technical memorandum spokane tran manager dick …

Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Engineering

Construction Materials Testing Subsurface Exploration

Special Inspection Proudly serving the Inland Northwest for over 40 years

1101 North Fancher Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99212

Tel: 509.535.8841 Fax: 509.535.9589

www.budingerinc.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Spokane Transit - Steve Blaska, Chief Operations Officer and Jessica Charlton, Capital Projects Manager From: Dick Christensen, PE, PhD and John Finnegan, PE Date: August 27, 2020 Project: STA Bus Barn, Spokane, WA – Task Order 15, Amendment No. 1 Subject: Shoring Design Geotechnical Evaluation

Introduction

Four underground storage tanks (UST) require replacement inside the STA Bus Barn. The proximity to existing structures will require shoring. The maximum excavation depth is on the order of 14 feet. A geotechnical evaluation is necessary to characterize the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations to assist in design.

Encountered Conditions

Three borings were drilled at the locations shown on the Site Plan. Two layers of fill were found beneath the floor slab. Gravel with clay and sand was encountered to depths of 4.5 to 6.5 feet, followed by 2.5 to 7.5 feet of medium to fine sand with silt. The relative density throughout the fill was generally very loose to loose although dense conditions were observed in the upper 5 feet of boring 03 (B-03). The fill is underlain by native gravel containing varying amounts of sand and cobbles. Boulders were not observed in the explorations but should be anticipated to be encountered during excavations given the nature of the gravel formation. The relative density of the gravel is conservatively estimated as medium-dense.1

Descriptions of the field and laboratory evaluations follow the conclusions and recommendations.

Conclusions

The existing fill is unsuitable for support of the tanks. We anticipate that the hold-down slab lies immediately below the fill. If not, the remaining fill should be removed. Excavations to remove the existing tanks and placing the new ones should extend down to the hold-down slab. The presence of the hold-down slab will prevent shoring elements from extending below the top of that slab. These circumstances favor the use of a “slide rail”2 shoring system, an example of which is shown in the following page.

1 The Standard Penetration Tests in the native soil are likely elevated due the coarse particle size. 2 The Slide Rail system is a modular component system that is used in place of driven tight sheeting or build-in place timber shoring systems. 

S19258 STA Bus Barn UST Closure Technical Memorandum

Budinger & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection 2 of 4

Recommendations

We recommend that the slide rail shoring system be used to advance the excavation. The rails and posts should be advanced carefully ahead of the excavation in order to avoid loss of ground that could result in damage to nearby facilities. The soils that will be encountered by the slide rail system will be very loose to loose gravel and sand. The soil parameters related to lateral earth pressures are,

Angle of internal friction, ϕ = 30° Unit weight, γ = 120 pcf

The installation of the slide rail system creates a lateral pressure condition of at-rest.3 The coefficient of at-rest pressure for these soils is 0.5. The lateral earth pressure for use in design is,

P = 60·Z Z = depth in feet

After the tanks are set in place, the posts and rails should be removed gradually, while backfilling and compacting between the tanks and slide rails. The excavated soils are suitable for reuse as backfill. Compaction should be done with hand-operated equipment, with care taken to not damage the tanks.

Seismic Considerations

The recommended seismic site class designation is Site Class D, “stiff soil.” Spectral response acceleration parameters, adjusted for Site Class D, were calculated using USGS, U.S. Seismic Design Web Services through the Applied Technology Council website (ATC, 2019). The values of predicted earthquake ground motion for short period structural elements (0.2 second spectral response acceleration, Ss) and for long period structural elements (1.0 second spectral response acceleration, S1) are provided in the table below. The design parameters (SDS and SD1) are equal to ⅔ of the maximum earthquake spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1). Peak ground acceleration equals 0.143g. Due to the very coarse-grained nature of the native gravel formation, and the relatively deep depth at which groundwater is anticipated to begin, the estimated liquefaction potential is considered to be very low.

3 The at-rest condition implies no movement of the structure retaining the soil.



Table 1. Seismic Design Parameters Site

Class Latitude Longitude Ss S1 SDS SD1

D 47.67 N -117.43 W 0.332g 0.115g 0.340g 0.179g

Field Evaluation

Test Borings

Borings were advanced with a Geoprobe 7822DT track-mounted air rotary drill with 4.5 inch-O.D. overburden air rotary system at the proposed locations in accordance with the Exploration and Site Plan.

Soil Samples

Samples collected during boring operations were obtained by driving split-spoon samplers through the drill casing. Standard Penetration Tests - ASTM D 1586. To obtain samples of soil, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted by driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler with a 140-pound hammer actuated by a Mobile automatic hammer to provide a test of penetration resistance. The resulting blow count for each foot of sampler advancement, representing uncorrected N-values, is presented on the Boring Logs. The energy ratio (ER) is much higher with the automatic hammer compared to the reference cathead/rope system. 3-inch split spoon-samples (3”SS) - ASTM D 3550. Split-spoon samples were obtained with a 3.0-inch outside by 2.4-inch inside diameter split-spoon barrel sample similar to the 2-inch Standard Penetration Test sampler (SPT). Blow counts with the 3”SS do not represent N-values since the end area of the 3-inch sampler is approximately twice that of the standard sampler. Uncorrected N-values can be approximated by multiplying the observed blow counts (in blows per foot) by 0.46 for the 3-inch split-spoon.

