HomeMy WebLinkAbout015 - Geotech Report - 2025_10-09_LM Bozeman_Feasibility Study
PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN
PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com
LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
October 2025
Prepared By:
1283 North 14th Avenue, Suite 101
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Prepared For:
233 East Main Street, Suite 300
Bozeman, Montana 59715
PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN
PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN
LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Prepared for:
233 East Main Street, Suite 300
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Prepared by:
1283 North 14th Avenue, Suite 101
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Principal Authors: Nicholas Couch, P.E. & Derek Duncan, CPG
Reviewed By: David Barrick, P.E.
October 2025
5063.28072.01
\\dowl.com\j\projects\63\28072-01\91geo\report\projectursisgeoreport.docx
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. I
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Location and Description ............................................................................ 1
1.2.1 Existing Site Conditions .............................................................................. 1
1.2.2 Proposed Construction ............................................................................... 2
2.0 INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Field Investigation .................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................. 8
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 8
3.1 Site Geology........................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Observed Soil Conditions ..................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Topsoil ...................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Lean Clay ................................................................................................. 11
3.2.3 Alluvium .................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 11
3.3.1 Groundwater Information Center Research............................................... 12
3.4 Seismicity ............................................................................................................. 12
3.4.1 Faulting ..................................................................................................... 12
3.4.2 Design Accelerations ................................................................................ 12
3.4.3 Liquefaction .............................................................................................. 13
4.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 13
4.1 Foundations ......................................................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Conventional Spread Footings .................................................................. 13
4.2 Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................................ 15
4.2.1 Seismic Earth Pressure ............................................................................ 15
4.2.2 Coefficient of Friction ................................................................................ 16
4.3 Slabs-on-Grade .................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 Interior Slabs ............................................................................................ 16
4.3.2 Exterior Slabs ........................................................................................... 16
4.4 Drainage .............................................................................................................. 17
4.4.1 Surface Drainage ...................................................................................... 17
4.4.2 Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................ 18
4.5 Pavement Design ................................................................................................. 18
4.5.1 Traffic ....................................................................................................... 18
4.5.2 Design Parameters ................................................................................... 19
4.5.3 Flexible Pavement .................................................................................... 19
4.5.4 Rigid Pavement ........................................................................................ 20
4.5.5 Construction Considerations ..................................................................... 20
4.5.6 Maintenance ............................................................................................. 21
4.6 Earthwork ............................................................................................................. 21
4.6.1 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................... 21
4.6.2 Excavation ................................................................................................ 22
4.6.3 Dewatering ............................................................................................... 22
4.6.4 Temporary Slopes .................................................................................... 22
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page ii
4.6.5 Structural Fill ............................................................................................. 23
4.6.6 Compaction Requirements ....................................................................... 23
4.6.7 Testing and Observations ......................................................................... 24
4.6.8 Earthwork Volume Criteria ........................................................................ 24
4.6.9 Cold Weather Construction ....................................................................... 25
4.6.10 Wet Weather/Soil Construction ................................................................. 25
4.6.11 Geosynthetics ........................................................................................... 25
4.7 Soil Chemistry and Corrosion ............................................................................... 26
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONTINUITY ......................................................... 26
6.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 27
7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 28
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1: Google Earth Image of Site – View Northeast ..................................................... 2
Photograph 2: Preparing to Drill Geotechnical Borehole B-7 – View West ................................. 2
FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity and Location Map ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Borehole Location Map ............................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Surficial Geology Map ............................................................................................... 10
TABLES
Table 1: Exploration Summary ................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Laboratory Tests .......................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Groundwater Depths .................................................................................................. 12
Table 4: Documented Faults .................................................................................................... 12
Table 5: Seismic Design Parameters ....................................................................................... 13
Table 6: Foundation Design Parameters .................................................................................. 14
Table 7: Lateral Earth Pressures .............................................................................................. 15
Table 8: Floor Slab Recommendations .................................................................................... 16
Table 9: Traffic Loading ........................................................................................................... 19
Table 10: Pavement Design Parameters .................................................................................. 19
Table 11: Recommended Asphalt (Flexible) Pavement Section ............................................... 20
Table 12: Recommended Concrete (Rigid) Pavement Section ................................................. 20
Table 13: Fill Specifications...................................................................................................... 23
Table 14: Compaction Specifications ....................................................................................... 24
Table 15: Minimum Geogrid Properties .................................................................................... 26
Table 16: Soil Chemistry Test Results...................................................................................... 26
APPENDICES
Appendix A Exploration Logs
Appendix B Photograph Log
Appendix C Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D Calculations
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DOWL prepared this preliminary geotechnical report for the LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
project. This report should be revisited during the final design phase to confirm that our
recommendations remain applicable to the project's ultimate design. The proposed industrial
building is planned to be a 250-by-250-foot, single-story structure. As part of the design, a portion
of the structure is planned to include a basement for a below-grade pit, which will house
mechanical equipment. Site development will most likely include exterior concrete flat work and
asphalt pavement for the parking lots and access roads. This report addresses the
recommendations for support using conventional spread footing foundations and slab-on-grade
construction. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be
developed for the proposed project. We identified the following geotechnical considerations:
• Subsurface conditions consist of 3.0 to 5.0 feet lean clay underlain by alluvium deposits.
The alluvium primarily consists of gravels to a depth of approximately 29.0 feet and
transitions to sand and clay soils with varying sand and gravel content. Similar materials
extend to depths of at least 40.5 feet, the maximum depth investigated.
• Groundwater was observed at depths of 6.0 to 10.0 feet below existing site grades.
Considering the possibility of groundwater fluctuations, the need for dewatering foundation
excavations should be anticipated during construction.
• The project site is suitable for the use of a conventional spread footing foundation system.
However, laboratory testing indicates the surficial lean clay soil is moderately
compressible, which poses a risk of settlement to the planned structure.
o We recommend conventional spread footings be supported on native gravels or
properly compacted structural fill extending to native gravels.
o Interior slabs-on-grade (≤ 250 psf, dead plus live) may be supported over the lean
clay soil. A reinforcing geotextile and a 9-inch-thick layer of properly compacted
granular material should be included beneath the slabs.
• Due to the shallow groundwater table, a basement configuration will require waterproofing
of foundation elements and including drain and continuous pump system to mitigate
groundwater.
• The lean clay soil is suitable for remaining beneath the planned parking lots and
associated access drives.
• The on-site native gravel deposits may be used in structural applications, provided they
are processed to meet the material requirements outlined in Section 4.6.5.
• Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in
achieving the design subgrade support. Therefore, we recommend that a geotechnical
engineer's representative be retained to monitor this portion of the work.
This section is only a summary. Recognize that we do not provide details in this section, read the
report in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
DOWL completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed LM Project Ursis Site Due
Diligence (Bozeman Industrial Building) project in Bozeman, Montana. The scope of geotechnical
services consisted of reviewing existing geotechnical and geological information, field
observations, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparing this
Geotechnical Report. The purpose of these services is to provide geotechnical-related
recommendations for project planning and design. We conducted this referencing our proposal to
JBW Consulting Engineers dated May 21, 2025.
Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the initial site visit, drilling 13
borings to depths ranging from approximately 6.5 to 40.5 feet below existing site grades, lab
testing for soil engineering properties, and engineering analyses to provide foundation, slab-on-
grade, pavement design, and construction recommendations.
1.2 Project Location and Description
The project is located northeast of the intersection of Royal Wolf Way and Prince Lane in
Bozeman, Montana. The parcel of land is legally described as being in Section 22, Township 1
South, Range 5 East in Gallatin County. Figure 1 illustrates the vicinity and location map of the
project area. Photograph 1 is from Google Earth’s June 2024 imagery, which shows the overall
site, and Photograph 2 shows the drilling contractor preparing to drill geotechnical borehole B-7
during the August 5, 2025, investigation.
1.2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The project site is located on two undeveloped lots, legally described as Block 5, Lots 2 and 3 of
the Nelson Meadows Subdivision. Based on background information and site observations, the
site slopes down toward the north at a slope of approximately one percent. The topography is
best described as nearly level.
Based on the City of Bozeman Geographic Information System (GIS), all water, sewer, and
stormwater systems run in Prince Lane and Royal Wolf Way. However, the mapping indicates
water gate valves exist near the site boundary at the southwest corner and on the west side of
the site near Royal Wolf Way. The water system also includes two fire hydrants located on the
south edge of the property adjacent to Prince Lane. The mapping also indicates a stormwater
pipe that exists near the northern edge of the property, which conveys stormwater from the
roadways to the stormwater detention basin located in the northeast corner. Based on Google
Earth imagery and site observations, other utilities (gas, fiber optic, electricity, etc.) exist within
the area's right-of-way.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 2
Photograph 1: Google Earth Image of Site – View Northeast
Photograph 2: Preparing to Drill Geotechnical Borehole B-7 – View West
1.2.2 Proposed Construction
Based on preliminary drawings, the proposed project consists of a 250 by 250-foot industrial
structure that we anticipate will be supported using conventional shallow foundations
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 3
incorporating slab-on-grade construction. Structural loads had not been developed at the time of
this report. However, for the purpose of our analysis, we have assumed that wall loads will be
less than 4,500 pounds per lineal foot and column loads, if any, will be less than 150 kips.
Site development will most likely include landscaping, exterior concrete flatwork, and asphalt
pavement for parking lots and access roads. If the assumed design values presented above vary
from the actual project parameters, the recommendations presented in this report should be
reevaluated.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
406-586-8834 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1
BOZEMAN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING - BOZEMAN, MONTANA
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
HAVRE
GLASGOW
SIDNEY
GLENDIVE
MILES CITY
HARDIN
BILLINGS
BOZEMAN
DILLON
BUTTE
HELENA
MISSOULA
KALISPELL
LEWISTOWN
GREAT FALLS
SHELBY
DEER LODGE
PROJECT SITE LOCATION
LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE
BOZEMAN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 5
2.0 INVESTIGATION
2.1 Field Investigation
DOWL performed fieldwork in two mobilizations in August of 2025, which consisted of site
observations and drilling 13 geotechnical borings. We present the boring locations in Figure 2.
Boland Drilling advanced the borings to depths ranging from 6.5 to 40.5 feet below the existing
ground surface. During the topographic survey, DOWL surveyed the boring locations relative to
the B-LDP NAVD88 datum.
Table 1: Exploration Summary
Borehole
Number
Drill Depth
(feet)
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Northing
(feet)
Easting
(feet) Location
B-1 6.5 4,590.4 369,594.4 139,446.1 Proposed Parking Lot
B-2 6.5 4,588.2 369,789.1 139,536.0 Proposed Parking Lot
B-3 6.5 4,592.8 369,610.5 139,236.7 Proposed Parking Lot
B-4 6.5 4,587.2 370,029.0 139,372.3 Proposed Parking Lot
B-5 6.5 4,592.9 369,983.5 139,128.0 Proposed Parking Lot
B-6 22.0 4,589.9 369,843.1 139,418.9 Proposed Building
B-7 14.0 4,590.2 369,715.7 139,296.4 Proposed Building
B-8A 25.0 4,592.3 369,843.7 139,167.6 Proposed Building
B-8B 21.4 4,589.2 369,957.7 139,291.8 Proposed Building
B-9 31.5 4,589.7 369,956.4 139,418.5 Proposed Building
B-10 40.5 4,591.0 369,845.9 139,291.0 Proposed Building
B-11 31.5 4,588.9 369,722.4 139,420.2 Proposed Building
B-12 30.5 4,591.4 369,715.2 139,177.2 Proposed Building
Boland Drilling drilled the borings under the direction of a DOWL geotechnical engineer using
Mobile B-61 truck-mounted, equipped with 8-inch O.D. hollow stem augers, and a CME 45 track-
mounted drill rig equipped with an 8-inch air hammer system. We conducted our field exploration
referencing the following ASTM standards:
• ASTM D6151 Standard Practice for Using Hollow-Stem Augers for Geotechnical
Exploration and Soil Sampling,
• ASTM D1586 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils, and
• ASTM D1587 Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils.
We performed Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling using an automatic hammer for the
truck-mounted rig and rope and cathead for the track-mounted rig, which are recorded on the
boring logs. We have not corrected SPT values on the logs for hammer efficiency, sampler type,
overburden stress, etc. The resistance, or N-value, can be used to estimate the relative density
of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. We provide the field N-value or
resistance data on the exploration logs.
In Appendix A, we provide exploration logs that include soil and groundwater conditions and SPT
information. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of
changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual and may vary. In
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 6
Appendix B, we present photographs of the site conditions and of the following samples obtained
during drilling.
We based the soil descriptions shown on the boring logs on field and laboratory testing
referencing ASTM Standards D2487 or D2488. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual
borehole logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions
may be more gradual or abrupt. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are only for the
specific dates and locations reported and may not necessarily represent other locations and
times.
B-6
B-3
B-1
B-4
B-5
B-2
B-7
B-8a
B-8b
B-9
B-10
B-12
B-11
406-586-8834
1283 North 14th Avenue, #101
Bozeman, Montana 59715
WWW.DOWL.COM
FIGURE 2ROYAL WOLF WAYPRINCE LANE
B-1
LEGEND
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
BOREHOLE LOCATION MAP
LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE
BOZEMAN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 8
2.2 Laboratory Testing
We transported samples to DOWL's laboratory for testing. We selected representative field
samples for laboratory testing after visually examining the soil and considering the design criteria.
