at the time of this study. Therefore, the recommendations in this report are premised on the assumption that the final grade of the building structure will be approximately 2 feet above or below the existing grades. TEST PITS AND LABORATORY TESTS FIELD EXPLORATION Our field study, conducted on March 22, 2025, involved the excavation of 18 test pits using a Kubota KX033-4 tracked excavator. Each pit was excavated to approximately 10 feet below the existing grade, except for TP-18, which extended to 12 feet. The excavation revealed approximately 10 to 18 inches of topsoil consisting of sandy silt with clay, with thick roots extending up to 24 inches below the surface. Beneath the topsoil, most test pits encountered 2 to 4 feet of sandy silt with clay with slight pinholes and calcareous veins, followed by 1 to 2 feet of poorly graded sand with silt or gravel. Apart from test pits TP- 15, TP-17, and TP-18 in the southern portion of the site, the sand layer was underlain by a dense to very dense sandy gravel layer that extended to the maximum explored depth. In TP-15, 17, and 18 instead of sandy gravel, a poorly graded sand layer extended the final test depth. In general, gravel content increased with depth, with maximum particle sizes ranging from 3 to 5 inches. The gravel particles were frequently coated in slight calcareous deposits, and the density of the sandy gravel layer generally increased with depth. No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits during or after excavation. Numerous bulk soil samples were collected throughout the test pit operations for further analysis. The subsurface conditions at the site were assessed through these test pits, as illustrated in Figure 1, the Test Pit Location Map. Please note that the locations of the test pits are approximate and determined using pacing measurements and visual cues from onsite landmarks. The collected samples include: Table 1 – Samples Collected Type of Sample Number Collected Bag/Disturbed Samples 36 Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 2 LABORATORY TESTING A member of our geotechnical engineering team visually classified each sample in the field. Then, the geotechnical engineering properties of the strata were further evaluated through the following tests: Table 2 – Laboratory Tests Performed Type of Test Number Conducted Natural Moisture Content 8 Atterberg Limits 0 Sieve Analysis 4 The results of the laboratory tests are illustrated in graphical or numerical format on the test pit logs, as shown in Figures 2 through 9. For ease of understanding, Figure 10 provides the key to the classification terms and symbols used in these logs. Following the submission of this report, samples will be held in our laboratory for a period of 30 days. Should the client require alternative arrangements, these can be accommodated upon request. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS SITE DESCRIPTION The project area includes a primary 18-acre site and a secondary 1.7-acre parcel located immediately to the south, as illustrated in Figure 1. The overall site is situated northeast of the intersection of University Boulevard and Yellowstone Highway in Rexburg, Idaho. Currently, the land is covered with an alfalfa field and bordered to the south by an abandoned canal. The terrain is relatively flat, with approximately 2 feet of vertical relief across the entire site. Surrounding the site, the northern boundary features a mix of two- to three-story multifamily apartment buildings and single-story commercial structures. The southern boundary is bordered by an east–west canal, followed by a three-lane asphalt roadway and open farmland. To the west, the site is flanked by commercial restaurants adjacent to a five-lane asphalt road. On the eastern side, the property borders three-story apartment complexes. The proposed development may require earthwork, including both cut and fill operations. We anticipate footing excavations will range from approximately 3 to 5 feet deep. Fill placement, where needed, is expected to reach heights of 1 to 2 feet. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Based on the soil test pits conducted for this investigation, the upper 100 feet of soil may be characterized as stiff soil, and the default Class D Site Class Definition (Chapter 20 of ASCE 7) has been assigned to this site. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 3 The website1 of the Structural Engineers Association of California/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (SEAOC/OSHPD) employs the International Building Code (IBC) and U.S. Seismic Design Maps to establish seismic design parameters. Therefore, the seismic considerations mentioned below are associated with this specific site. Table 3 – Seismic Coefficients Ss = 0.364g Sms = 0.549g SDS = 0.366g S1 = 0.142g Sm1 = 0.328g SD1 = 0.219g Based on the parameters delineated above, and per section 11.4.3 of the ASCE 7-16 reference, the site falls under Seismic Design Category 'D' for short-period and 1-second response accelerations. A Risk Category of II was selected as a fundamental assumption to facilitate the necessary calculations . STRATIGRAPHY Our geotechnical investigation's findings, derived from the designated test pit locations, are outlined in Figures 2 through 19. These logs represent our interpretation and analysis of the subsurface conditions, which were assembled from field logs, the visual inspection of field samples, and further laboratory tests on selected samples. In light of our field observations, subsurface exploration, laboratory tests, and a review of available geologic soil maps, the following subsurface materials were identified at the site: The uppermost layer of the site consists of brush, grass, and approximately 6 to 12 inches of dark brown topsoil. Directly beneath the topsoil is a silty sandy layer. Beneath the silty sand is a dense layer of well- graded gravel with clean sand. This layer extends down to the deepest depth investigated (12 feet), where the test pits were terminated. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered. All test pits remained dry during the field exploration phase. However, groundwater can exist beneath this site at shallow depths temporarily. In particular, seasonal and yearly fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur depending on topography, subsurface geologic conditions, precipitation, and other factors. GEOLOGIC SETTING Rexburg, Idaho, is situated in a geologically active region influenced by volcanic, glacial, and fluvial processes. The area is primarily underlain by basaltic lava flows, which were deposited during the Pleistocene epoch as part of the Yellowstone hotspot's volcanic activity. These lava flows, along with older volcanic deposits, form the foundational geology of Rexburg and surrounding areas. Volcanic eruptions in the region contributed to the creation of layered basalt and rhyolite, which significantly shaped the local landscape. 1 https://seismicmaps.org Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 4 During the Pleistocene, glaciers from the neighboring Teton and Yellowstone mountain ranges advanced and retreated over the area. As the glaciers moved, they eroded and deposited a variety of sediment types, including till, sand, and gravel, which were subsequently modified by the Snake River and its tributaries. The river’s erosion and sediment deposition further influenced the region’s topography, resulting in the formation of terraces, valleys, and lowland plains that characterize much of Rexburg's landscape today. The surface soils of Rexburg reflect the combined effects of volcanic, glacial, and fluvial processes. Volcanic ash, glacially derived sediment, and river deposits create a varied soil profile, with fertile soils supporting agricultural activity in the region. The presence of groundwater in both volcanic and glacial aquifers sustains local springs and streams, contributing to the hydrology and ecology of the area. Rexburg’s geological history, shaped by volcanic activity and glacial processes, gives the region its unique landscape and rich natural resources. Picture 1 – Looking west across the site from the south side of the property. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 5 Picture 2 – Looking northeast across the site from the south side of the property. Picture 3 – Looking north at TP-1. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 6 Picture 4 – Looking into TP-4. Picture 5 – Looking into TP-3. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 7 Picture 6 – Looking into TP-17. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS SITE GRADING Site grading plans can change almost all aspects of foundation recommendations. We have prepared all foundation recommendations based on our study's existing ground surface and the stratigraphic conditions. If site grading plans differ from the current grade by more than plus or minus 2 ft, RSE must be retained to review the site grading plans before bidding on the project for construction. This will enable RSE to provide input for any changes in our original recommendations that may be required due to site grading operations or other considerations. SHALLOW FOUNDATION Based on our evaluation of the subsurface conditions from the test pits, we conclude that the project site is suitable for development. Lightly loaded footings can be supported using conventional slab-on-grade foundations placed on the native well-graded gravel with sand or 24 inches of select fill over the upper layer of sandy silt and clay. To ensure stability, we recommend removing all undocumented fill, topsoil, sandy silt, and clay within two feet from the bottom of the footings and slabs and replacing them with select fill material. This will provide a more stable foundation for the proposed structures. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 8 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY For planning purposes, our analyses indicate that slab on grade, spread, or continuous wall footings over native gravels or 24 inches of select fill may be designed using an allowable net bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The minimum recommended width of spread and continuous wall footings is 24 inches. Shallow foundations founded on the native well-graded sandy gravel or 24 inches of select fill should be proportioned using the design parameters tabulated below: Table 4 – Bearing Capacity Design Parameters Minimum footing depth below final grade 36 in. Minimum spread and continuous wall footing width 24 in. Maximum allowable bearing pressure for footings on native gravel or 24 inches of select fill 2,500 psf The above presented maximum allowable bearing pressures will provide a calculated factor of safety of about 3 with respect to the expected shear strength of in-situ material if the subgrade is prepared and fill placed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Select Fill section of this report. FROST PROTECTION Frost depth in the vicinity of this site is approximately 36 inches. Therefore, exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should extend a minimum depth of 36 inches below the final grade for frost protection. Footings protected from the full effect of frost may be established at higher elevations; however, a minimum depth of 24 inches is recommended for confinement purposes. AREA FLATWORK It should be noted that ground-supported flatwork, such as walkways, will be subject to potential soil-related movements. Thus, differential movements should be anticipated when these elements abut rigid building foundations or isolated/suspended structures. As a minimum, we recommend that flexible joints be provided where such elements abut the main structure to allow for differential movement; at these locations where flatwork connects the exterior perimeter shallow foundation of the new building, care must be taken to provide a smooth, vertical construction joint between the edge of the flatwork and the shallow perimeter foundation. The flatwork should preferably abut the shallow foundation at least 4 inches, preferably more, below the bottom of the brick lug (or other exterior veneer material) to avoid damage to the veneer when movements occur in the flatwork. In addition, the construction joint should be wide enough to ensure that vertical movement in the flatwork will not bind on and damage the exterior veneer material. The construction joint should be completed using an appropriate elastomeric expansion joint filler to reduce the amount of water passing through the construction joint. In addition, proper and regular maintenance of the expansion joint will help reduce the water seepage at the flatwork/foundation interface. A better option, if feasible, is to separate the flatwork away from the building foundation so that movements incurred by the flatwork are totally independent of the building foundation. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 9 SHALLOW FOOTINGS FOUNDATION As recommended in this report's Allowable Bearing Capacity section, the proposed structure may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on native gravels or 24 inches of select fill. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS SITE DRAINAGE Drainage is an essential key to the successful performance of any foundation. Good surface drainage should be established before and maintained after construction to help prevent water from ponding within or adjacent to the building foundation and facilitate rapid drainage away from the building foundation. Failure to provide positive drainage away from the structure can result in localized differential vertical movements in soil-supported foundations and floor slabs, cracking in the sheetrock partition walls, shifting of ceiling tiles, and improper operation of windows and doors. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), current ordinances may dictate maximum slopes for walks and drives around and into the new building. However, these slope requirements can result in drainage problems for buildings supported on expansive soils. Therefore, we recommend that the maximum permissible slope be provided away from the building on all sides. Also, to help control drainage near the structure, we recommend that roof/gutter downspouts and landscaping irrigation systems are not adjacent to the building foundation. Where a select fill overbuild is provided outside of the floor slab/foundation footprint, the surface should be sealed with an impermeable layer (pavement or clay cap) to reduce infiltration of both irrigation and surface waters. Careful consideration should also be given to the location of water-bearing utilities and provisions for drainage in the event of leaks in water-bearing utilities. All leaks should be immediately repaired. SITE PREPARATION Before grading, the ground surface in proposed improvement areas should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, large piles of fill, debris, organics (including vegetation), and other deleterious material. Generally, a stripping depth of about 12-16 inches within the foundation footprint will be required across the site to remove the topsoil, existing fill from previous leveling activities, and some native silt. A stripping depth of 1-1.5 feet outside the footprint will be required to remove the topsoil and silt. Topsoil and silt can be stockpiled onsite and used in landscape areas. The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the exposed subgrade soils to evaluate if removals down to more competent soils are needed. Proof rolling with construction equipment may be used for this evaluation. Soft, saturated, or otherwise unsuitable native soils should be removed from proposed improvement areas and replaced with granular material. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 10 BACKFILL Onsite material in the top 1 foot consists of topsoil. The topsoil should not be used under building foundations, pavements, or behind retaining walls. Please reference the tables below for guidelines to achieve adequate compaction under critical zones, including beneath footings and pavements. SELECT FILL Select fill, or structural fill, is defined as fill subjected to structural loading. This includes footings, floor slabs, pavements, and concrete flatwork. In addition, select fill will be required after removing the fill and raising the site grade, and if needed, underneath concrete flatwork areas. Imported select fill should consist of well-graded granular materials free of organic and deleterious materials. Therefore, we recommend that imported, select fill material be sampled at the borrow source and approved by the geotechnical engineer before delivery to the project site. Select fill should meet the following specifications unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Table 5 – Select Fill Requirements In addition, if these materials are utilized, grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits must be performed at a rate of one test each per 5,000 cubic yards of material due to the high degree of variability associated with pit-run materials. If the above-listed select fill materials are being considered for bidding purposes, the materials should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for pre-approval at a minimum of 10 working days or more prior to the bid date. Failure to do so will be the contractor's responsibility. The contractor will also ensure that the properties of all delivered alternate select fill materials are similar to those of the pre-approved submittal. It should also be noted that when using alternative fill materials, difficulties may be experienced with respect to moisture control during and subsequent to fill placement and erosion, particularly when exposed to inclement weather. This may result in sloughing trenches and/or pumping of the fill materials. Soils classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, SC, OH, OL, and Pt under the USCS are not suitable for use as select fill materials at this site. In addition, the native soils at this site, found in the top 4-6 feet, consisting of brown topsoil, silt (ML), and clay (CL), are not considered suitable for use as select fill materials. Suitable soils and non-engineered fill meeting these requirements may be utilized as select fill. Select fill should be placed in lifts that do not exceed 8 to 12 inches in loose thickness. Moisture conditioned to approximately optimum moisture content and compacted to at least the following percentages in Table 4, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Sieve Size Percent Passing 4" 100 ¾" 75 - 100 No. 4 40 – 80 No. 40 10 – 40 No. 200 5 -15 Liquid Limit (LL) 20 Max Plasticity Index (PI) 6 Max Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 11 Table 6- Compaction Requirements All fills should be free of organic, frozen, or other deleterious materials or garbage. SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS The Geotechnical Engineer or their representative should observe shallow foundation excavations prior to reinforcing steel and concrete placement. It is necessary to observe that the bearing soils at the bottom of the excavations are similar to those encountered in our test pits and that excessive loose materials, undocumented fill, and water are not present in the excavations. If soft pockets of soil or undocumented fill are discovered in the foundation excavations, they should be removed and replaced with a compacted, non-expansive fill material or lean concrete up to the design foundation-bearing elevations. EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING If utility trenches or other excavations for the structure extend to or below a depth of 5 ft below construction grade, the contractor or others shall be required to develop a trench safety plan to protect personnel entering the trench or trench vicinity. The collection of specific geotechnical data and the development of such a plan, which could include designs for sloping and benching or various types of temporary shoring, are beyond the scope of the current study. However, any such designs and safety plans shall be developed in accordance with current OSHA guidelines and other applicable industry standards. UTILITIES Utilities that project through slab-on-grade, slab-on-fill, or any other rigid unit should be designed with some flexibility or sleeves. Such design features will help reduce the risk of damage to the utility lines as vertical movements occur. Our experience indicates that significant settlement of backfill can occur in utility trenches, particularly when trenches are deep, when backfill materials are placed in thick lifts with insufficient compaction, and when water can access and infiltrate the trench backfill materials. The potential for water to access the backfill is increased where water can infiltrate base materials due to insufficient penetration of curbs and at sites where geological features can influence water migration into utility trenches (such as fractures within a rock mass or at contacts between rock and clay formations). Another factor significantly impacting settlement is the migration of fines within the backfill into the open voids in the underlying free-draining bedding material. Select Fill Percent of Maximum Dry Density Below foundations, pavement, and concrete flatwork 95% Fills thicker than 5 feet below foundations, pavement, and concrete flatwork 97% Utility Trenches 95% Behind Retaining Walls 90% In Landscape Areas 85-90% Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 12 To reduce the potential for settlement in utility trenches, we recommend that consideration be given to the following: All backfill materials should be placed and compacted in controlled lifts appropriate for the type of backfill and the type of compaction equipment utilized, and all backfilling procedures should be tested and documented. Trench backfill materials should be placed in loose lifts that do not exceed 8 inches thick and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within the range of 2 percentage points below to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content for non-cohesive soils and maintained within the range of optimum to 3 percentage points above optimum moisture content for cohesive soils until final compaction. Curbs should completely penetrate base materials and be installed sufficiently to reduce water infiltration beneath the curbs into the pavement base materials. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for both flexible and rigid pavements are presented in this report. The Owner and/or design team may select either pavement type depending on the performance criteria established for the project. Flexible pavement systems generally have a lower initial construction cost than rigid pavements. However, maintenance requirements over the life of the pavement are typically much greater for flexible pavements. This normally requires regularly scheduled observation, repair, overlays, and/or other pavement rehabilitation at approximately one-half to two-thirds of the design life. On the other hand, rigid pavements are generally more "forgiving," tend to be more durable, and require less maintenance after construction. Drainage conditions will significantly impact long-term performance for either pavement type, particularly where permeable base materials are utilized in the pavement section. Therefore, drainage considerations are discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report. SUBGRADE CONDITIONS We have assumed the subgrade in pavement areas will consist of the surficial brown/tan native sandy silt and clay and placed and compacted as recommended in this report. Based on our experience with similar subgrade soils, we have assigned a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 5 for use in pavement thickness design analyses for the surficial silty soils. DESIGN INFORMATION The following recommendations were prepared based on the 1993 "Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures" by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The following recommendations were prepared assuming a 20-yr design life and Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) of 240,000 for light-duty pavements and 1,100,000 for heavy-duty pavements. This traffic frequency is approximately equivalent to 1 and 25 tractor-trailer trucks per day for a design period of 20 years for light and heavy-duty pavements, respectively. The Project Civil Engineer should review anticipated traffic loading and frequencies to verify that the assumed traffic loading and frequency are appropriate for the facility's intended use. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 13 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT Flexible pavement sections recommended for this site are listed in the table below: Layer Description Layer Thickness Light Duty 240,000 ESAL's (Parking areas) HMA Surface Course Aggregate Base Course Combined Total 3.0 in. 12.0 in. 15.0 in. Heavy Duty -1,100,000 ESAL's (entrances, drives, channelized traffic) HMA Surface Course Aggregate Base Course Combined Total 4.0 in. 18.0 in. 22.0 in. Garbage Dumpsters We recommend providing reinforced concrete pads in front of and beneath trash receptacles where flexible pavements are constructed at any site. The dumpster trucks, if any, should be parked on the rigid pavement when the receptacles are lifted. It is suggested that such pads be provided in drives where the dumpster trucks make turns with small radii to access the receptacles. The concrete pads at this site should be a minimum of 6 in. thick and reinforced with conventional steel reinforcing bars or welded wire mats. The concrete should be placed over 8 inches of aggregate base course, over properly prepared natural gravel subgrade or site grading select fills. RIGID PAVEMENT We recommend that rigid pavements be considered in areas of longer-term parking and channelized traffic, particularly in areas where truck or bus traffic is planned, particularly where such traffic will make frequent turns, such as described above for garbage dumpster areas. We recommend that rigid pavement sections at this site consist of the following: Traffic Type Portland Cement Concrete Light Duty Traffic 5 in. Heavy Duty Traffic 7 in. We recommend placing the concrete pavements over 10 inches of aggregate base course material, as outlined below. We also recommend that the concrete pavements be reinforced with bar mats. As a minimum, the bar mats should be No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 in. on center in both directions. The concrete reinforcing should be placed approximately 1/3 the slab thickness below the slab's surface but not less than 2 in. The reinforcing should not extend across expansion joints. Joints in concrete pavements aid in the construction and control the location and magnitude of cracks. Where practical, lay out the construction, expansion, control, and sawed joints to form square panels. The ratio of slab length-to-width should not exceed 1.25. Recommended joint spacings are 12 ft longitudinal and 12 ft transverse. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 14 All control joints should be formed or sawed to a depth of at least 1/4 the thickness of the concrete slab. Sawing of control joints should begin as soon as the concrete will not ravel, generally the day after placement. Control joints may be hand-formed or formed by using a pre-molded filler. We recommend dowelling all longitudinal and transverse construction joints to promote load transfer. Expansion joints are needed to separate the concrete slab from fixed objects such as drop inlets, light standards, and buildings. Expansion joint spacings are not to exceed a maximum of 75 ft, and no expansion or construction joints should be located in a swale or drainage collection locations. To provide surface drainage, the pavement should develop a minimum slope of 0.015 ft/ft if possible. Reinforced concrete pavement should cure at least 3 and 7 days before allowing automobile and truck traffic, respectively. PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS SUBGRADE PREPARATION Areas to support pavements should be stripped of all vegetation and organic topsoil, and the exposed subgrade should be proof rolled according to the Site Preparation section recommendations under Foundation Construction Considerations. After completion of the proof rolling operations and just before base placement, the exposed subgrade should be moisture conditioned by scarifying to a minimum depth of 6 in. and recompacting to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D-1557. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained within the range of optimum moisture content to 3 percentage points above optimum until permanently covered. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS As with any soil-supported structure, the satisfactory performance of a pavement system is contingent on the provision of adequate surface and subsurface drainage. Insufficient drainage, which allows the saturation of the pavement subgrade and/or the supporting granular pavement materials, will significantly reduce the performance and service life of the pavement systems. Surface and subsurface drainage considerations crucial to the performance of pavements at this site include (but are not limited to) the following: 1) Any known natural or man-made subsurface seepage at the site that may occur at sufficiently shallow depths to influence moisture contents within the subgrade should be intercepted by drainage ditches or below-grade French drains. 2) Final site grading should eliminate isolated depressions adjacent to curbs, allowing surface water to pond and infiltrate into the underlying soils. Curbs should completely penetrate base materials and should be installed to a sufficient depth to reduce water infiltration beneath the curbs. 3) Pavement surfaces should be maintained to help minimize surface ponding and provide rapid sealing of any developing cracks. These measures will help reduce surface water infiltration downward through the pavement section. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 15 ONSITE FILL As discussed previously, the pavement recommendations presented in this report were prepared assuming that onsite soils from the top 2 to 5 feet will not be used for select fill grading in proposed pavement areas. However, if used as a subgrade under footings and pavement, we recommend that onsite soils be scarified down to 6 inches thick and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D-1557. The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within the range of optimum water content to 3 percentage points above the optimum water content until permanently covered. We recommend that fill materials be free of roots and other organic or degradable material. We also recommend that the maximum particle size not exceed four inches or one-half the lift thickness, whichever is smaller. AGGREGATE BASE COURSE The aggregate base course should be crushed aggregate. Base course should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of 8 in. and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of the maximum density at a moisture content within the range of 2 percentage points below to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content determined by ASTM D-1557. Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the mixture's maximum theoretical specific gravity (Rice) determined according to Test Method AASHTO T209. Pavement specimens, which shall be either cores or sections of asphaltic pavement, will be tested according to Test Method ASTM D2726 and ASTM D3549 for density and thickness, respectively. The nuclear-density gauge or other methods that correlate satisfactorily with results obtained from project roadway specimens may be used when the engineer approves. Unless otherwise shown on the plans, the contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the required roadway specimens at their expense and in a manner and at locations selected by the engineer. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE The Portland cement concrete should be air-entrained to result in a 5.5 percent plus/minus 1 percent air, have a maximum slump of 5 inches, and have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. A liquid membrane-forming curing compound should be applied as soon as practical after broom finishing the concrete surface. The curing compound will help reduce the loss of water from the concrete. The reduction in the rapid water loss will help reduce the concrete's shrinkage cracking. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SERVICES CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES As explained in the attachment, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report," subsurface conditions can vary across a project site. The conditions presented in this report are based on interpolations from a limited number of data points. Given this, variations are expected during construction, and only the geotechnical design engineer can determine if these differ from the assumed design conditions. Project No. RSE25002 March 27, 2025 16 Issues arising from variations or anomalies in subsurface conditions are among the most common in construction projects, often leading to delays, changes, cost overruns, and disputes. These irregularities can be best managed if RSE, the Geotechnical Engineer of record, is engaged to perform construction observation and testing services during the project's construction for the following reasons: • RSE deeply understands the geotechnical engineering report's findings and recommendations. • RSE knows how to interpret the report and can provide such interpretations onsite on behalf of the client. • RSE, having worked with the owner and project design professionals in developing the geotechnical work scope, is familiar with the project's goals. This enables RSE to suggest remedial measures (when necessary) that align with the owner's and design teams' requirements. • RSE cannot be held accountable for problems resulting from misinterpretations of our findings or recommendations when we are not present to provide the required interpretation. LIMITATIONS This soil report has been conducted according to the accepted geotechnical engineering practices specific to the Rexburg, Idaho, region. It is intended for the exclusive use of Williams Engineering and its representatives for design purposes. The report may not encompass sufficient information for third parties or other uses and is not aimed at determining construction methodologies. The recommendations herein are based on our interactions with Williams Engineering, data from eighteen test pits, and our comprehension of the project information provided. If the project information discussed in this report is incorrect, changes, or if new information surfaces, we should be re-engaged to review and adjust our recommendations. The report might not perfectly represent subsurface variations across the site, which may not be fully evident until construction begins. The construction process itself could also alter subsurface conditions. If variations become apparent during construction, our recommendations may need reevaluation, requiring onsite observations and tests to assess the engineering implications of these variations. This Geotechnical Soils report's scope excludes any environmental assessment of air, soil, rock, or water conditions at or adjacent to the site, and thus, it does not offer any environmental opinions. Instead, it presents professional judgments on subsurface conditions and analysis conclusions. RSE asserts that our services are delivered within the client-defined limitations and are in line with the care and skill routinely practiced by other professional consultants in similar scenarios. This report does not imply or express any other representation to the client, and it neither includes nor intends any warranty or guarantee. It remains the client's responsibility to ensure that all project parties, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are informed of this report. As such, using this report's information for bidding purposes should be the contractor's decision and risk. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The following figures are attached and complete this report: Updated Test Pit Location Map ......................................................................................................... Figure 1 Test Pit Logs ........................................................................................................................... Figures 2 to 19 Key to Terms and Symbols .......................................................................................................... Figure 20a-d Results of Soil Analysis .................................................................................................................. Figures 21+ REVISIONS PROJECT NO.: No. Date Description 1 3/26/2025 TP Drawing ISSUE DATE:3/27/2025 Engineering • Testing • Materials DRAWN BY:AW Geotechnical • Pavement CHECKED BY:ABS 2426 Diamond H Lane Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments REVIEWED BY: Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Williams Engineering, Inc. (801) 556-6407 TEL.Rexburg, Idaho rocksmithllc@gmail.com www.rocksmithengineering.com NOTE: This Drawing is Provided for Illustration Only. May Not be to Scale and is Not Suitable for Design or Construction Purposes © 2023 by RockSmith Engineering, PLLC RSE 25002 1 TEST PIT LOCATION MAP FIGURE TP-3, 10' 300 ft. TP-1, 10'TP-2, 10'TP-4, 10' TP-5, 10' Mi k a n D r . TP-6, 10'TP-7, 10' TP-8, 10'TP-9, 10'TP-10, 10'TP-11, 10' TP-12, 10' TP-13, 10' TP-14, 10'TP-15, 10' TP-16, 10' TP-17, 10' TP-18, 12' GB 1 GB 2 99.0 97.0 96.0 90.0 MC = 6% Gravel with max diameter of 3-5 inches. CL- ML ML SM GW 1.0 3.0 4.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Cobbles become more prevalent with depth, accompanied by slight iron oxide staining at greater depths. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 REMARKS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 3 GB 4 99.0 97.0 96.0 90.0 Gravel with max diameter of 3-5 inches. CL- ML ML SM GW 1.0 3.0 4.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 REMARKS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 5 GB 6 99.0 96.0 90.0 Gravel with max diameter of 3-5 inches. CL- ML SM GW 1.0 4.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 REMARKS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 7 GB 8 99.0 97.0 95.5 90.0 Gravel with max diameter of 3-5 inches. CL- ML ML SM GW 1.0 3.0 4.5 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 REMARKS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 9 GB 10 99.2 97.0 96.0 90.0 Gravel with max diameter of 3-5 inches. CL- ML ML SM GW 0.8 3.0 4.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Slight iron oxide staining at greater depths. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 REMARKS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 11 GB 12 98.8 96.5 95.5 90.0 CL- ML SP- SM SM GW 1.2 3.5 4.5 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt: Medium dense, moist, light brown. Roots extend into this layer from the overlying stratum. Sand particles are uniformly sized, with fines content decreasing with depth. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines de Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 13 GB 14 99.3 98.3 96.5 90.0 CL- ML ML SM GW 0.8 1.7 3.5 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 15 GB 16 99.3 94.5 93.5 90.0 MC = 6% Fines = 44% CL- ML ML SM GW 0.8 5.5 6.5 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 TESTS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 17 GB 18 99.0 98.0 97.0 90.0 CL- ML SP- SM SM GW 1.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt: Medium dense, moist, light brown. Roots extend into this layer from the overlying stratum. Sand particles are uniformly sized, with fines content decreasing with depth. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 19 GB 20 99.0 97.0 96.0 90.0 CL- ML ML GP- GM GW 1.0 3.0 4.