Soil and Rock Classification

Field descriptions of soils and rock were completed in accordance with the current version of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM), M 46-03, except that fines (silt and clay) were described in accordance with ASTM D 2487. Whereas, the GDM uses the terms ‘silty’ and ‘clayey’ to describe a very broad range of fines from 10 to 49 percent; ASTM D 2487 uses those terms for percentages greater than 12 and the term ‘with’ for fines ranging from 5 to 12 percent, which is typically necessary to describe variations relevant to soil permeability per the SRSM. A key to the descriptions is provided in Guide to Soil and Rock Descriptions.

Location

Horizontal & vertical control. The Site Plan was reproduced from a preliminary plan provided by the client and is based on measured offsets from existing site features at the time of exploration. Horizontal and vertical locations can be considered accurate to within 5-foot and 1-foot, respectively, relative to the information provided.



Laboratory Analysis

Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the soils encountered to provide data used in our assessment of soil characteristics. Tests were conducted, where practical, in accordance with nationally recognized standards (ASTM, AASHTO, etc.), which are intended to model in-situ soil conditions and behavior. The results are presented in Figures.

Index Parameters

Moisture content – ASTM D2216. Moisture contents were determined by direct weight proportion (weight of water/weight of dry soil) determined by drying soil samples in an oven until reaching constant weight.

Gradation – ASTM D6913. Gradation analysis was performed by the mechanical sieve method. The mechanical sieve method is utilized to determine particle size distribution based upon the dry weight of sample passing through sieves of varying mesh sizes. The results of gradation are provided in Grain Size Distribution Results.

Atterberg Limits – ASTM D4318. Atterberg limits describe the properties of a soil’s fine-grained constituents by relating the water content to the soil’s limits of engineering behavior. As the water content increases, the state of the soil changes from a brittle solid to a plastic solid and then to a viscous liquid. The liquid limit (LL) is the water content above which the soil tends to behave as a viscous liquid. Similarly, the plastic limit (PL) is defined as the water content below which the soil tends to behave as a brittle solid. The plasticity index describes the range of water content over which a soil is plastic and is derived by subtracting the PL from the LL. The soil is classified as “non-plastic” if rolling a 1/8-inch bead is not possible at any water content. Attachments

1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Guide to Soil & Rock Descriptions 4. Test Boring Logs 5. Laboratory Summary 6. Grain Size Distribution Results 7. Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report

T 25 N R 43 ESECTION 18 Budinger

& Associates

FIGURE 1PROJECT NUMBER S19258

DATE: 08/2020

VICINITY MAPSTA BUS BARN UST REMOVAL

NSPOKANE, WASHINGTON

SCALE: 1"=2000'200010000 USGS 2017

SITE

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AREA

BUS BARN MAIN PARKING AREA

Budinger& Associates

FIGURE 2PROJECT NUMBER S19258

DATE: 08/2020

SITE PLANSTA BUS BARN UST REMOVAL

NSPOKANE, WASHINGTON

SCALE: 1"=40'40200

B-01B-02B-03TANK 1 TANK 2 TANK 3 TANK 4

W. B

OO

NE

AVE

W. G

ARD

NER

AVE

9" Concrete slab

GRAVEL with Clay and Sand, fine, subangularto subrounded (FILL)

increasing fines percentages beginning at 3feet

SAND with Silt and Cobbles, medium to fine(FILL)

GRAVEL with Sand, Cobbles and Boulders,coarse to fine, subangular to subrounded(NATIVE)

Cobble at 20 ft

End of Boring @ 26 ft

slightly moist, gray,loose to medium dense

moist

moist, moderate brown,loose

moist, gray, dense tovery dense

no free groundwaterobserved

R

9

9

9

48

75

42

(60%)

(30%)

(80%)

(0%)

(50%)

(70%)

(60%)

(22-34/4")

(6-4-5)

(13-7-13)

(7-5-4)

(13-20-28)

(18-54-21)

(10-13-29)

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

Type of Drill:

ATTERBERG LIMITS

APPROX. SPT N-VALUE USING 3" SAMPLER

DE

PT

H LLPLWATER CONTENT

8-10-20Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Geoprobe 7822DT Drill, Automatic SPT HammerSouth end of location #5, near tank 4, 22 ft east of interior wallconcrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:

STANDARD PEN TEST, N-VALUE (OBSERVED)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LES

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:

FIGURE 4-1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Project: STA BUS BARN UST CLOSURE

Location: SPOKANE, WA

Number: S19258

TEST BORING 01

1900 ftT. Lewisair rotary overburdensystem, 4.5 in O.D. casing

RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")