DOWL performed tests for index and engineering soil properties in Billings, Montana. Energy
Labs, of Billings, Montana, completed corrosion testing of select soil samples. Laboratory testing
included:
Table 2: Laboratory Tests
Test Purpose
Natural Moisture Content
ASTM D 2216
Provides a measure of natural (in-situ) water
content.
Atterberg Limits
ASTM D 4318
Provides an indicator of the plasticity and
mineralogy composition of fine-grained soils.
Particle-Size Distribution
ASTM D 421
Provides a measure of grain sizes of the soils
for classification and identification of physical
characteristics.
Moisture-Density Relationship
(Standard Proctor)
ASTM D 698
Provides a measure of the relationship of water
content to the density of soil during compaction.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM D 1883
To determine the strength and stability of
subgrade soil and base course.
Standard Test Method for One-
Dimensional Consolidation
ASTM D2435
Estimates the rate and magnitude of soil
consolidation when subjected to controlled-
strain loading.
Corrosion Tests
(pH, Resistivity, and Soluble
Sulfates)
To determine the potential for corrosive
interaction of soils with concrete and metal.
We present laboratory test results on the summary table and figures in Appendix C.
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Geology
A surficial geology map of the project area is presented in Figure 3 (Vuke, Lonn, Berg, & Schmidt,
2014). The Gallatin Valley is an intermountain basin within the Rocky Mountains. The Bridger and
Gallatin Mountain Ranges flank the valley on the east and south of the Horseshoe Hills from the
northern boundary, and the topographic divide between the Gallatin and Madison Rivers bounds
the valley on the west. The south and east sides of the Gallatin Valley are bordered by coalescing
alluvial fans that slope rather steeply from the Gallatin and Bridger Ranges. These
alluvial/fluviatile deposits range in age from Tertiary to Quaternary. The project site is located in
the southeast extremity of the Gallatin Valley on Quaternary alluvial fan deposits known as the
Bozeman Fan. Within these Bozeman Fan deposits are braided plain alluvium (Qabo). The
deposits consist of rounded to well-rounded cobbles and gravels with sand, silt, and clay clasts
and typically are overlain by silt and clay deposits ranging in thickness from 4 to 20 feet.
Based on the geologic map, the alluvial deposits are underlain by the Madison Valley Member
(Tscmv) of the Sixmile Creek Formation. The lithology of the Madison Valley Member is
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 9
predominately pinkish tan or tan, tuffaceous silt or siltstone. The formation is also interbedded
with coarse-grained sandstone that contains lenses of pebble conglomerate or local cobble
conglomerate.
406-586-88341283 North 14th Avenue, #101Bozeman, Montana 59715WWW.DOWL.COMFIGURE 3APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATIONGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONSURFICIAL GEOLOGY MAPLM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCEBOZEMAN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 11
3.2 Observed Soil Conditions
The generalized soil profile encountered at the proposed construction site consists of a limited
thickness of topsoil overlying lean clay soil. The lean clay extends to depths of 3.0 to 5.0 feet and
is underlain by alluvium. The alluvium primarily consists of gravels to a depth of approximately
29.0 feet. However, boring B-12 observed sand with gravel below the clay before transitioning to
gravel deposits at 12.0 feet. Similar transitions occurred below a depth of 29.0 feet, which consist
of sand and clay soils with varying sand and gravel content. Similar materials extend to depths of
at least 40.5 feet, the maximum depth investigated. In Appendix A, we present the exploration
logs with lithology descriptions as well as other engineering properties. In the following
paragraphs, we provide a general description of the soil strata.
3.2.1 Topsoil
Topsoil was encountered within the surface of all borings performed, and a thickness of one to
five inches was observed. Topsoil is considered unsuitable for the support of structural elements.
3.2.2 Lean Clay
Lean clay was encountered at all boring locations at a depth of 0.1 to 0.4 feet below the existing
ground surface. This material was generally medium brown in color. Liquid limits and plasticity
indices of the lean clay ranged from 31 to 48 percent and 16 to 31, respectively. Uncorrected
standard penetration (N) values indicate the clay is soft to very stiff in consistency. Natural
moisture contents varied from 14 to 28 percent. The results of consolidation tests indicate that
the lean clay is moderately compressible and overconsolidated.
3.2.3 Alluvium
Alluvium deposits were encountered in borings B-2 and B-4 through B-12 below the surficial clay
at depths ranging between 2.0 and 5.0 feet. The material is classified as poorly graded gravel
with variable amounts of clay, silt, sand, and cobbles down to a depth of approximately 29.0 feet.
However, boring B-12 encountered a material with less gravel content below the surficial clay at
a depth of 5.0 feet. The material was classified as poorly graded sand with gravel and transitioned
to gravel at a depth of approximately 12.0 feet. Similar materials, classified as clayey sand with
varying amounts of gravel, were encountered below depths of 29.0 feet. The alluvial materials are
generally moist to wet in natural moisture and brown to multicolored in color. Uncorrected
standard penetration (N) values indicate that the gravels and sands range from medium dense to
very dense in relative density. The clays are considered hard in consistency. Cobbles and
boulders were encountered within the gravel deposits.
3.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in nine out of the thirteen boreholes (B-5 through B-12) at depths
of 6.0 to 10.0 feet below ground surface at the time of field exploration. The groundwater
measurements from borings 5 through 8b were taken the week of August 5th, and those from
borings 9 through 12 were taken the week of August 18th. These observations represent
groundwater conditions only at the time of the observations and may not indicate other times or
locations. Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and
other factors. Consider the possibility of groundwater fluctuations when developing design and
construction plans for the project.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 12
Table 3: Groundwater Depths
Boring Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)
B-5 6.0 4,586.9
B-6 6.0 4,583.9
B-7 6.0 4,584.2
B-8A 6.0 4,586.3
B-8B 6.0 4,583.2
B-9 9.5 4,580.2
B-10 8.5 4,582.5
B-11 9.0 4,579.9
B-12 10.0 4,581.4
Implementing a groundwater monitoring plan, which would include installing groundwater
piezometers and periodically measuring groundwater levels over time, can document fluctuations
in groundwater levels.
3.3.1 Groundwater Information Center Research
We researched the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology's Groundwater Information Center
(GWIC, 2021) website to estimate static water levels from existing data near the project area.
GWIC data is for informational purposes only and contains historical well logs, some of which may
not be accurate. Based on research of the GWIC website, static groundwater levels range from 5
to 18 feet below the existing ground surface.
3.4 Seismicity
3.4.1 Faulting
The proposed development is located in an area of Quaternary faulting. Based on the USGS
Quaternary Fault Fold Database (USGS, 2018) four Quaternary faults exist in the project vicinity:
Table 4: Documented Faults
Fault Name
Distance
from Project
Site (miles)
Recent
Earthquake
Published
Slip Rate
(mm/yr)
Fault
Length
(km)
Average
Strike
Bridger 4.0 Unknown <0.2 30 N9°W
Central Park 7.9 Unknown <0.2 19 N77°E
Gallatin Range 9.5 Unknown <0.2 26 N63°E
Elk Creek 15.5 Unknown <0.2 28 N62°W
Available publications do not include documentation that these faults have offset during the
Holocene (last 15,000 years) epoch. However, the proposed structure is in an area of high seismic
activity.
3.4.2 Design Accelerations
DOWL utilized site soil and geologic data, our knowledge of local geology, the project location,
and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-22 to estimate Seismic Site Classification of
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 13
"CD" at the project site. Ground shaking parameters from the ASCE 7 Hazard tool website (ASCE,
2025) were queried. Design parameters are provided in Table 5.
Table 5: Seismic Design Parameters
Period
(seconds)
Modified Acceleration
Coefficient for Site
Class CD (g)
0.0 (peak) PGAM = 0.34
0.2 (short SDS = 0.55
1.0 (long) SD1 = 0.25
3.4.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the partial or total loss of strength of soils that can occur during strong earthquake
shaking of significant duration. Liquefaction is a process where high shear deformations result in
the progressive build-up of pore water pressure. Because the seismic load occurs rapidly, the soil
does not have time to drain, and the effective stress may be reduced to near zero, resulting in a
temporary loss of shear strength. Earthquake-induced liquefaction generally occurs only under
particular conditions, including saturation, strong earthquake ground shaking of long duration, and
loose granular soil. Liquefaction can also occur in silts and fine-grained soils. Typically,
liquefaction occurs where the groundwater table is shallow (5 to 10 feet deep) and generally only
at depths less than approximately 50 feet.
Based on the existence of clay soil and the high SPT blow counts in the sands and gravels below
the groundwater table, it is our opinion the risk of liquefaction is low.
4.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Foundations
Based on information from the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing results, and our analysis,
it is our opinion that the proposed structure can be supported on a conventional spread footing
foundation system. We recommend all foundation elements be supported on native sand and
gravel or properly compacted structural fill extending to native sand or gravel. Laboratory testing
results indicate the clay stratum is moderately compressible and poses a risk of settlement to the
planned structure if left beneath foundation elements. Depending on the preliminary concept, a
structural fill thickness of one to two feet is anticipated below footings.
Due to the shallow groundwater table, a basement configuration will require foundation elements
to be waterproofed and will require a drain and continuous pump system to mitigate groundwater.
We provide specific recommendations in the following sections.
4.1.1 Conventional Spread Footings
The building foundations may be founded on conventional spread footings according to the
parameters listed below.
• Prior to placement of structural fill, proof roll subgrades to identify soft spots.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 14
• A DOWL geotechnical engineer shall inspect footing subgrades to verify foundation
conditions are similar to those encountered in the borings. Remove and replace soft or
loose zones or zones of unsuitable material, if encountered, with structural fill.
• When the native gravels directly beneath foundation elements cannot be rolled smooth
due to protruding cobbles or boulders, a thin leveling course of compacted gravel should
be incorporated beneath the foundation elements.
• Footings should not be constructed over any thickness of clay due to the potential vertical
movements associated with this stratum.
• Native gravel may be used in structural fill applications, provided it complies with Section
4.6.5.
• See Section 4.2 for lateral resistance design parameters.
Table 6: Foundation Design Parameters
Footing Design Criteria Recommendations Notes
Perimeter Footings
Preliminary Maximum
Allowable Bearing
Pressure 16 inches minimum width, 48
inches minimum below grade Static Loads
(Dead &Sustained Live): 3,000 psf
Transient Loads
(Wind & Seismic): 4,000 psf
Interior Column Footings
Preliminary Maximum
Allowable Bearing
Pressure
Minimum width 18 inches
square, 24 inches minimum
below grade unless
constrained by slab
The resultant load is assumed
to be in the middle 1/3 of the
footing
Static Loads
(Dead & Normal Live): 3,000 psf
Transient Loads
(Wind & Seismic): 4,000 psf
Maximum Settlement
Estimate
Total (in) Differential (in) Based on a 7 ft x 7 ft footing
with a maximum load of 3,000
psf. < ½-inch < ¼-inch
between footings
Subgrade Preparation and
Structural Fill
Compact structural fill to 98%
standard Proctor
When necessary, remove all
clay and replace with
structural fill beneath footings.
Design uplift of shallow foundations from wind and seismic events using the weight of the
foundation and soil above the footing. You can include soil resistance in the shape of a truncated
pyramid above the foundation. The pyramid edges are defined by straight lines extending from
the top of the footing on either side at a 2V:1H (vertical to horizontal) slope.
Due to the shallow groundwater table, a basement configuration using conventional spread
footings will require additional improvements to reduce risks associated with hydrostatic forces
and water intrusion. Based on observations during drilling, groundwater was at a depth of 6.0 to
10.0 feet. This level is anticipated to fluctuate during the runoff and irrigation season. The inclusion
of a basement will require waterproofing components and will require the use of a foundation drain
and submersible pump system to inhibit groundwater from rising to and above the interior floor
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 15
level. The design also needs to consider the failure of the pumps. The design should also include
waterproofing the foundation walls and slab and designing them to resist hydrostatic forces.
While a basement configuration is not ideal for the project site, it is feasible and will ultimately
depend on the tolerable project costs. We are available to further analyze and discuss a basement
configuration upon request, if this is deemed essential for the design of the project.
4.2 Lateral Earth Pressures
Design below-grade walls for building, landscape, and retaining walls and any structure retaining
soil to resist both lateral earth pressures from the retained soil adjacent to the structure, as well
as hydrostatic pressures from retaining water (if undrained, not recommended). Also, account for
lateral surcharge loads from equipment, slopes, or vehicles adjacent to the walls in the structural
wall design. We provide recommended lateral earth pressures for below-grade wall design are
provided below.
Table 7: Lateral Earth Pressures
Lateral Earth Pressure Case Equivalent Fluid
Pressure (pcf)
Native Gravel/Structural Fill
At-rest (no wall movement) 60
Active (wall moves away from soil mass) 35
Passive (wall moves into soil mass) 500
Native Clay Soil
At-rest (no wall movement) 70
Active (wall moves away from soil mass) 45
Passive (wall moves into soil mass) 285
• The above equivalent fluid pressures assume fully drained conditions and no hydrostatic
forces acting on the wall.
• Construct below grade walls, retaining walls, or other retaining structures with adequate
drainage and water proofing systems as specified by the Architect and Structural Engineer
to reduce the potential for instability, leakage or seepage.
• The retaining walls move away from or toward the soil to develop active and passive
resistance, respectively. For walls that cannot tolerate movement, structurally design walls
utilizing at-rest equivalent earth pressures.
• We based the above equivalent fluid pressures on the assumption that the surface of
backfill adjacent to walls slopes down and away from the wall a minimum of 5 percent for
10 feet to provide drainage.