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay – Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan in color. Root intrusions are present, extending from the overlying layer. The material displays slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and intermittent white streaks throughout. Gravel content begins to increase with depth around 2.5 feet. (GP-GM) Silty Gravel with Sand: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-10 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 21 GB 22 99.0 98.0 97.0 96.0 90.0 MC = 12% Fines = 28% CL- ML CL ML SM GW 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (CL)Lean Clay with Sand and Silt – Medium stiff, moist, brown. Root intrusions extend from the overlying stratum. This layer contains a higher clay content compared to other test pits and exhibits a blocky, cracked structure. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown. Gravel content increases with depth, consisting of subrounded to rounded particles. Aggregates exhibit a calcareous coating on the underside. Fines content decreases with depth. (GW) Well-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-11 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 TESTS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 23 GB 24 98.5 97.5 95.5 90.0 CL- ML ML SP- SM GP 1.5 2.5 4.5 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt: Medium dense, moist, light brown. Roots extend into this layer from the overlying stratum. Sand particles are uniformly sized, with fines content decreasing with depth. (GP) Poorly-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-12 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 25 GB 26 98.7 96.0 94.0 90.0 CL- ML ML SP- SM SP 1.3 4.0 6.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, brown. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt: Medium dense, moist, light brown. Roots extend into this layer from the overlying stratum. Sand particles are uniformly sized, with fines content decreasing with depth. (SP) Poorly-Graded Sand with Gravel: Medium dense to dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Gravels are subrounded to subangular . Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 1 to 2 inches. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-13 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 27 GB 28 99.3 94.5 93.5 90.0 CL- ML ML SP- SM GP 0.8 5.5 6.5 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, slightly moist to moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt: Medium dense, moist, light brown. Roots extend into this layer from the overlying stratum. Sand particles are uniformly sized, with fines content decreasing with depth. (GP) Poorly-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 3 to 5 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-14 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 29 GB 30 99.2 97.0 90.0 CL- ML ML SP- SM 0.8 3.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, slightly moist to moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand – Medium dense, moist, light brown. Composed of uniformly sized sand particles, resembling beach sand near U.S. No. 50 sieve size. Fines content decreases with depth. No gravel encountered to the maximum depth explored. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-15 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 31 GB 32 99.2 98.0 90.0 CL- ML ML GP 0.8 2.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (GP) Poorly-Graded Sandy Gravel: Dense, slightly moist, grayish-brown. Subrounded to subangular gravel particles exhibit a slight calcareous coating. Density and gravel increases with depth, with maximum particle diameters ranging from 2 to 4 inches. Fines decrease with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-16 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 33 GB 34 99.0 94.0 90.0 CL- ML ML SP- SM 1.0 6.0 10.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML)Sandy Silt with Clay: Stiff to Very stiff, slighlty moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand – Medium dense, moist, light brown. Composed of uniformly sized sand particles, resembling beach sand near U.S. No. 50 sieve size. Fines content decreases with depth. No gravel encountered until 9 feet. Gravel content slightly increases with depth. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-17 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GB 35 GB 36 99.2 93.5 88.0 MC = 7% Fines = 50% MC = 5% Fines = 26% CL- ML ML SP- SM 0.8 6.5 12.0 (CL-ML) Topsoil: Sandy silt with clay, soft, moist, dark brown. Contains thick roots extending to depths of 18–24 inches, with a maximum diameter of 2 inches near the surface. The site is a level, plowed field with a surface cover of weeds and grass. (ML) Sandy Silt with Clay: Stiff to Very stiff, slighlty moist, tan. Roots extend into this layer from above. Exhibits slight pinholes, calcareous veins, and white streaking throughout. Sand increases with depth. Slight iron oxide stains. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand – Medium dense, moist, light brown. Composed of uniformly sized sand particles, resembling beach sand near U.S. No. 50 sieve size. Fines content decreases with depth. No gravel encountered to max depth explored. Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft 100 LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 3/22/25 COMPLETED 3/22/25 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in bottom of TP AFTER EXCAVATION --- TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 inches SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-18 CLIENT Williams Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER RSE25002 PROJECT NAME Rexburg 18 & 1.7 Acre Developments PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Ln. Rexburg, Idaho Telephone: 801-556-6407 TESTS U. S . C . S . GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. RSE25002 CLAY-SHALE SAMPLE TYPES NO INFORMATION BLANK PIPE ASPHALT IGNEOUS LIMESTONE FILL GEOPROBESAMPLER TEXAS CONEPENETROMETER DISTURBED METAMORPHIC MARL MUDROTARY NORECOVERY SPLIT BARREL SPLIT SPOONNX CORE SHELBY TUBE CALCAREOUS CLAY CLAYEY GRAVEL GRAVELLY WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PLUGGING MATERIALS SILTSTONE CALICHE CONGLOMERATE AIRROTARY GRABSAMPLE DOLOMITE BENTONITE CORE SOIL TERMS OTHER NOTE: VALUES SYMBOLIZED ON BORING LOGS REPRESENT SHEARSTRENGTHS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BASE KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS CUTTINGS SAND SANDY SILT SILTY CHALK STRENGTH TEST TYPES CEMENT GROUT GRAVEL SAND POCKET PENETROMETER TORVANE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TRIAXIAL COMPRESSIONUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSIONCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED BRICKS /PAVERS SCREEN MATERIAL TYPES VOLCLAY SANDSTONE SHALE ROCK TERMS WASTE CONCRETE/CEMENT PEAT BENTONITE &CUTTINGS CONCRETE/CEMENT CLAYSTONE ROTOSONIC-DAMAGED ROTOSONIC-INTACT PITCHER FIGURE 20aREVISED 04/2012 RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE25002 KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D) TERMINOLOGY RELATIVE DENSITY PLASTICITYCOHESIVE STRENGTH PenetrationResistanceBlows per ft Degree ofPlasticityPlasticityIndexRelativeDensityResistanceBlows per ft 0 4 10 30 - - - - > 4 10 30 50 50 Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Consistency CohesionTSF - - - - > - - - - - > Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes Total BTEX Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Not Detected Not Analyzed Not Recorded/No Recovery Organic Vapor Analyzer Parts Per Million 2 4 8 15 30 30 Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard 0 2 4 8 15 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 1.0 - - - - - > 0.125 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 0 5 10 20 5 10 20 40 40 None Low Moderate Plastic Highly Plastic = = = = = = = = = = = ABBREVIATIONS Qam, Qas, Qal Qat Qbc Qt Qao Qle Q-Tu Ewi Emi Mc EI Kknm Kpg Kau = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Kef Kbu Kdr Kft Kgt Kep Kek Kes Kew Kgr Kgru Kgrl Kh Quaternary Alluvium Low Terrace Deposits Beaumont Formation Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Seymour Formation Leona Formation Uvalde Gravel Wilcox Formation Midway Group Catahoula Formation Laredo Formation Navarro Group and MarlbrookMarl Pecan Gap Chalk Austin Chalk = = = = = = = = = = = = = Eagle Ford Shale Buda Limestone Del Rio Clay Fort Terrett Member Georgetown Formation Person Formation Kainer Formation Escondido Formation Walnut Formation Glen Rose Formation Upper Glen Rose Formation Lower Glen Rose Formation Hensell Sand B T E X BTEX TPH ND NA NR OVA ppm Terms used in this report to describe soils with regard to their consistency or conditions are in general accordance with the discussion presented in Article 45 of SOILS MECHANICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE, Terzaghi and Peck, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967, using the most reliable information available from the field and laboratory investigations. Terms used for describing soils according to their texture or grain size distribution are in accordance with the UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, as described in American Society for Testing and Materials D2487-06 and D2488-00, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics; 2005. The depths shown on the boring logs are not exact, and have been estimated to the nearest half-foot. Depth measurements may be presented in a manner that implies greater precision in depth measurement, i.e 6.71 meters. The reader should understand and interpret this information only within the stated half-foot tolerance on depth measurements. FIGURE 20bREVISED 04/2012 RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE25002 KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D) TERMINOLOGY SOIL STRUCTURE SAMPLING METHODS Having planes of weakness that appear slick and glossy. Containing shrinkage or relief cracks, often filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical. Inclusion of material of different texture that is smaller than the diameter of the sample. Inclusion less than 1/8 inch thick extending through the sample. Inclusion 1/8 inch to 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Soil sample composed of alternating partings or seams of different soil type. Soil sample composed of alternating layers of different soil type. Soil sample composed of pockets of different soil type and layered or laminated structure is not evident. Having appreciable quantities of carbonate. Having more than 50% carbonate content. Slickensided Fissured Pocket Parting Seam Layer Laminated Interlayered Intermixed Calcareous Carbonate RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLING NOTE: To avoid damage to sampling tools, driving is limited to 50 blows during or after seating interval. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) Cohesive soil samples are to be collected using three-inch thin-walled tubes in general accordance with the Standard Practicefor Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1587) and granular soil samples are to be collected using two-inch split-barrelsamplers in general accordance with the Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTMD1586). Cohesive soil samples may be extruded on-site when appropriate handling and storage techniques maintain sampleintegrity and moisture content. Description 25 blows drove sampler 12 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. 50 blows drove sampler 7 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. 50 blows drove sampler 3 inches during initial 6-inch seating interval. Blows Per Foot 25 50/7" Ref/3" FIGURE 20c A 2-in.-OD, 1-3/8-in.-ID split spoon sampler is driven 1.5 ft into undisturbed soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 in. After the sampler is seated 6 in. into undisturbed soil, the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 in. is the Standard Penetration Resistance or "N" value, which is recorded as blows per foot as described below. REVISED 04/2012 SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER DRIVING RECORD RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE25002 6 ft or more 2 to 6 ft 8 in. to 2 ft 2 in. to 8 in. 2 in. or less Flat Dipping Steeply Dipping Massive Thickly Bedded Medium Bedded Thinly Bedded 0 to 20 degrees 20 to 45 degrees 45 to 90 degrees WEATHERING Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent - - - - - - - - - - No evidence of any chemical or mechanical alteration. Slight discoloration on surface, slight alteration along discontinuities, less than 10 percent of the rock volume altered. Discoloring evident, surface pitted and altered with alteration penetrating well below rock surfaces, weathering "halos" evident, 10 to 50 percent of the rock altered. Entire mass discolored, alteracation pervading nearly all of the rock with some pockets of slightly weathered rock noticeable, some minerals leached away. Rock reduced to a soil with relicit rock texture, generally molded and crumbled by hand. Fresh Slightly Weathered Moderately Weathered Highly Weathered Decomposed Very soft Soft Moderately hard Hard Very hard Can be deformed by hand. Can be scratched with a fingernail. Can be scratched easily with a knife. Can be scratched with difficulty with a knife. Cannot be scratched with a knife. ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION < < < < < 25 50 75 90 25 50 75 90 100 HARDNESS From United States Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-1-2908 Rock Foundations, November 1994 ROCK TYPE "Rock type refers to the general geologic classification of the rock (e.g. basalt, sandstone, limestone, etc.). Certain physical characteristics are ascribed to a particular rock type with a geological name given according to the rocks mode of origin. Although the rock type is used primarily for identification and correlation, the type is often an important preliminary indication of rock mass behavior." Texture Coarse Grained Medium Grained Fine Grained Aphanite Sedimentary Particle Name Cobble Gravel - Sand - Clay, Silt Rock Name Conglomerate - - Sandstone - Shale, Claystone Siltstone 80 5 - 80 2 - 5 0.4 - 2 0.1 - 0.4 0.1 DISCONTINUITIES Describe the type of joint (i.e. bedding, cleavage, foliation, schistocity, or extension), the degree of weathering, joint wall separations (filled or clean), roughness, and any infilling (source, type, and thickness). ROCK TERMINOLOGY KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D) Grain Diameter mm mm mm mm mm mm TEXTURE Igneous and Metamorphic Grain Diameter 5 1 - 5 0.1 - 1 0.1 mm mm mm mm Texture * * Coarse Grained Medium Grained Fine Grained Very Fine Grained 3-ft thick or greater beds from 1- to 3-ft thick beds from 4 in. to 1-ft thick 4-in. thick or less Unfractured Slightly Fractured Moderately Fractured Highly Fractured Intensely Fractured - - - - - - - - - - - - ROCK STRUCTURE FIGURE 20dREVISED 04/2012 RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE25002 18-Acre Commercial Williams Engineering Rexburg, Idaho 2426 Diamond H. Lane Rexburg, Idaho 83440(801) 556-6407 Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X ( P I ) "A-li ne" "U-l i n e " 160 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 4 7 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Cu > 4 and 3E > Cc > 1 Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH Cu > 6 and 3E > Cc > 1 Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried Highly organic soils Coarse Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Gravels More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor < 0.75 < 0.75 GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC CL ML CH MH PT OL OH Well-graded gravelF Poorly graded gravelF Silty gravelF,G, H Clayey gravelF,G,H Well-graded sandI Poorly graded sandI Silty sandG,H,I Clayey sandG,H,I Lean clayK,L,M SiltK,L,M Organic clayK,L,M,N Organic siltK,L,M,O Fat clayK,L,M Elastic SiltK,L,M Organic clayK,L,M,P Organic siltK,L,M,Q Peat UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Clean Gravels Less than 5% finesC Gravels with Fines More than 12% finesC Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD Sands with Fines More than 12% finesD Inorganic Organic Inorganic Organic Group Symbol Group Name B Soil Classification Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more HIf fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. IIf soil contains > 