LO

GS

WIT

HO

UT

WE

LL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

19

25

8 S

TA

BU

S B

AR

N.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/19

/20

+100

9" Concrete slab

GRAVEL with Clay, Sand and Cobbles, fine,subangular to subrounded (FILL)

SAND with Silt, medium to fine (FILL)

GRAVEL with Sand, Cobbles and Boulders,coarse to fine, subangular to subrounded(NATIVE)

increasing coarse Gravel content beginning at20 feet


slightly moist, gray,loose to medium dense

moist, moderate brown,very loose to loose

moist, gray, mediumdense

very dense

dense


14

7

5

3

19

62

35

(40%)

(10%)

(0%)

(60%)

(70%)

(80%)

(90%)

(15-15-21-16)

(7-3-4)

(5-4-6)

(1-2-1)

(18-23-19)

(15-29-33)

(24-36-41)

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

Type of Drill:

ATTERBERG LIMITS


DE

PT

H LLPLWATER CONTENT

8-10-20Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Geoprobe 7822DT Drill, Automatic SPT HammerMiddle of location #5, between tanks 2 & 3, 22 ft east of interior wallconcrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LES

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:

FIGURE 4-2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30



Number: S19258

TEST BORING 02


RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")

LO

GS

WIT

HO

UT

WE

LL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

19

25

8 S

TA

BU

S B

AR

N.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/19

/20

9" Concrete slab

GRAVEL with Clay and Sand, fine, subangularto subrounded (FILL)

SAND with Silt, medium to fine (FILL)

GRAVEL with Sand and Cobbles, coarse tofine, subangular to subrounded (NATIVE)

Cobble at 10 ft

increasing Sand content

Cobble at 20.5 ft

Increase in coarse Gravel


moist, gray, mediumdense to dense

moist, moderate brown,medium dense

moist, gray, dense

medium dense

dense


28

39

14

30

14

43

(90%)

(30%)

(70%)

(30%)

(80%)

(70%)

(24-30-31-23)

(11-23-16)

(25-13-17)

(24-67-15)

(12-13-18)

(30-25-18)

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

Type of Drill:

ATTERBERG LIMITS


DE

PT

H LLPLWATER CONTENT

8-10-20Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Geoprobe 7822DT Drill, Automatic SPT HammerNorth end of location #5, near tank 1, 21 ft east of interior wallconcrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LES

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:

FIGURE 4-3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30



Number: S19258

TEST BORING 03


RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")

LO

GS

WIT

HO

UT

WE

LL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

19

25

8 S

TA

BU

S B

AR

N.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/19

/20

S19258 STA Bus Barn UST Closure - Laboratory Summary

Units Test MethodsLABORATORY NUMBER 20-5299 20-5300 20-5301BORING NUMBER B-01 B-02 B-03DEPTH TOP feet 5 9 1/2 14 1/2

BOTTOM feet 6 1/2 11 16MOISTURE CONTENT % ASTM D2216 14.7 3.7 6.2LIQUID LIMIT % ASTM D4318 31PLASTIC LIMIT % 21PLASTICITY INDEX % 10 NP*UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION ASTM D2487 GP-GC SP-SM GWSIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D6913

3" 100 100S 1 1/2" % 98 96I 1" 93 94E 3/4" P 88 100 88V 1/2" A 77 96 76E 3/8" S 70 95 67

#4 S 48 95 38S #10 I 29 94 18I #16 N 24 92 13Z #30 G 20 63 8E #40 18 37 6

#100 14 10 4#200 11 6.4 3.5

NP* Non Plastic

SOIL MECHANICS

LABORATORY SUMMARY

Budinger & Associates, Inc.Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

Figure 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

%GravelD10

4 60

fine

D30

16

0.15

0.786

10 20

coarse fine coarse medium

6 146 8 100 1403 2 2001 3/4 1/23/8

%Sand %Silt %ClayD100 D60

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

PI Cc

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

4

76.2

19

76.2

5.0

9.5

14.5

Cu

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

10

NP

21

NP

31

NP

11.0

6.4

3.5

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND(GP-GC)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM)

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL with SAND(GW)

5.0

9.5

14.5

30 40 501.5

LL PL

117.01

3.84

10.25

52.2

5.0

62.1

10.58

1.22

1.81

Classification

3

36.8

88.6

34.3

6.966

0.577

8.057

2.094

0.324

3.382

1

2

3

1

2

3



Number: S19258

US

_GR

AIN

_SIZ

E S

1925

8 S

TA

BU

S B

AR

N.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8/1

8/20

Figure 6

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — 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 this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full ReportSerious 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.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors 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 otherwise, 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;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weightof the proposed structure;

• the 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 ChangeA geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this 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 OpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers 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 geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to MisinterpretationOther design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront 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 pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s LogsGeotechnical 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 Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors 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 constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors 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 CloselySome clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. 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’ responsibilities 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.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental 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 environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoldDiverse 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 comprehensive 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, many 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 performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. 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 GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional AssistanceMembership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017

e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document

is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document 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 a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

technical memorandum spokane tran manager dick …

Documents