• Lateral surcharge pressures due to equipment, slopes, storage loads, ets. are not included
in the above lateral earth pressure recommendations. Use the lateral earth pressures
coefficient of 0.5, acting over the below-grade wall height to estimate the lateral surcharge
loads from equipment, adjacent foundations and slopes behind and above walls.
4.2.1 Seismic Earth Pressure
We recommend using the Mononobe-Okabe approach to determine the additional earth
pressures due to earthquakes. Using a moist bulk density of 115 for the clay and 140 pcf for the
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 16
gravels and a design peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.46g, estimate the equivalent
additional fluid (active) earth pressure acting on walls is 25 pcf. We calculated this value using ½
the peak ground acceleration in the horizontal direction.
4.2.2 Coefficient of Friction
We recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.45 between cast-in-place concrete and native
gravels or structural fill. And 0.25 between cast-in-place concrete and the native surficial clay soil.
The friction value may be combined with the passive pressure to resist horizontal loads.
4.3 Slabs-on-Grade
4.3.1 Interior Slabs
The native clay soil can support lightly to moderately loaded interior floor slabs; however, we
recommend a stabilization geotextile and a nine-inch-thick granular layer be included below the
slabs. Compacted structural fill can also be used to support the floor slabs. At a minimum, interior
floor slabs should be designed using the following recommendations:
Table 8: Floor Slab Recommendations
Description Value
Interior floor system Slab on-grade concrete.
Floor slab subgrade
Scarify, moisture condition and recompact at least 8
inches of on-site soil or structural fill placed and
compacted in accordance with Section 4.6.6 of this
report.
Base layer 9 inches of granular material is acceptable.
Stabilization Geotextile Woven product designed for reinforcement
Modulus of subgrade reaction 90 pounds per cubic inch (pci)
We also recommend that doweled joints be considered for the slab connections for slabs that will
carry significant traffic. Subgrade areas that become soft, loose, wet, or disturbed, or that cannot
be re-compacted to the structural fill requirements discussed above, must be over-excavated as
described in Section 4.6.
Some differential movement of a slab-on-grade floor system is possible if the moisture content of
the subgrade soils is increased. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, separate
floor slabs from bearing walls and columns with expansion joints, which allow vertical movement.
Use floor slab control joints to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking.
If the floor coverings are sensitive to moisture, place a vapor retarder below the slab, underlain
by 4 inches of clean drain gravel. A choker layer such as fine-concrete aggregate (ASTM C 33
sand) may be used to reduce the potential for drain gravel puncturing the vapor barrier.
4.3.2 Exterior Slabs
Exterior slabs on-grade, exterior architectural features, and utilities founded on, or in backfill or
the site soils will likely experience some movement due to the volume change of the material.
Damage from potential movement may be reduced by:
• Minimizing moisture increases in the backfill,
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 17
• controlling moisture-density during placement of the backfill,
• Designing for vertical movement between the exterior features and adjoining structural
elements, and
• Designing control joints.
Exterior slabs are susceptible to frost action which can generate substantial frost heave at certain
times of the year. The potential for frost heave may not be acceptable at entries, bays or other
critical areas adjacent to the building that will be exposed to weather. One approach to provide
partial frost protection would be to place and compact a minimum of 24 inches of aggregate base
course beneath the slab. Alternatively, if partial frost protection is unacceptable, over-excavate
and replace the native soil with aggregate base course to the anticipated frost depth (42 inches).
4.4 Drainage
Drainage is critical to the long-term performance of the structure. In the following sections we
provide recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage.
4.4.1 Surface Drainage
To reduce the potential for movement due to an increase in the moisture content of subgrade soil,
we strongly encourage the implementation of the following recommendations.
• Per the 2018 IBC (ICC, 2017), slope the ground surface within 10 feet of the structure
downward a minimum of 5 percent away from the structure. Slope the ground surface
beyond 10 feet of structures downward at least two percent away from the structure.
• Apron slabs and pavement may be used to further reduce infiltration adjacent to
structures. Aprons should consist of asphalt or Portland cement concrete pavement that
is placed directly adjacent to the foundation stemwalls. An elastomeric sealant should
also be considered between aprons and foundation stemwalls to further reduce the
potential for moisture to infiltrate the area directly adjacent to foundations. Slope apron
slabs and pavement a minimum of 2 percent, downward, away from the building.
• Install eve gutters, downspouts, and extensions such that they dispose of water a
minimum of 10 feet away from the structure.
• Do not irrigate within 5 feet of the building. Periodically inspect and flush irrigation systems
to detect potential leaks and avoid saturation of foundation backfill.
• Seal cracks in sidewalks, driveway and patio slabs, floor slabs, and foundation and
basement walls. Maintain sealant between adjacent slabs and between slabs and
adjacent walls.
• Do not bury rain gutter discharge pipes because they can leak, which often goes
undetected. Seepage problems can also be caused by clogging, crushing, and poor
grading of the pipes.
• Do not construct infiltration basins adjacent to or upgradient of the structures. If detention
is required by statute, infiltration basins should be located downgradient and at least 30
feet from foundations.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 18
4.4.2 Subsurface Drainage
The 2018 International Building Code (ICC, 2017) requires perimeter drains in moderate to low
permeability soils, or for habitable space below grade. This will be required in any area of the
structure that will be below the exterior grade or if any portion of the structure includes a
crawlspace or basement space. Due to the shallow groundwater table, the basement space will
require the drainage system to extend beneath the entire basement footprint (i.e., perimeter of
the foundation and below slabs). A pump system will need to be included to alleviate hydrostatic
forces that would be produced by groundwater rising above the basement grade. Careful
consideration should be taken in this design, as failing pumps could result in damage to the
structure.
Construct foundation drains of a prefabricated composite drain or perforated PVC pipe encased
in a drain gravel envelope encompassed in a non-woven filtration geotextile around the perimeter
of the building and below the basement slabs. Additionally, we recommend waterproofing the
foundation. Drains should be located below the area to be protected, and the gravel envelope
should be placed at the bottom limits of the compacted structural fill. Slope the drain to either a
sump or daylight point down gradient from the structure. We recommend constructing cleanouts
for the drain at building corners or every 150 linear feet, whichever is less.
A critical element of foundation drain construction includes proper drainpipe grading. Uneven pipe
grades or "bellies" are typical defects that may cause water redistribution to unwanted locations.
Construct pipes low enough to collect water that may accumulate at the contact between the
native subgrade and the structural fill.
4.5 Pavement Design
The primary purpose of a pavement section is to distribute concentrated wheel loads to the
subgrade in a manner such that the subgrade is not overstressed. Performance of the pavement
section is a function of subgrade strength and traffic loading. For purposes of designing a
pavement section, subgrade soil is represented by a soil support value for flexible pavements
(asphaltic concrete) or by a modulus of subgrade reaction value for rigid pavements (Portland
cement concrete). Subgrade strength decreases when the moisture content of the subgrade
increases. Therefore, proper drainage, both surface and subsurface, is essential for long-term
pavement performance.
Pavement design procedures are based upon strength properties of the subgrade soil and
pavement materials, along with the design traffic conditions (especially truck traffic).
4.5.1 Traffic
Based on the intended use of the parking lot, we calculated equivalent single axle loads (ESALs)
as shown in Table 9. It was assumed that two thirds of the 176 stalls (117 stalls) would be
occupied by employees of the facility while the remaining stalls (59 stalls) would be occupied by
guests. This was further refined by assuming employees would leave the facility for lunch (two
passes in each drive lane total, daily). It was also assumed that the spaces for guests would
empty and fill three times daily (three passes in each drive lane total, daily). Furthermore, we
assume that one-third of all the vehicles would be trucks/vans, and the remaining would be
passenger cars. Our estimates also include 3 delivery trucks daily, one semi-tractor trailer daily,
one garbage truck weekly, and snow removal equipment during the winter months. (AASHTO,
1993).
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 19
Table 9: Traffic Loading
Vehicle Description ADT (Design Lane) Axle Load (kips)*
Passenger Car 274 2S 2S
Pickup Truck/Van 137 2S 4S
Delivery Truck 3 4S 14S
Garbage Truck 1 20S 35T
Semi-Tractor Trailer 10 12S 34T 34T
Front Wheel Loader 4 6S 8S
Loaded HD (250/0 & 350/0) 4 4S 4S
Total VPD 433
Calculated 18 kip ESALs 163,157 (flexible), 215,457 (rigid)
Sn (req’d), Flexible Pavement 2.91
Thickness (req’d), Rigid Pavement 6.4 inches
*S-Single, T-Tandem, VPD-vehicles per day
4.5.2 Design Parameters
We used the pavement design parameters shown in the table below.
Table 10: Pavement Design Parameters
Pavement Design Parameter Design Value Source
Initial serviceability 4.5 AASHTO 1993
Terminal serviceability 2.0 AASHTO 1993
Reliability 85% AASHTO 1993
Drainage coefficient 1.0 AASHTO 1993
Flexible Pavement
Design life 20 years AASHTO 1993
Standard Deviation 0.45 AASHTO 1993
Asphalt layer coefficient 0.41 AASHTO 1993
Base layer coefficient 0.14 AASHTO 1993
SubBase layer coefficient 0.07 AASHTO 1993
Subgrade resilient modulus 4,500 psi CBR value
Rigid Pavement
Design life 30 years AASHTO 1993
Standard Deviation 0.35 AASHTO 1993
Concrete Modulus of Rupture 580 psi City of Bozeman
Concrete Elastic Modulus 3,605,000 psi City of Bozeman
Concrete Compressive Strength 4,000 psi City of Bozeman
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 100 pci CBR value
JPCP Load Transfer, J 4.2 AASHTO 1993
4.5.3 Flexible Pavement
Based on our design calculations, anticipated traffic loads, and the field conditions encountered,
we would recommend the asphalt pavement section shown below in Table 11 as part of this
pavement section, we recommend the inclusion of a separation geotextile between the prepared
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 20
subgrade and the base course to help prevent the migration of fines into the overlying crushed
aggregate course. A reinforcing geotextile can be considered, but is not required. The inclusion
of a reinforcing geotextile will improve the performance and structural integrity of the flexible
pavement section.
Table 11: Recommended Asphalt (Flexible) Pavement Section
Component Flexible Pavement
Asphalt Pavement Thickness (ft) 0.30
Base Course Thickness (ft) 0.90
Geotextile Type (Minimum) Non-Woven Separation
Calculated Sn 2.99
4.5.4 Rigid Pavement
We recommend using a reinforced concrete pad for areas subject to concentrated and repetitive
loading conditions, such as dumpster pads and ingress/egress aprons. In addition, we
recommend that signage and/or curbing be used to restrict truck traffic in car parking and drive
lane areas. Based on our design calculations, anticipated traffic loads, and the field conditions
encountered, we would recommend the concrete pavement section shown below in Table 12.
Similar to flexible pavements, we recommend the inclusion of a separation geotextile between
the prepared subgrade and the base course to help prevent the migration of fines into the
overlying crushed aggregate course. If desired, a reinforcing geotextile can be considered, but is
not required. The inclusion of a reinforcing geotextile will improve the performance and structural
integrity of the rigid pavement section.
Table 12: Recommended Concrete (Rigid) Pavement Section
Component Rigid Pavement
Concrete Pavement Thickness (ft) 0.6
Base Course Thickness (ft) 0.5
Geotextile Type (Minimum) Non-Woven Separation
Provide sawed or hand-formed joints at spacings not greater than 15 feet on center. Construction
joints should be at least one-fourth of the slab thickness. Provide expansion joints at the end of
each construction sequence and between the concrete slab and adjacent structures.
4.5.5 Construction Considerations
• Remove unsuitable material, including soft and/or organic soil. Overexcavate soil to a
depth of 10 inches below the asphalt (flexible) pavement surfacing materials and 12 inches
below concrete (rigid) pavement surfacing materials.
• Base Course shall meet the Type A Crushed Base Course requirements in Section 701,
Aggregates, in Montana Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
• Asphalt shall meet the requirements in Section 401, Plant Mix Surfacing, in the Montana
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
• Compact asphaltic concrete to at least 92% of its theoretical maximum Rice density
(ASTM D2041).
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 21
• Portland cement pavement shall meet the requirements in Section 501, Portland Cement
Concrete Pavement, in Montana Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge.
Construction.
• Compact all pavement materials (and subgrade) in accordance with the Table 13 in
Section 4.6.6.
• Subexcavate any unstable areas and replace with moisture-conditioned and compacted
aggregate base.
• Grade pavement such that surface water drains into the curb or storm drains at a minimum
two percent slope.
4.5.6 Maintenance
• The pavement's life will depend on achieving adequate drainage throughout the section,
especially at the subgrade.
• Surface and subgrade, crushed surfacing, and asphalt surfaces to slope at no less than 2
percent to an appropriate stormwater disposal system or other appropriate location that
does not impact adjacent buildings or properties.
• Maintain grades outside of paved areas to prevent the collection of water adjacent to the
pavement.
• Seal cracks and perform surface maintenance on pavement surfaces every three to five
years to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration into the underlying pavement
subgrade.
• Water that ponds at the pavement subgrade surface can induce heaving during the freeze-
thaw process, which can readily damage pavement.
• Do not allow inverted crowns at the subgrade or pavement surfaces without center
concrete gutters designed to have asphalt overlap.
4.6 Earthwork
4.6.1 Subgrade Preparation
• Soil containing vegetation and organics (topsoil) extended approximately two to five
inches below the existing ground surface in the locations explored. Remove soil containing
vegetation and organics below planned improvements or structures.