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. JIf Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel," whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains > 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. MIf soil contains > 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPI > 4 and plots on or above "A" line. OPI < 4 or plots below "A" line. PPI plots on or above "A" line. QPI plots below "A" line. ABased on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay ECu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) FIf soil contains > 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. FIGURE 6e MH or OH For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils Equation of "A" - line Horizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5 then PI = 0.73(LL-20) Equation of "U" - line Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7 then PI=0.9(LL-8) ML or OLCL-ML CL o r O L CH o r O H RockSmith Engineering 245 N 1st E Rexburg, ID 83440 75 SIZE PASSING 50 Low High 38.1 3"100%25.4 2"100%19.1 1 1/2"100%12.7 1"100%9.5 3/4"100%4.75 1/2"100%2.36 3/8"100%1.18 No. 4 100%0.6 No. 8 100%0.3 No. 16 98%0.15 No. 30 91%0.075 No. 50 80% No. 100 68% No. 200 50.1% Reviewed By: Luke Hammar Lab Manager Sieve Analysis Sample Received: Project Name: 6.7% ASTM C136 SPECIFICATION ASTM D2216 Lab #: Native Soil 25034 Rexburg Commercial RockSmith Moisture Content As Received 206 March 25, 2025 March 21, 2025 TP-18 @ 3' Project #: Report Date Material Description: Sample Location: Client: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g Sieve Size (mm) 245 N 1st E Rexburg, ID 83440 75 SIZE PASSING 50 Low High 38.1 3"100%25.4 2"100%19.1 1 1/2"100%12.7 1"100%9.5 3/4"100%4.75 1/2"100%2.36 3/8"100%1.18 No. 4 100%0.6 No. 8 100%0.3 No. 16 100%0.15 No. 30 99%0.075 No. 50 88% No. 100 53% No. 200 26.0% Reviewed By: Luke Hammar Lab Manager TP-18 @ 7' Project #: Report Date Material Description: Sample Location: Client: Lab #: Native Soil 25034 Rexburg Commercial RockSmith Moisture Content As Received 207 March 25, 2025 March 21, 2025 Sieve Analysis Sample Received: Project Name: 5.1% ASTM C136 SPECIFICATION ASTM D2216 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g Sieve Size (mm) 245 N 1st E Rexburg, ID 83440 75 SIZE PASSING 50 Low High 38.1 3"100%25.4 2"100%19.1 1 1/2"100%12.7 1"100%9.5 3/4"100%4.75 1/2"100%2.36 3/8"100%1.18 No. 4 99%0.6 No. 8 97%0.3 No. 16 86%0.15 No. 30 70%0.075 No. 50 48% No. 100 35% No. 200 28.3% Reviewed By: Luke Hammar Lab Manager TP-11 @ 2' Project #: Report Date Material Description: Sample Location: Client: Lab #: Native Soil 25034 Rexburg Commercial RockSmith Moisture Content As Received 208 March 25, 2025 March 21, 2025 Sieve Analysis Sample Received: Project Name: 12.4% ASTM C136 SPECIFICATION ASTM D2216 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g Sieve Size (mm) 245 N 1st E Rexburg, ID 83440 75 SIZE PASSING 50 Low High 38.1 3"100%25.4 2"100%19.1 1 1/2"100%12.7 1"100%9.5 3/4"100%4.75 1/2"100%2.36 3/8"100%1.18 No. 4 100%0.6 No. 8 100%0.3 No. 16 99%0.15 No. 30 93%0.075 No. 50 85% No. 100 71% No. 200 43.8% Reviewed By: Luke Hammar Lab Manager Sieve Analysis Sample Received: Project Name: 6.1% ASTM C136 SPECIFICATION ASTM D2216 Lab #: Native Soil 25034 Rexburg Commercial RockSmith Moisture Content As Received 209 March 25, 2025 March 21, 2025 TP-8 @ 3' Project #: Report Date Material Description: Sample Location: Client: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g Sieve Size (mm) USGS web services were down for some period of time and as a result this tool wasn't operational, resulting in timeout error. USGS web services are now operational so this tool should work as expected. Latitude, Longitude: 43.80511167, -111.80517991 Date 3/26/2025, 11:53:20 AM Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16 Risk Category II Site Class D - Default (See Section 11.4.3) Type Value Description SS 0.364 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.142 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 0.549 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 0.328 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 0.366 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 0.219 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC D Seismic design category Fa 1.509 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fv 2.317 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.155 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.49 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.231 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 6 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 0.364 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 0.387 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.142 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.149 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) PGAUH 0.155 Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 0.941 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods 3/26/25, 11:53 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org 1/3 Type Value Description CR1 0.952 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s CV 0.943 Vertical coefficient 3/26/25, 11:53 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org 2/3 Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of 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 engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — 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 Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's 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 the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: •not prepared for you, •not prepared for your project, •not prepared for the specific site explored, or •completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: •the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, •elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, •composition of the design team, or •project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—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. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing 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 fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers 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—sometimes significantly— from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report.Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual Important Information About Your Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. Geotechnical Engineering Report The following information is provided to help you manage your risks. subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize 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 con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely.Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures.If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M Appendix B - Percolation Test Report from Allied Consulting Services, date 3/16/2026 245 N 1st E Rexburg, ID 83440 208.932.4428 March 16, 2026 Don Zebe Eastern Idaho Associate, Partner Colliers Portneuf Valley, LLC 2043 E Center Street Suite 100 Pocatello, ID 83201 RE: University Towne Center Percolation Test Mr. Zebe: On March 12, 2026, Allied Consulting Services traveled to the project location (Parcel No. RPR6N39E361200), located off Yellowstone Highway in Rexburg, Idaho, to conduct a subsurface investigation for percolation testing. Three test locations were established on the property. At each location, an auger drilling assembly was used to auger a 6-inch diameter hole to +/- 5 feet below ground surface (BGS). After saturation, the test holes were refilled, and percolation rates were measured and recorded. The findings are summarized below along with a site map showing the test locations. Test Hole # Perc Rate (MPI) Soil Type 1 2.76 Silty Sand (SM) 2 2.54 Silty Sand (SM) 3 2.58 Gravel w/ Silt & Sand (GM) Site Average 2.63 Sincerely, Jacob Christensen Jason Woodhouse, PE CEO Staff Engineer jacob@alliedconsutling.services jason@alliedconsulting.services 208.970.6237 661.476.2166