• Prepare final native subgrades with smooth blade equipment. To maintain an undisturbed,
native soil subgrade condition, the contractor must carefully plan and implement
excavation to avoid disturbance. Scarify, moisture condition, and compact subgrade soil
as specified in the table in Section 4.6.6.
• Grade the exposed subgrade surfaces to remove mounds and depressions that could
prevent uniform compaction. If unexpected fills or obstructions are encountered during site
clearing or excavation, remove such features and clean the excavation prior to placing
backfill and/or construction.
• The surficial site soil is moisture sensitive and susceptible to disturbance when moist or
wet, and may be expected to pump or rut under construction traffic. Soil disturbance
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 22
negatively impacts the soil's performance. Disturbed soil is prohibited below any structure
or pavement, especially at the footing or slab subgrades.
• Moisture condition and compact disturbed soil or fill placed to achieve site grades to the
requirements in Table 14. This may require considerable moisture conditioning and soil
processing due to the clayey nature of the on-site soil.
• Remove pumping or rutting subgrade areas to depths between 12 and 18 inches or as
directed by DOWL.
• Replace overexcavations with granular structural fill. Contact DOWL's geotechnical
engineer to review and approve the exposed subgrade.
• Once prepared and approved by the DOWL, it is the contractor's sole responsibility to
protect subgrades from degradation.
4.6.2 Excavation
Based on the materials encountered in the soil borings, conventional earthmoving equipment
should be capable of excavating the site soils.
4.6.3 Dewatering
Considering the possibility of groundwater fluctuations, the need for dewatering foundation
excavations should be anticipated during construction. When necessary, dewatering and control
of subsurface water during excavations will be critical to the successful completion of this project.
Where and when necessary, dewater prior to making final excavations to reduce the potential for
groundwater flow through excavations. Water flow through open excavations will soften and
weaken subgrades and increase settlements. Dewatering will be used to lower the groundwater
to a minimum of 1.5 feet below the planned excavation depth. Dewatering clay soil has the
potential to take a long period of time.
4.6.4 Temporary Slopes
Excavations must conform to OSHA Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926.652 Appendix
B to Subpart P. Based on field observations and laboratory tests, the soils at the site classify as
OSHA Type B. OSHA requires that Type B soil excavation slope angles not to exceed 1H:1V
(horizontal to vertical). The nature and extent of subsurface variations and groundwater conditions
between the boring locations may not become evident until construction. Evaluate soil conditions
at the time of construction by the contractor's responsible person to comply with OSHA
requirements. Temporary excavation slopes may be required for soil improvement excavations
and utility trenches. Conduct excavations and shoring in accordance with OSHA standards. Do
not allow surcharges within a horizontal distance equal to half the excavation depth. Construction
vibrations can cause excavations to slough or cave. Ultimately, the contractor is solely responsible
for site safety and excavation configurations.
Groundwater may be expected during excavations. Plan excavations to allow for water collection
points and use conventional sumps and pumps to remove nuisance water seeps, springs or
precipitation. If site soil excavations are not backfilled quickly, they may degrade when exposed
to runoff and require overexcavation and replacement with structural fill. We recommend
construction activities, particularly earthwork, be performed as rapidly as possible and/or during
drier conditions to reduce the potential for remedial earthwork.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 23
4.6.5 Structural Fill
Consider fill placed below foundation elements as structural fill. The on-site clay is not suitable for
use below foundations; however, the on-site clay is suitable for use as foundation backfill, below
slab-on-grade construction, fill below pavements, utility trenches and landscaped areas.
Table 13: Fill Specifications
Soil/Fill Product Allowable Use Material Specifications
Non-Structural Fill
(Landscape Fill)
Any area that will not
have structures
(typically landscape
areas)
• Soil classified as GM, GW, SM, SW, SC, CL, CH or
ML according to the USCS.
• Soil may not contain particles larger than 8 inches in
median diameter. • Soil must be have less than three percent of
deleterious substances such as wood, metal, plastic,
waste, etc.
• Approved by Landscape Architect
General Fill
• Site grading outside
the building footprint.
• Utility backfill areas
• Non-structural fill
• Foundation wall
backfill
• Soil classified as GP, GM, GW, GC, SP, SM, SW,
SC, CL, or ML according to the USCS.
• Site soil must have less than three percent
vegetation, organics and debris.
• Soil may not contain particles larger than 6 inches in
diameter.
• Soil must contain less than 3% (by weight) of
organics, vegetation, wood, metal, plastic, or other
deleterious substances
Structural Fill
• General fill
• Over-excavations
• Soil improvements
• Retaining Wall
backfill
• Soil classified as GP, GM, GW, SP, SM, or SP with
at least 30 percent retained on a number 4 sieve and
less than 15 percent passing a number 200 sieve.
• Soil may not contain particles larger than 2 inches in
diameter.
• Soil must contain less than 3% (by weight) of
organics, vegetation, wood, metal, plastic, or other
deleterious substances
Unsatisfactory Soil NONE
• Soil classified as MH, OH, CH, OL or PT may not be
used at the project site
• Any soil type not maintaining moisture contents
within 5% of optimum during compaction is
unsatisfactory soil that must be moisture conditioned
prior to disposal and replacement
• Any soil containing more than 3% (by weight) of
organics, vegetation, wood, metal, plastic or other
deleterious substances
4.6.6 Compaction Requirements
Place fill material in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. Moisture condition
and compact fill according to the table below.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 24
Table 14: Compaction Specifications
Application Moisture Content
(% of optimum)
Minimum
Compaction
All Subgrade ±4 95% ASTM D698
Structural Fill Below Foundations ±4 98% ASTM D698
Structural Fill Below Interior Slabs-On-
Grade ±4 98% ASTM D698
Structural Fill Below Exterior Slabs-On-
Grade ±4 95% ASTM D698
Base and Subbase Courses ±4 95% ASTM D698
Utility Trenches ±4 95% ASTM D698
Site Grading Fill ±4 95% ASTM D698
Foundation Backfill ±4 95% ASTM D698
4.6.7 Testing and Observations
We recommend the following compaction testing frequencies:
• Structural Fill below Footings and Subgrade - One compaction test every 50 linear feet
(LF) of footing trench or 2 tests per wall line, whichever results in the greater number of
tests, per each 1-foot lift of fill.
• Foundation/Retaining Wall Backfill - One compaction test every 100 LF of wall or 2
tests per wall line (interior and exterior sides), whichever results in the greater number of
tests, per each 1-foot lift of backfill.
• Interior and Exterior Slab Subgrade - One compaction test every 1,000 square feet (sf)
of slab area or 2 tests per slab area, whichever results in the greater number of tests, per
1-foot lift of fill.
• Pavements - One compaction test every 2,500 sf of pavement area on each subgrade,
subbase, and base course layer as applicable, per each 1-foot lift of backfill.
• Trenches - One compaction test every 150 linear feet or 2 per trench, whichever results
in the greater number of tests, per each 1-foot lift of backfill
To verify that construction conforms to the intent of the specifications, we recommend that DOWL
be retained to observe and record the following:
• Site preparation including grubbing, stripping, excavating and proof-rolling,
• Removal of topsoil and root zone beneath slabs and pavements,
• Interior and exterior slab subgrades,
• Excavations and subexcavations prior to placing backfill/fill materials or prior to
construction of footings and slabs, and
• Approve additional excavation, replacement or stabilization if unsuitable soil is identified
by the geotechnical engineer during excavation or proof-rolling operations.
4.6.8 Earthwork Volume Criteria
Bulking and shrinkage factors are estimates based on assumptions for field compaction results
as well as potential variations in Proctor values across the entire site. We estimate the site soil
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 25
will shrink 10 to 18 percent when excavated and placed as structural fill. When excavated and
transported off-site as waste, site soil may experience bulking between 20 and 25 percent,
depending on moisture content and a variety of other factors.
4.6.9 Cold Weather Construction
Do not place concrete, pavement, or fill on frozen soil, and do not use frozen soil as fill or backfill.
Remove frozen soil, snow, and/or ice from the subgrade or fill soil prior to continuing with
construction. Limit winter excavations to areas small enough to be refilled to finished floor grade
or higher on the same day. Contact DOWL to monitor fill placed during freezing conditions to
reduce the potential for placing frozen material.
4.6.10 Wet Weather/Soil Construction
• Ideally, perform earthwork construction when the soil moisture content is less than two
percent above optimum.
• The site clay is susceptible to pumping or rutting from heavy loads such as rubber-tired
equipment or vehicles at any time of the year.
• If possible, do not perform earthwork after rainfall when the soil is wet. Allow the soil to
dry sufficiently to allow construction traffic without disturbing the subgrade.
• If the subgrade soil becomes wet, it may be necessary to perform earthwork with track-
mounted equipment that reduces vehicular pressure applied to the soil if construction
commences in wet areas or before the soil can dry enough to support wheeled vehicles.
• Depending on precipitation, runoff, and perched groundwater conditions, the site soil will
be slightly over optimum moisture content. The contractor should expect these conditions
and be prepared to install runoff management facilities and to replace wet or disturbed soil
with structural fill.
4.6.11 Geosynthetics
Geosynthetic fabrics are applicable when constructing on soft or wet soil, for foundation soil
improvement applications, as separation fabrics between drainage aggregate, below construction
access roads, and at the base of over-excavations. Where required, apply geosynthetics directly
on approved subgrades, taut, without wrinkles, and overlapped at least 12 inches. Consult DOWL
to review geosynthetic applications or other subgrade improvement alternatives. Geogrid is
required to help support any area that exhibits unusually high groundwater, soft pumping, or
rutting conditions. Geotextile fabric placed at the bottom of the footing excavation must meet the
requirements for separation/stabilization geotextile in Section 716, Geotextiles, of the Montana
Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
Geogrid shall be extruded polypropylene and have the minimum properties (MARV per ASTM
D4759) shown in Table 15.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 26
Table 15: Minimum Geogrid Properties
Property Machine
Direction
Cross Machine
Direction Test Method
Ultimate Tensile Strength 1,310 lb/ft
(19.2 kN/m)
1,970 lb/ft
(28.8 kN/m)
ASTM D 6637,
Procedure. B
Tensile Load at 2% Strain 410 lb/ft
(6.0 kN/m)
620 lb/ft
(9.0 kN/m)
ASTM D 6637,
Procedure. B
Tensile Load at 5% Strain 810 lb/ft
(11.8 kN/m)
1,340 lb/ft
(19.6 kN/m)
ASTM D 6637,
Procedure. B
Junction Efficiency 93% GRI-GG2
Flexural Rigidity 1,200,000 mg-cm ASTM D 1388
Aperture Stability Modulus 0.65 m-N/deg USACOE method
UV Light Degradation
Resistance 100% when exposed for 500 ASTM D 4355/6637,
Proc. B
Chemical Degradation
Resistance 100% when exposed for 120 EPA 9090A
Installation Damage
Resistance >90% ASTM D 5818
4.7 Soil Chemistry and Corrosion
Based on the results shown in the table below, concrete in contact with the on-site soil classifies
as exposure class S0 according to ACI 318 Table 19.3.1.1 (ACI, 2014). To achieve the required
protection against sulfate-related corrosion, no special recommendations are made. Details can
be found in the above ACI reference and in the Portland Cement Association publication "Design
and Control of Concrete Mixtures."
According to Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcement for Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls (FWHA, 2009) the soil at the site is "mildly" corrosive to steel. Based on that publication
and the test results below, we estimate a corrosion rate of 0.7 ounces per square foot per year
for carbon steel and 0.2 ounces per square foot per year for galvanized steel.
Table 16: Soil Chemistry Test Results
Sample Location Soluble Sulfate
(mg/kg or ppm) Resistivity (ohm-cm) pH
Boring B-6 (4.0 – 5.5 ft) 15 5,440 8.3
Boring B-8A (4.0 – 5.5 ft) 16 7,440 8.1
Boring B-8B (5.0 – 6.5 ft) 8 6,060 7.7
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONTINUITY
Geotechnical design continuity will be an important aspect of the successful completion of this
project. In our opinion, geotechnical continuity can occur in three stages in the planning, design
and construction project aspects. Specifically, we recommend DOWL maintain the geotechnical
design continuity in the following aspects:
• Plan and Specification Review: We recommend you retain DOWL to review final design
and construction plans and specifications to verify our geotechnical recommendations are
incorporated into construction documents as well as to provide additional
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 27
recommendations based on the final design concepts. These efforts can help provide
document continuity and reduce the potential for errors as the project concepts evolve.
• Geotechnical Design Confirmation: The potential soil variation may have a significant
impact on foundation construction. As such, we recommend you retain DOWL to provide
geotechnical engineering oversight during site grading and foundation excavation to
observe the potential variability in the soil conditions and provide consultation regarding
potential impacts on foundation construction.
• Construction Observation and Testing: We recommend you retain DOWL to provide
observation and testing during site preparation, grading, structural fill placement and
backfilling to verify compliance with the recommendations presented in this report. Having
DOWL provide inspection and oversight during this process will reduce the potential for
an unforeseen construction error which may ultimately impact the project. If we are not
retained to perform the recommended services, we cannot be responsible for related
construction errors or omissions.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
DOWL based the conclusions and recommendations presented in this preliminary report, based
on the assumption that site conditions are not substantially different than those exposed by the
explorations. If during construction, subsurface conditions are different from those encountered
in the explorations, advise DOWL at once to review those conditions and reconsider
recommendations if necessary. The geotechnical recommendations provided herein are based
on the premise that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted during
construction in order to document compliance with DOWL's recommendations and to confirm
conditions exposed during subgrade preparations. DOWL geotechnical personnel must review
final designs to verify that recommendations provided herein have been properly implemented.
If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this preliminary report and the start
of work at the site, and especially if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction
operations at or near the site, contact DOWL to review this preliminary report and to evaluate the
applicability of the conclusions and recommendations presented herein.
DOWL prepared this preliminary report for the JBW Consulting Engineers and their Consultants
for use on this project. DOWL recommends you make this preliminary report available to
prospective contractors for information and factual data only, but not as a warranty of subsurface
conditions. DOWL prepared this preliminary report, including engineering analyses,
recommendations, figures, and design details specifically for the above referenced site and the
current concept level design of the project. During the final design phase, the preliminary report
and analyses should be reviewed and revised as necessary to validate the applicability of our
recommendations to the completed project design. These recommendations are not applicable
to other construction sites. Do not separate the figures from the text for independent use.
DOWL performed these services consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar time and budgetary
constraints. No warranty is made or implied.
Any conclusions made by a construction contractor or bidder relating to construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences, or costs based upon the information provided in this preliminary
report are not the responsibility of JBW Consulting Engineers or DOWL.
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report October 2025
Page 28
7.0 REFERENCES
AASHTO. (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Volume 1. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ACI. (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. American Concrete Institute.
ASCE. (2025). ASCE 7 Hazard Tool. Retrieved August 7, 2020, from
https://asce7hazardtool.online/
FWHA. (2009). Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcement for Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-087. Federal Highways Administration.
GWIC. (2021). Ground Water Information Center. Retrieved from Montana Tech of the
University of Montana: http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu
ICC. (2017). 2018 International Building Code. Country Club Hills: International Code Council.
USGS. (2018). Earthquake Hazards - Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.
Retrieved a b, 2021, from https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-
hazards/faults?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt-
science_support_page_related_con
Vuke, S. M., Lonn, J. D., Berg, R. B., & Schmidt, C. J. (2014). Geologic Map of the Bozeman
30'x60' Quadrangle Southwestern Montana. Butte: Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology.
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
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.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this ReportGeotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific TimesGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer
will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-
engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during
a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of
the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental
remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can
be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed
subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or
regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is
required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on
an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors
when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing
the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s
subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from
that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer,
who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about
subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface
conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in
this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer
to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain
informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or
alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not
final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily
on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize
the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions
exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical
engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist,
the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have
occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of
the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and
specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that
“informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on
the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the
report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific
project requirements, including options selected from the report, only
from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors
that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in
a position to give constructors the information available to you, while
requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and
preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on
project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials
with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That
lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have
resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include
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.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental
site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a
geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering
report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or
recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground
storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not
obtained your own environmental information about the project site,
ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find
environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s
services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent
migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil
through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where
it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by
including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with 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 or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com
Appendix A
Exploration Logs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
MH or OL
ML or OL
CL or OL
CH or OH
"A" LINE"U" LINE
Key to Soil Symbols and Terms
Notes
Order of Descriptors
Criteria For Descriptors
- Angularity of coarse grained soils
Consistency of Fine Grained Soils
16 - 30Very Stiff
Apparent Density of Coarse Grained Soils
4 - 10 Loose
31 - 50Dense
-Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.Dry
-Damp, but no visible water.Moist
Moisture Condition
- Other relevant notes
11 - 30Medium Dense
tures, little or no fines.
Well-graded gravels, gravel sand mix-
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mix-
tures, little or no fines.
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures.
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines.
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines.
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixures.
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock
flour, silty or clayey fine sands or
clayey silts with slight plasticity.
Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
clays, silty clays, lean clays.
Organic silts and organic silty clays of
low plasticity.
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sandy or
silty soils, elastic silts.
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
clays.
Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts.
Peat and other highly organic soils.PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML
SC
SM
SP
SW
GC
GM
GP
GW
SYMBOLS
GRAPH LETTER
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
SMALLER THAN
OF MATERIAL IS
MORE THAN 50%
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50CLAYS
AND
SILTS
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
FINES
SANDS WITH
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
CLEAN SANDS
OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
FINES
GRAVELS WITH
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
GRAVELS
SIEVE
PASSING ON NO. 4
FRACTION
OF COARSE
MORE THAN 50%
SOILS
SANDY
AND
SAND
200 SIEVE SIZE
LARGER THAN NO.
OF MATERIAL IS
MORE THAN 50%
4 SIEVE
RETAINED ON NO.
FRACTION
OF COARSE
MORE THAN 50%
SOILS
GRAVELLY
AND
GRAVEL
SOILS
GRAINED
COARSE
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS
CLEAN
Definition of Particle Size Ranges
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
between silt and clay.
> 12 in (300 mm)
3 in (75 mm) - 12 in (300 mm)
No. 4 Sieve (4.75 mm) to 3 in (75 mm)
No. 200 (0.075 mm) to No. 4 Sieves (4.75 mm)
< No. 200 Sieve (0.075 mm)*
< No. 200 Sieve (0.075 mm)*
grained soils only)
N-Value (uncorrected)Consistency
Soil Component Size Range
< 4Very Loose
> 50Very Dense
< 2Very Soft
2 - 4Soft
5 - 8Medium Stiff
9 - 15Stiff
> 30Hard
N-Value (uncorrected)Relative Density
- Group Name
- Consistency or Relative Density
- Moisture Condition
- Color
- Particle size descriptor(s) (coarse
Boring Log Descriptive Terminology
-Visible free water.Wet
as deemed appropriate.
they have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests
Descriptions are based on visual observation, except where
Also included are the AASHTO group classifications (M145).
Classification System, ASTM D2487 and D2488.
Soil Classifications are Based on the Unified Soil
Page 1 of 2
*Atterberg limits and chart below to differentiate
Example soil description: Sandy FAT CLAY (CH), soft, wet, brown. (A-7)
-200%=percent soil passing 200 sieve, DD=Dry Density
MC=Moisture Content, LL=Liquid limit, PL=Plastic Limit
plus the weight of the hammer.
WH denotes a zero blow count with the weight of the rods
with the weight of the rods only.
34-50 (0.4 ft), or 100 (0.3 ft)).WR denotes a zero blow count
blows in parentheses (ex: 12-24-50 (0.09 m),
rounded to the nearest 0.1 ft (0.03 m) follows the number of
(0.15 m) of penetration is achieved, the actual penetration
Note: if the number of blows exceeds 50 before 0.5 ft
(ex: 1-3-9)
first 0.5 ft (0.15 m) - second 0.5 ft (0.15 m) - third 0.5 ft (0.15 m)
Written as follows:
penetration.
O.D. Split Spoon sampler for a total of 1.5 ft (0.45 m) of
falling 2.5 ft (750 mm) used to drive a 2 in (50 mm)
The number of blows of a 140 lb (63.6 kg) hammer
SPT (Standard Penetration Test-ASTM D1586):
See Soil Boring Information Special Provision.
then PI=0.9(LL-8)
Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7,
Equation of "U" Line:
then PI=0.73(LL-20)
Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5,
Equation of "A" Line:
CL-ML
Angularity of Coarse-Grained Particles
-Particles have sharp edges and relative Angular
plane sides with unpolished surfaces.
-Particles are similar to angular description, Subangular
but have rounded edges.
Subrounded-Particles have nearly plane sides, but have
no edges.
-Particles have smoothly curved sides and Rounded
well-rounded corners and edges.
Liquid Limit (%)Plastic Index (%)coarse-grained soils.
and fine-grained fraction of
For classification of fine-grained soils
Key to Rock Symbols and Terms
SymbolRock Type
Argillite
Basalt
Bedrock
Breccia
Claystone
Conglomerate
Dolomite
Gneiss
Granitic
Limestone
Quartzite
Rhyolite
Sandstone
Schist
ShaleSiltstone
SymbolRock Type SymbolRock Type Order of Descriptors
- Other relevant notes
- Color
- Rock Type
Criteria For Descriptors
Coarse Grained
Fine Grained
-Individual grains can be easily
distinguished by eye
- Stratification/Foliation (as applicable)
Thickly Bedded
Medium Bedded
Soft
Moderately hard
Hard
Very Hard
-Individual grains can be dis-
tinguished with difficulty
(other)
Miscellaneous Soil/Rock Symbols and Terms
Concrete
Asphalt
Water
Coal
Fill
Topsoil
Boulders and Cobbles
Explanation of Text Fields in Boring Logs:
Material Description: Lithologic Description of soil or rock encountered.
Remarks: Comments on drilling, including method, bit type, and problems encountered.
General Notes
- Water level observations apply only at the specific boring, and at the time the
- Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specific boring, and at the time
borings were made. Due to the variability of groundwater measurements given
times.
Very Soft -Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of rock hammer. Can be scratched readily by fingernail.
Medium -Can be grooved or gouged 0.05 in (2 mm) deep by firm pressure of knife or rock hammer point. Can be
excavated in small chips to pieces about 1 in (25 mm) maximum size by hard blows of the point of a rock hammer.
-Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to 0.25 in (6 mm) can be excavated by hard blow of rock
hammer. Hand specimen can be detached by moderate blows.
blows of a rock hammer.
Millings
Notes:
3-10 ft (1-3 m)
Thinly Bedded 2-12 in (50-300 mm)
1-3 ft (300 mm - 1 m)
Very Thinly Bedded < 2 in (50 mm)
Stratum Thickness
Grain Size
of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
the type of drilling used, and the stratification of the soil in the boring, these logs are
not warranted to be representative of groundwater conditions at other locations or
- Other terms may be used as descriptors, as defined by the profession.
SANDSTONE, gray, fine grained, thickly bedded,
Example Rock Log
Operation
Types:Auger
Casing
Advancer
Core
Barrel
Drive
Casing
Types:
Split
Spoon
Shelby
Bulk
Sample
Grab
Sample
Penetrometer
Vane Shear
Special
Samplers
Testpit
ConeSample
Description Characteristic
- Field Hardness
chips to several inches in size by moderate blows of the point of a rock hammer.
- Grain size (if applicable)
appropriate.
results of laboratory tests as deemed
they have been modified to reflect
on visual observation, except where
-Soil and Rock descriptions are based
Boring Log Descriptive Terminology
Page 2 of 2
Rock Field Hardness
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength obtained from laboratory testing at the given depth.
Unless stated on logs as being surveyed by district survey, all locations are considered approximate.
-Can be grooved or gouged readily by knife or point of rock hammer. Can be excavated in fragments from
-Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard hammer blows required to detach hand specimen.
-Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp rock hammer point. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard
hard field hardness.
See Soil Boring Information Special Provision.
the borings were made. These logs are not warranted to be representative
89
100
44
0.1
4590.3
6.54583.9
26
27
34 18 81
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.
7 - 10 - 12
1 - 2 - 1
1 - 1 - 1
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to soft, moist,brown.
Boring Depth: 6.5 ft, Elevation: 4583.9 ft
LOG OF BORING
4589.4
4588.4
4587.4
4586.4
4585.4
4584.4 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/6/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/6/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Genay
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Parking Lot
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4590.4 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369594.4 ftE: 139446.1 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:Not Encountered End ofDrilling:Not Encountered AfterDrilling:
Boring B-01
89
67
100
0.34587.9
3.04585.2
6.54581.7
14
15
6
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.
7 - 7 - 7
1 - 12 - 18
15 - 16 - 21
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY (CL), stiff, moist, brown to gray.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with sand (GP),dense to medium dense, moist, brown tomulti-colored, subangular to subrounded.
Boring Depth: 6.5 ft, Elevation: 4581.7 ft
LOG OF BORING
4587.2
4586.2
4585.2
4584.2
4583.2
4582.2 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/6/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/6/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Genay
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Parking Lot
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4588.2 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369789.1 ftE: 139536 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:Not Encountered End ofDrilling:Not Encountered AfterDrilling:
Boring B-02
83
89
89
0.1
4592.7
6.54586.3
24 31 17 94
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.
9 - 8 - 7
1 - 1 - 1
1 - 1 - 1
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY (CL), stiff to soft, moist, brown.
Boring Depth: 6.5 ft, Elevation: 4586.3 ft
LOG OF BORING
4591.8
4590.8
4589.8
4588.8
4587.8
4586.8 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/6/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/6/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Genay
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Parking Lot
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4592.8 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369610.5 ftE: 139236.7 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:Not Encountered End ofDrilling:Not Encountered AfterDrilling:
Boring B-03
83
100
100
0.44586.8
5.0
4582.2
6.54580.7
17
10
9
34 18 62
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.
6 - 6 - 4
9 - 22 - 28
19 - 22 - 32
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY (CL), stiff, moist, brown.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with sand (GP),
dense to very dense, moist, multi-colored to
brown, subangular to subrounded.
Boring Depth: 6.5 ft, Elevation: 4580.7 ft
LOG OF BORING
4586.2
4585.2
4584.2
4583.2
4582.2
4581.2 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/6/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/6/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Genay
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Parking Lot
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4587.2 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 370029 ftE: 139372.3 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:Not Encountered End ofDrilling:Not Encountered AfterDrilling:
Boring B-04
89
78
78
0.2
4592.7
5.0
4587.9
6.54586.4
8
18
6
35 20 86
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.
6 - 10 - 8
5 - 5 - 6
7 - 14 - 14
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), very stiff to stiff,moist, brown.
Clayey GRAVEL with sand (GC), medium
dense, moist to wet, brown to black,
subangular to subrounded.
Boring Depth: 6.5 ft, Elevation: 4586.4 ft
LOG OF BORING
4591.9
4590.9
4589.9
4588.9
4587.9
4586.9 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/5/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/5/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:D. Duncan
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Parking Lot
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4592.9 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369983.5 ftE: 139128 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:6.0 ft (4586.9 ft)End ofDrilling:6.0 ft (4586.9 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-05
89
75
89
89
67
89
100
0.24589.7
5.04584.9
22.0
4567.9
23
14
9
9
12
34 18
NP
94
8
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.3 - 5 - 5
1 - 1 - 18
16 - 16 - 16
13 - 17 - 22
15 - 22 - 40
41 - 45 - 50/0.5ft
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY (CL), stiff, moist, brown.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
(GP-GM), dense to very dense, moist to wet,multi-colored, subangular to subrounded.
Boring Depth: 22.0 ft, Elevation: 4567.9 ft
LOG OF BORING
4584.9
4579.9
4574.9
4569.9 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10
15
20 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/5/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/5/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
Bentonite/Polymer
Logger:E. Genay
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4589.9 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369843.1 ftE: 139418.9 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:6.0 ft (4583.9 ft)End ofDrilling:6.0 ft (4583.9 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-06
61
73
89
89
33
0.34589.9
4.0
4586.2
14.0
4576.2
23
5
10
24
NP
15
95
30
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.4 - 9 - 7
5 - 19 - 50
22 - 63 - 50
17 - 30 - 18
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff, moist, brown.
Clayey GRAVEL with sand (GC), very dense,
moist to wet, multi-colored to brown,
subangular to subrounded.
Boring Depth: 14.0 ft, Elevation: 4576.2 ft
LOG OF BORING
4585.2
4580.2 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/5/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/5/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
Water
Logger:E. Genay
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Building (Auger Refusal)
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4590.2 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369715.7 ftE: 139296.4 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:6.0 ft (4584.2 ft)End ofDrilling:6.0 ft (4584.2 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-07
100
17
72
56
56
72
50
100
0.24592.1
4.0
4588.3
11.0
4581.3
25.0
4567.3
15
7
11
12
14
11
31 13
NP
NP
68
8
15
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.5 - 5 - 9
11 - 19 - 17
8 - 11 - 13
2 - 9 - 27
10 - 27 - 20
9 - 11 - 24
10 - 22 - 35
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff, moist,brown.
Poorly-Graded SAND with silt and gravel
(SP-SM), dense to medium dense, moist to
wet, brown to multi-colored, fine to coarsegrained.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with sand (GP),
dense to very dense, moist to wet,
multi-colored, subangular to subrounded.
Boring Depth: 25.0 ft, Elevation: 4567.3 ft
LOG OF BORING
4587.3
4582.3
4577.3
4572.3
4567.3 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/5/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/5/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
Water
Logger:E. Genay
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4592.3 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369843.7 ftE: 139167.6 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:6.0 ft (4586.3 ft)End ofDrilling:6.0 ft (4586.3 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-08A
100
89
33
44
56
100
67
59
0.34588.9
4.0
4585.2
10.04579.2
12.04577.2
21.44567.8
20
11
17
11
25 17
NP
NP
69
11
9
Hollow stem augerswith bullet bit.3 - 5 - 3
1 - 1 - 3
10 - 12 - 13
26 - 46 - 36
16 - 20 - 32
30 - 32 - 29
26 - 36 - 40
30 - 30 - 50/0.4ft
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff to soft,moist, brown.
Poorly-Graded SAND with silt (SP-SM),
medium dense to very dense, moist to wet,
brown to multi-colored, fine to coarsegrained.
Well-Graded SAND with silt (SW-SM), verydense, wet, brown to multi-colored, fine to
coarse grained.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with sand (GP),
very dense, wet, black to multi-colored,subangular to subrounded.
Boring Depth: 21.4 ft, Elevation: 4567.8 ft
LOG OF BORING
4584.2
4579.2
4574.2
4569.2 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10
15
20 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 1
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/6/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/6/25
Boring Diameter:
8"
Drilling Fluid:
Bentonite/Polymer
Logger:D. Duncan
Driller:T. Weaver Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4589.2 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369957.7 ftE: 139291.8 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:Diedrick D-57
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:6.0 ft (4583.2 ft)End ofDrilling:6.0 ft (4583.2 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-08B
83
67
67
64
67
0.34589.4
4.54585.2
7
"H" casing advancerwith Air Hammer.
25 - 50/0.5ft
16 - 28 - 50
14 - 34 - 28
19 - 50/0.5ft
23 - 22 - 17
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), hard, moist,brown.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay and sand(GP-GC), dense to very dense, moist, brown,
angular to subrounded.
LOG OF BORING
4584.7
4579.7
4574.7
4569.7
4564.7 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/20/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/20/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4589.7 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369956.4 ftE: 139418.5 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:9.5 ft (4580.2 ft)End ofDrilling:9.5 ft (4580.2 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-09
89
29.04560.7
31.5
4558.2
1616 - 23 - 50
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay and sand
(GP-GC), dense to very dense, moist, brown,
angular to subrounded.(continued)
Lean CLAY with gravel (CL), very dense,moist, brown.
Boring Depth: 31.5 ft, Elevation: 4558.2 ft
LOG OF BORING
4559.7 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
30 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 2 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/20/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/20/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4589.7 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369956.4 ftE: 139418.5 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:9.5 ft (4580.2 ft)End ofDrilling:9.5 ft (4580.2 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-09
89
33
67
100
72
0.34590.7
4.0
4587.0
4
"H" casing advancerwith Air Hammer.
15 - 42 - 22
13 - 12 - 21
17 - 13 - 49
50/1.0ft
25 - 50 - 50
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), hard, moist,brown.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
(GP-GM), very dense, moist to wet, brown,
subangular to subrounded.
LOG OF BORING
4586.0
4581.0
4576.0
4571.0
4566.0 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/21/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/22/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4591.0 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369845.9 ftE: 139291 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:8.5 ft (4582.5 ft)End ofDrilling:8.5 ft (4582.5 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-10
100
72
80
29.54561.5
32.04559.0
40.54550.5
6 - 11 - 37
6 - 22 - 35
28 - 50/0.7ft
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
(GP-GM), very dense, moist to wet, brown,
subangular to subrounded.(continued)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), hard, moist, brown.
Clayey SAND with gravel (SC), very dense,moist, brown, fine to coarse grained.
Boring Depth: 40.5 ft, Elevation: 4550.5 ft
LOG OF BORING
4561.0
4556.0
4551.0 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
30
35
40 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 2 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/21/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/22/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4591.0 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369845.9 ftE: 139291 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:8.5 ft (4582.5 ft)End ofDrilling:8.5 ft (4582.5 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-10
100
25
44
50
67
0.34588.6
4.0
4584.9
17.04571.9
24.54564.4
3
"H" casing advancerwith Air Hammer.
50/1.1ft
22 - 17 - 19
22 - 50/0.7ft
12 - 24 - 50
45 - 50/0.7ft
TOPSOIL.
Lean CLAY (CL), moist, brown.
Well-Graded GRAVEL with sand (GW),
dense to very dense, moist to wet, brown to
gray, subangular to subrounded.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay and sand(GP-GC), dense to very dense.
Clayey SAND (SC), very dense, wet, brown,
fine to coarse grained.
LOG OF BORING
4583.9
4578.9
4573.9
4568.9
4563.9 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/22/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/22/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4588.9 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369722.4 ftE: 139420.2 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:9.0 ft (4579.9 ft)End ofDrilling:9.0 ft (4579.9 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-11
39
30.0
4558.9
31.5
4557.4
21 - 9 - 22
Clayey SAND (SC), very dense, wet, brown,
fine to coarse grained.(continued)
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay and sand
(GP-GC), dense, wet, brown, subangular to
subrounded.
Boring Depth: 31.5 ft, Elevation: 4557.4 ft
LOG OF BORING
4558.9 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
30 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 2 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/22/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/22/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4588.9 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369722.4 ftE: 139420.2 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:9.0 ft (4579.9 ft)End ofDrilling:9.0 ft (4579.9 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-11
36
44
31
47
56
0.34591.1
5.04586.4
10.04581.4
11
"H" casing advancerwith Air Hammer.
14 - 50/0.6ft
15 - 27 - 30
14 - 32 - 31
27 - 36 - 47
31 - 46 - 37
TOPSOIL.
Sandy Lean CLAY with gravel (CL), moist,brown.
Well-Graded SAND with gravel (SW), very
dense, moist, brown to black, fine to coarsegrained.
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with sand (GP-GC),very dense, wet, gray to multi-colored,
subangular to subrounded.
LOG OF BORING
4586.4
4581.4
4576.4
4571.4
4566.4 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 1 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/22/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/22/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4591.4 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369715.2 ftE: 139177.2 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:10.0 ft (4581.4 ft)End ofDrilling:10.0 ft (4581.4 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-12
67
27.0
4564.4
30.54560.9
13 - 50/0.5ft
Lean CLAY with gravel (CL), hard, wet,
brown.
Boring Depth: 30.5 ft, Elevation: 4560.9 ft
LOG OF BORING
4561.4 Sample TypeRecovery (%)RQD (%)Depth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)
30 OperationLithologyDepth
(ft)
Elev.
(ft)MC (%)LLPL-200 (%)Qu (psi)DD (pcf)RemarksandOther TestsBlow CountMaterial Description
(2) INVESTIGATION LOG - DOWL_2025.GDT - 9/17/25 13:40 - \\DOWL.COM\J\PROJECTS\63\28072-01\91GEO\EXPLORATION\BORING LOGS\LM PROJECT URSIS SITE DUE DILIGENCE.GPJNotes:
Datum:NAVD88
Sheet 2 of 2
System:B-LDP NAVD88
Project:
Elevation Source:
Surveyed
Date Started:
8/22/25
Project Number:
5063.28072.01
Date Finished:
8/22/25
Boring Diameter:
5.5"
Drilling Fluid:
None
Logger:E. Piechota
Driller:B. Hardy Proposed Building
Location Source:
Surveyed
Ground
Elevation:4591.4 ft
Boring LocationCoordinates N: 369715.2 ftE: 139177.2 ftLM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Rig:CME 45 Track
Abandonment:Cuttings
Water Level Observations Notes:
DuringDrilling:10.0 ft (4581.4 ft)End ofDrilling:10.0 ft (4581.4 ft)AfterDrilling:
Boring B-12
G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com
Appendix B
Photograph Log
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
1
Geotechnical Boring B-1 – Rig Position – View Southwest
Geotechnical Boring B-1 – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-1 – Standard Penetration Sample – 2.5 to 4.0 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
2
Geotechnical Boring B-1 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-2 – Rig Position – View West
Geotechnical Boring B-2 – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
3
Geotechnical Boring B-2 – Standard Penetration Sample – 2.5 to 4.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-3 – Rig Position – View South
Geotechnical Boring B-3 – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
4
Geotechnical Boring B-3 – Standard Penetration Sample –2.5 to 4.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-3 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-3 – Borehole Abandonment
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
5
Geotechnical Boring B-4 – Rig Position – View West
Geotechnical Boring B-4 – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-4 – Standard Penetration Sample – 2.5 to 4.0 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
6
Geotechnical Boring B-4 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-5 – Rig Position – View South
Geotechnical Boring B-5 – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
7
Geotechnical Boring B-5 – Standard Penetration Sample – 2.5 to 4.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-5 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-5 – Borehole Abandonment – View Southeast
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
8
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – General Location – View East
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – Standard Penetration Sample – 4.0 to 5.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
9
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – Standard Penetration Sample – 7.5 to 9.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – Standard Penetration Sample – 15.0 to 16.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – Standard Penetration Sample – 20.0 to 21.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
10
Geotechnical Boring B-6 – Borehole Abandonment – View Southeast
Geotechnical Boring B-7 – General Location – View West
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
11
Geotechnical Boring B-7 – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-7 – Standard Penetration Sample – 4.0 to 5.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-7 – Standard Penetration Sample – 6.0 to 7.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-7 – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
12
Geotechnical Boring B-7 – Borehole Abandonment – View Northwest
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Rig Position– View East
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
13
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Standard Penetration Sample – 4.0 to 5.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Standard Penetration Sample – 7.5 to 9.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Standard Penetration Sample – 15.0 to 16.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
14
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Standard Penetration Sample – 20.0 to 21.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8a – Standard Penetration Sample – 23.5 to 25.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Rig Position– View West
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 0.0 to 1.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
15
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 2.5 to 4.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 7.5 to 9.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 15.0 to 16.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
16
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 17.0 to 18.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-8b – Standard Penetration Sample – 20.0 to 21.4 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-9 – Rig Position – View East
Geotechnical Boring B-9 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.0 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
17
Geotechnical Boring B-9 – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-9 – Standard Penetration Sample – 15.0 to 16.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-9 – Standard Penetration Sample – 20.0 to 21.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-9 – Standard Penetration Sample – 25.0 to 26.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-9 – Standard Penetration Sample – 30.0 to 31.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
18
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Rig Position – View Southwest
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
19
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 15.0 to 16.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 20.0 to 20.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 25.0 to 26.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 29.5 to 31.0 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
20
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 34.5 to 36.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Standard Penetration Sample – 39.5 to 40.4 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-10 – Borehole Abandonment– View West
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
21
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Rig Position – View Northwest
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 5.3 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
22
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Standard Penetration Sample – 15.0 to 16.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Standard Penetration Sample – 20.0 to 21.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Standard Penetration Sample – 25.0 to 26.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Standard Penetration Sample – 30.0 to 31.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
23
Geotechnical Boring B-11 – Borehole Abandonment– View North
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Rig Position– View Southeast
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
24
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Standard Penetration Sample – 5.0 to 6.0 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Standard Penetration Sample – 10.0 to 11.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Standard Penetration Sample – 15.0 to 16.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Standard Penetration Sample – 20.0 to 21.5 feet
LM Project URSIS Site Due Diligence URSIS-Exploration Photo Log.docx
25
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Standard Penetration Sample – 25.0 to 26.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Standard Penetration Sample – 29.5 to 30.5 feet
Geotechnical Boring B-12 – Borehole Abandonment – View East
PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t e p o r t Appendix C
Laboratory Test Results
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY of PHYSICAL PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS
Materials Testing Laboratory
Montana: Billings
Lab NumberExplorationSample TypeDepth Range (ft)USCS Classification SymbolNatural Moisture - %Natural Dry Unit Weight - pcfFines Smaller Than #200 (0.075 mm)Sand #200 to # 4 (0.075 - 4.76 mm)Gravel #4 to 3" (4.76 -76.2 mm)Liquid Limit - %Plasticity Index - %Maximum Dry Unit Weight (ASTM D698)-PCFOptimum Moisture Content (ASTM D698) - %CBR (ASTM D1883)Consolidation - Pc - ksfConsolidation -CcConsolidation - CsResistivity (Ohm-Cm) SaturatedpHWATER SOLUBLE SO4 - ppm39644 B-1 SPT 2.5 - 4.0 26
39645 B-1 BULK 2.5 - 6.5 CL 16 81.3 13 5 34 16 107 16.3 3.0
39646 B-1 SPT 5.0 - 6.5 27
39647 B-2 SPT 0.0 - 1.5 14
39649 B-2 BULK 4.0 - 5.0 15
39650 B-2 SPT 5.0 - 6.5 6
39652 B-3 SPT 2.5 - 4.0 CL 24 93.5 7 31 14
39654 B-4 SPT 0.0 - 1.5 17
39655 B-4 SPT 2.5 - 4.0 10
39656 B-4 SPT 5.0 - 6.5 9
39657 B-5 SPT 0.0 - 1.5 8
39658 B-5 SPT 2.5 - 4.0 CL 18 85.7 14 0 35 15
39659 B-5 SPT 5.0 - 6.5 6
39661 B-6 SHELBY 2.0 - 4.0 CL 23 99.1 94 6 0 34 16 2.1 0.16 0.01
39662 B-6 SPT 4.0 - 5.5 14 5,440 8.3 15
39663 B-6 SPT 7.5 - 9.0 GP-GM 9 8.2 37 55 NV NP
39664 B-6 SPT 10.0 - 11.5 9
39666 B-6 SPT 20.0 - 22.0 12
39668 B-7 SHELBY 2.5 - 4.0 CL 23 96.9 95 5 32 13 2.2 0.15 0.02
39669 B-7 SPT 4.0 - 5.5 5
39670 B-7 SPT 6.0 - 7.5 GC 29.6 24 46 27 12
39671 B-7 GRAB 8.0 - 9.0 10
39674 B-8a SHELBY 2.0 - 4.0 CL 15 68 20 13 31 18
5063.28072.01 - LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Cade Cunningham
Billings Lab Manager 222 N. 32nd Street, Suite 700
Billings, MT 59101
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY of PHYSICAL PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS
Materials Testing Laboratory
Montana: Billings
Lab NumberExplorationSample TypeDepth Range (ft)USCS Classification SymbolNatural Moisture - %Natural Dry Unit Weight - pcfFines Smaller Than #200 (0.075 mm)Sand #200 to # 4 (0.075 - 4.76 mm)Gravel #4 to 3" (4.76 -76.2 mm)Liquid Limit - %Plasticity Index - %Maximum Dry Unit Weight (ASTM D698)-PCFOptimum Moisture Content (ASTM D698) - %CBR (ASTM D1883)Consolidation - Pc - ksfConsolidation -CcConsolidation - CsResistivity (Ohm-Cm) SaturatedpHWATER SOLUBLE SO4 - ppm5063.28072.01 - LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
39675 B-8a SPT 4.0 - 5.5 7 7,440 8.1 16
39676 B-8a SPT 7.5 - 9.0 11 8.2 52 40
39677 B-8a SPT 10.0 - 11.5 12
39679 B-8a SPT 20.0 - 21.5 14
39680 B-8a SPT 22.0 - 23.5 11 14.8 46 40
39682 B-8b SPT 2.5 - 4.0 CL 19.5 69 21 10 25 8
39683 B-8b SPT 5.0 - 6.5 SP-SM 6,060 7.7 8
39684 B-8b SPT 7.5 - 9.0 SP-SM 11 11.1 46 43 NV NP
39685 B-8b SPT 10.0 - 11.5 SW-SM 16.6 9.4 73 18 NV NP
39687 B-8b SPT 17.0 - 18.5 11
39689 B-4 BULK 0.5 - 5.0 CL 14 61.8 26 12 34 16 113 14.7 3.5
39690 B-5 BULK 0.5 - 5.0
39691 B-9 SPT 5.0 - 6.0
39692 B-9 SPT 10.0 - 11.5
39693 B-9 GRAB 14.0 - 15.0 GP-GC 7 11.4 39 50 25 9
39694 B-9 SPT 15.0 - 16.5
39695 B-9 SPT 20.0 - 20.9
39696 B-9 SPT 25.0 - 26.5
39697 B-9 SPT 30.0 - 31.5 SC 16 22.7 46 32 29 12
39698 B-10 SPT 5.0 - 6.5 GP-GM 4 7.9 40 52 NV NP
39699 B-10 SPT 10.0 - 11.5
39700 B-10 SPT 15.0 - 16.5
39701 B-10 SPT 20.0 - 20.5
Cade Cunningham
Billings Lab Manager 222 N. 32nd Street, Suite 700
Billings, MT 59101
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY of PHYSICAL PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS
Materials Testing Laboratory
Montana: Billings
Lab NumberExplorationSample TypeDepth Range (ft)USCS Classification SymbolNatural Moisture - %Natural Dry Unit Weight - pcfFines Smaller Than #200 (0.075 mm)Sand #200 to # 4 (0.075 - 4.76 mm)Gravel #4 to 3" (4.76 -76.2 mm)Liquid Limit - %Plasticity Index - %Maximum Dry Unit Weight (ASTM D698)-PCFOptimum Moisture Content (ASTM D698) - %CBR (ASTM D1883)Consolidation - Pc - ksfConsolidation -CcConsolidation - CsResistivity (Ohm-Cm) SaturatedpHWATER SOLUBLE SO4 - ppm5063.28072.01 - LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
39702 B-10 SPT 25.0 - 26.5
39703 B-10 SPT 29.5 - 31.0 CL 28 60.5 33 6 48 31
39704 B-10 SPT 34.5 - 36.0
39705 B-10 SPT 39.5 - 40.4
39706 B-11 SPT 5.0 - 5.3
39707 B-11 GRAB 9.0 - 10.0 GW 3 4.8 41 54 NV NP
39708 B-11 SPT 10.0 - 11.5
39709 B-11 SPT 15.0 - 16.5
39710 B-11 SPT 20.0 - 21.5
39711 B-11 SPT 25.0 - 25.8
39712 B-11 SPT 30.0 - 31.5
39713 B-12 SPT 5.0 - 6.0
39714 B-12 SPT 10.0 - 11.5
39715 B-12 GRAB 15.0 - 16.0 GP-GC 11 9.9 34 56 26 11
39716 B-12 SPT 15.0 - 16.5
39717 B-12 SPT 20.0 - 21.5
39718 B-12 SPT 25.0 - 26.5
39719 B-12 SPT 29.5 - 30.5
Cade Cunningham
Billings Lab Manager 222 N. 32nd Street, Suite 700
Billings, MT 59101
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 2.2 3.1 0.8 1.5 11.1 81.36 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-1
Sample Number: 39645 Depth: 2.5-6.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Lean CLAY with sand
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
98.1
97.8
96.6
96.0
94.7
93.9
93.2
92.4
90.7
89.6
81.3
16 34 18
CL A-6(13)
0.1584 0.0977
Sampled by DOWL
Combined with lab #39649
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Superviosr
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Tested By: SS Checked By: CC
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Dry density, pcf103
104
105
106
107
108
Water content, %
12 13.5 15 16.5 18 19.5 21
16.3%, 106.9 pcf
Test specification:ASTM D 698-12 Method B Standard
2.5-6.5 ft CL A-6(13)14.9%34 18 4.0 81.3
Lean CLAY with sand
5063.28072.01 JBW
Sampled by DOWL
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.3/8 in.No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-1 Sample Number: 39645
Figure
Maximum dry density = 106.9 pcf
Optimum moisture = 16.3 %
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT
AASHTO T 193-13
Project No: 5063.28072.01
Project: LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Location: B-1
Sample Number: 39645 Depth: 2.5-6.5 ft
Date: 08/04/2025
Lean CLAY with sand
Test Description/Remarks:
Tested by DOWL
Figure
106.9 16.3 34 18CL
Material Description USCS
Max.
Dens.
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
LL PI
Molded
Density
(pcf)
Percent of
Max. Dens.
Moisture
(%)
Soaked
Density
(pcf)
Percent of
Max. Dens.
Moisture
(%)
CBR (%)
0.10 in.0.20 in.
Linearity
Correction
(in.)
Surcharge
(lbs.)
Max.
Swell
(%)
1 102.2 95.6 15.5 101.8 95.2 19.5 3.0 3.2 0.000 20 0.4
2
3 Penetration Resistance (psi)0
20
40
60
80
100
Penetration Depth (in.)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Swell (%)0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Elapsed Time (hrs)
0 24 48 72 96
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 5.9 93.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-3
Sample Number: 39652 Depth: 2.5-4.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Lean CLAY
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.9
99.7
99.4
98.7
98.3
93.5
17 31 14
CL A-6(12)
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 8.1 46.0 11.8 16.4 8.9 8.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-4
Sample Number: 39655 Depth: 2.5-4.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Well-graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
94.1
91.9
64.7
58.9
45.9
34.1
24.2
17.7
12.5
11.5
8.8
NP NV NP
GW-GM A-1-a
18.2840 16.8788 10.6843
5.7869 1.4045 0.2781
0.1087 98.26 1.70
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.1 12.7 85.76 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-5
Sample Number: 39658 Depth: 2.5-4.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Lean CLAY
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.8
99.5
99.1
98.4
96.5
95.5
85.7
15 35 20
CL A-6(16)
0.0967
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/05/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Tested By: SS Checked By: CC
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
Percent Strain10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Applied Pressure - ksf
0.1 1 10
Water
Added
Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp.Overburden Pc Cc Cs Swell Press.Clpse.
%eoSat.Moist.(pcf)Gr.(ksf)(ksf)(ksf)
81.6 %20.6 %99.1 34 18 2.65 2.1 0.16 0.01 0.1 0.669
Lean CLAY CL A-6(16)
5063.28072.01 JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Sampled by DOWL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-6 Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39661
Figure
Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.:
Project:
Location: B-6 Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39661
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.257 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.003
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.126 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.002
5063.28072.01
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
6
4.00 ksf
-0.0497
-0.0576
-0.0654
1.56 min.
7
8.00 ksf
-0.0739
-0.0828
-0.0917
3.02 min.Dial Reading (in.)-0.069
-0.067
-0.065
-0.063
-0.061
-0.059
-0.057
-0.055
-0.053
-0.051
-0.049
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t 4t
Dial Reading (in.)-0.0950
-0.0925
-0.0900
-0.0875
-0.0850
-0.0825
-0.0800
-0.0775
-0.0750
-0.0725
-0.0700
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t 4t
FigureDOWL HKM
Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.:
Project:
Location: B-6 Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39661
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.783 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.000
5063.28072.01
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
8
2.00 ksf
-0.0931
-0.0914
-0.0897
0.47 min.Dial Reading (in.)-0.0890
-0.0895
-0.0900
-0.0905
-0.0910
-0.0915
-0.0920
-0.0925
-0.0930
-0.0935
-0.0940
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
FigureDOWL HKM
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.3 94.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-6
Sample Number: 39661 Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Lean CLAY
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.8
99.7
99.7
99.6
99.3
98.6
98.1
94.0
16 34 18
CL A-6(16)
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 26.8 27.9 9.4 16.7 11.0 8.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-6
Sample Number: 39663 Depth: 7.5-9.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
85.2
73.2
62.6
57.3
45.3
35.9
26.8
19.2
12.3
11.1
8.2
NP NV NP
GP-GM A-1-a
28.6922 25.2946 11.0421
6.3707 1.1268 0.2586
0.1235 89.42 0.93
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Tested By: SS Checked By: CC
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
Percent Strain13.0
11.5
10.0
8.5
7.0
5.5
4.0
2.5
1.0
-0.5
-2.0
Applied Pressure - tsf
0.1 1 10
Water
Added
Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp.Overburden Pc Cc Cs Swell Press.Clpse.
%eoSat.Moist.(pcf)Gr.(tsf)(tsf)(tsf)
81.8 %21.8 %96.9 32 13 2.65 2.2 0.15 0.02 0.0 0.707
Lean CLAY CL A-6(12)
5063.28072.01 JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Sampled by DOWL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-7 Depth: 2.5-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39668
Figure
Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.:
Project:
Location: B-7 Depth: 2.5-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39668
5063.28072.01
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Dial Reading (in.)-0.04488
-0.04484
-0.04480
-0.04476
-0.04472
-0.04468
-0.04464
-0.04460
-0.04456
-0.04452
-0.04448
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Load # 4
1.00 tsfCv @ 135.67 min.=
0.003 Dial Reading (in.)-0.0615
-0.0600
-0.0585
-0.0570
-0.0555
-0.0540
-0.0525
-0.0510
-0.0495
-0.0480
-0.0465
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Load # 5
2.00 tsfCv @ 0.11 min.=
3.544
Dial Reading (in.)-0.1125
-0.1100
-0.1075
-0.1050
-0.1025
-0.1000
-0.0975
-0.0950
-0.0925
-0.0900
-0.0875
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Load # 7
8.00 tsfCv @ 0.08 min.=
4.372
Figure
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.9 95.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-7
Sample Number: 39668 Depth: 2.5-4.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Lean CLAY
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
99.9
99.4
99.0
95.0
19 32 13
CL A-6(12)
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 19.5 26.4 12.2 17.4 13.0 11.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-7
Sample Number: 39669 Depth: 4.0-5.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
88.8
80.5
72.3
67.1
54.1
41.9
31.6
24.5
16.8
15.2
11.5
NP NV NP
GP-GM A-1-a
26.4245 22.3362 6.5740
3.6786 0.7360 0.1472
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 23.8 22.6 4.8 9.3 9.9 29.66 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-7
Sample Number: 39671 Depth: 8.0-9.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Clayey GRAVEL with sand
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
87.7
76.2
65.9
61.4
53.6
48.8
43.7
39.5
35.5
34.4
29.6
15 27 12
GC A-2-6(0)
27.0429 23.7134 8.5916
2.5575 0.0792
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Tested By: SS Checked By: CC
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
Percent Strain12.5
11.0
9.5
8.0
6.5
5.0
3.5
2.0
0.5
-1.0
-2.5
Applied Pressure - ksf
0.1 1 10
Water
Added
Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp.Overburden Pc Cc Cs Swell Press.Clpse.
%eoSat.Moist.(pcf)Gr.(ksf)(ksf)(ksf)
79.1 %19.9 %99.2 31 13 2.65 2.8 0.19 0.01 0.1 0.667
Sandy lean CLAY CL A-6(7)
5063.28072.01 JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence Sampled by DOWL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-8a Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39674
Figure
Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.:
Project:
Location: B-8a Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39674
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.042 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.006
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.002 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.015
5063.28072.01
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
1
0.25 ksf
-0.0026
-0.0059
-0.0093
10.60 min.
2
0.50 ksf
-0.0105
-0.0142
-0.0178
193.42 min.Dial Reading (in.)-0.011
-0.010
-0.009
-0.008
-0.007
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t 4t
Dial Reading (in.)-0.0210
-0.0195
-0.0180
-0.0165
-0.0150
-0.0135
-0.0120
-0.0105
-0.0090
-0.0075
-0.0060
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t 4t
FigureDOWL HKM
Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.:
Project:
Location: B-8a Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39674
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.059 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.009
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.012 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.000
5063.28072.01
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
3
1.00 ksf
-0.0214
-0.0220
-0.0226
7.25 min.
5
2.00 ksf
-0.0377
-0.0400
-0.0423
34.71 min.Dial Reading (in.)-0.037
-0.035
-0.033
-0.031
-0.029
-0.027
-0.025
-0.023
-0.021
-0.019
-0.017
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t 4t
Dial Reading (in.)-0.044
-0.043
-0.042
-0.041
-0.040
-0.039
-0.038
-0.037
-0.036
-0.035
-0.034
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t 4t
FigureDOWL HKM
Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.:
Project:
Location: B-8a Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft Sample Number: 39674
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
2.714 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.005
Load No.=
Load=
D0 =
D50 =
D100 =
T50 =
Cv @ T50
0.290 ft.2/day
Ca = 0.002
5063.28072.01
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
6
4.00 ksf
-0.0454
-0.0500
-0.0547
0.15 min.
7
8.00 ksf
-0.0680
-0.0805
-0.0929
1.32 min.Dial Reading (in.)-0.064
-0.062
-0.060
-0.058
-0.056
-0.054
-0.052
-0.050
-0.048
-0.046
-0.044
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t 4t
Dial Reading (in.)-0.097
-0.094
-0.091
-0.088
-0.085
-0.082
-0.079
-0.076
-0.073
-0.070
-0.067
Elapsed Time (min.)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t 4t
FigureDOWL HKM
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 2.8 9.7 3.2 5.5 10.8 68.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-8a
Sample Number: 39674 Depth: 2.0-4.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sandy lean CLAY
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
97.2
93.5
92.2
87.5
84.3
81.4
78.8
75.5
74.5
68.0
18 31 13
CL A-6(7)
6.7559 2.5681
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 12.9 26.7 12.5 26.1 13.6 8.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-8a
Sample Number: 39676 Depth: 7.5-9.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
92.2
87.1
74.8
72.6
60.4
47.9
34.6
21.8
13.4
11.9
8.2
21.9399 17.7148 4.6462
2.3648 0.6706 0.2203
0.1122 41.40 0.86
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 13.5 26.2 14.2 18.5 12.8 14.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-8a
Sample Number: 39680 Depth: 22.0-23.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
94.4
86.5
77.7
73.8
60.3
46.1
34.3
27.6
21.0
19.5
14.8
21.5081 18.0345 4.6719
2.6032 0.5609 0.0777
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 6.5 3.7 0.9 2.3 17.6 69.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-8b
Sample Number: 39682 Depth: 2.5-4.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sandy lean CLAY
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
93.5
93.5
90.3
90.3
89.8
88.9
88.2
86.6
81.0
78.6
69.0
17 25 8
CL A-4(3)
6.4454 0.2850
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 2.1 41.2 13.1 19.8 12.7 11.16 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-8b
Sample Number: 39684 Depth: 7.5-9.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
97.9
77.0
71.4
56.7
43.6
32.7
23.8
16.0
14.5
11.1
NP NV NP
SP-SM A-1-a
16.1536 14.8509 5.4954
3.2627 0.6961 0.1592
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 6.7 10.9 10.5 40.9 21.6 9.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-8b
Sample Number: 39685 Depth: 10.0-11.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Well-graded SAND with silt and gravel
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
93.3
88.8
88.3
82.4
71.9
51.9
31.0
15.8
13.5
9.4
NP NV NP
SW-SM A-1-b
15.1907 6.0716 1.1379
0.7982 0.4078 0.1693
0.0895 12.71 1.63
Sampled by DOWL
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 2.4 9.7 5.3 8.1 12.7 61.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-4
Sample Number: 39689 Depth: 0.0-5.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sandy lean CLAY
3
2
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
98.0
98.0
97.9
97.6
96.3
94.8
87.9
82.6
78.2
74.5
70.3
69.3
61.8
16 34 18
CL A-6(8)
5.8129 3.2167
Sampled by DOWL Combined with lab #39690
08/15/2025 08/27/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/04/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Tested By: SS Checked By: CC
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Dry density, pcf105
107.5
110
112.5
115
117.5
Water content, %
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
14.7%, 112.8 pcf
Test specification:ASTM D 698-12 Method B Standard
0.0-5.0 ft CL A-6(8)14.1%34 18 5.2 61.8
Sandy lean CLAY
5063.28072.01 JBW
Sampled by DOWL
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.3/8 in.No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-4 Sample Number: 39689
Figure
Maximum dry density = 112.8 pcf
Optimum moisture = 14.7 %
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT
AASHTO T 193-13
Project No: 5063.28072.01
Project: LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
Location: B-4
Sample Number: 39689 Depth: 0.0-5.0 ft
Date: 08/04/2025
Sandy lean CLAY
Test Description/Remarks:
Sampled by DOWL
Figure
112.8 14.7 34 18CL
Material Description USCS
Max.
Dens.
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
LL PI
Molded
Density
(pcf)
Percent of
Max. Dens.
Moisture
(%)
Soaked
Density
(pcf)
Percent of
Max. Dens.
Moisture
(%)
CBR (%)
0.10 in.0.20 in.
Linearity
Correction
(in.)
Surcharge
(lbs.)
Max.
Swell
(%)
1 107.4 95.2 14.5 106.5 94.4 17.0 3.5 3.8 0.000 20 0.9
2
3 Penetration Resistance (psi)0
20
40
60
80
100
Penetration Depth (in.)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Swell (%)0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Elapsed Time (hrs)
0 24 48 72 96
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.5 49.0 17.9 14.5 6.7 11.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-9
Sample Number: 39693 Depth: 14.0-15.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Poorly graded GRAVEL with clay and sand
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.5
91.2
76.4
50.5
32.6
23.6
18.1
14.1
13.4
11.4
16 25 9
GP-GC A-2-4(0)
12.3638 11.1763 6.5009
4.6711 1.6464 0.2263
Sampled by DOWL
08/28/2025 09/09/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/20/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 12.1 19.4 5.5 18.3 22.0 22.76 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-9
Sample Number: 39697 Depth: 30.0-31.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Clayey SAND with gravel
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
94.8
87.9
79.2
72.6
68.5
63.0
54.6
44.7
33.4
30.8
22.7
17 29 12
SC A-2-6(0)
20.7226 16.6779 1.4119
0.6104 0.1414
Sampled by DOWL
08/28/2025 09/09/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/20/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 21.2 30.6 9.7 15.9 14.7 7.96 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-10
Sample Number: 39698 Depth: 5.0-6.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
1.5
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
91.6
78.8
67.0
61.5
48.2
38.5
30.2
22.6
13.2
11.4
7.9
NP NV NP
GP-GM A-1-a
24.3816 21.8197 8.7933
5.2861 0.8375 0.2131
0.1239 70.96 0.64
Sampled by DOWL
08/28/2025 09/09/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/21/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 2.6 3.6 1.3 3.5 28.5 60.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-10
Sample Number: 39703 Depth: 29.5-31.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sandy lean CLAY
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
97.4
96.2
94.9
93.8
92.5
91.1
89.0
82.6
79.4
60.5
17 48 31
CL A-7-6(15)
0.5756 0.2170
Sampled by DOWL
08/28/2025 09/09/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/22/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.5 53.5 16.4 17.1 7.7 4.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-11
Sample Number: 39707 Depth: 9.0-10.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Well-graded GRAVEL with sand
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.5
89.2
73.6
46.0
29.6
20.1
12.5
7.2
6.5
4.8
NP NV NP
GW A-1-a
12.9363 11.6748 7.1610
5.4423 2.0633 0.5439
0.3068 23.34 1.94
Sampled by DOWL
08/28/2025 09/09/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/22/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
Particle Size Distribution Report
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.3 55.7 13.6 11.4 9.1 9.96 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: B-12
Sample Number: 39715 Depth: 15.0-16.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Poorly graded GRAVEL with clay and sand
1
.75
.5
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.7
89.0
71.4
44.0
30.4
23.4
19.0
14.0
13.0
9.9
15 26 11
GP-GC A-2-6(0)
12.9678 11.8192 7.6674
5.8951 1.9254 0.2128
0.0771 99.47 6.27
Sampled by DOWL
08/28/2025 09/09/2025
SS
CC
Laboratory Supervisor
08/22/2025
JBW
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
5063.28072.01
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
*(no specification provided)
ANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORT
The analyses presented in this report were performed by Energy Laboratories, Inc., 1120 So. 27th Street, Billings, MT 59101, unless
otherwise noted. Any exceptions or problems with the analyses are noted in the report package. Any issues encountered during
sample receipt are documented in the Work Order Receipt Checklist.
The results as reported relate only to the item(s) submitted for testing. This report shall be used or copied only in its entirety. Energy
Laboratories, Inc. is not responsible for the consequences arising from the use of a partial report.
Energy Laboratories, Inc. verifies the reported results for the analysis has been technically reviewed and approved for release.
If you have any questions regarding these test results, please contact your Project Manager.
Lab ID Client Sample ID Collect Date Receive Date Matrix Test
B25090776-001 39662, B-6 [4.0-5.5]feet 08/04/25 12:00 09/09/25 Soil Conductivity, 1:X Water Extractable
Sulfate by MT DOT 532
pH, 1:X Water Extractable
DI Water Soil Extract ASA10-3
DI Water Soil Extract MT DOT 532
Resistivity
B25090776-002 39675, B-8 [4.0-5.5]feet 08/04/25 12:00 09/09/25 Soil Same As Above
B25090776-003 39683, B-8 [5.0-6.5]feet 08/04/25 12:00 09/09/25 Soil Same As Above
DOWL
Project Name:5063.28072.01 Ursis Site
Work Order:B25090776
1283 North 14th Avenue, Suite 101
Bozeman, MT 59715-3270
September 18, 2025
B5638Quote ID:
Energy Laboratories Inc Billings MT received the following 3 samples for DOWL on 9/9/2025 for analysis.
Page 1 of 11
Project:5063.28072.01 Ursis Site
CLIENT:DOWL
Work Order:B25090776 CASE NARRATIVE
09/18/25Report Date:
Tests associated with analyst identified as ELI-H were subcontracted to Energy Laboratories, 3161 East Lyndale Ave,
Helena, MT, EPA Number MT00945.
Page 2 of 11
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:DOWL
Project:5063.28072.01 Ursis Site
Lab ID:B25090776-001
Client Sample ID:39662, B-6 [4.0-5.5]
Collection Date:08/04/25 12:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:09/18/25
DateReceived:09/09/25
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethod
MCL/
QCLQualifiers
SULFATE BY MT DOT METHOD 532
09/16/25 17:57 / eli-h2mg/kg15Sulfate E300.0
WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS
09/12/25 16:39 / eli-h0.1mmhos/cm0.2Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
MT DOT 232-16
09/18/25 10:33 / eli-h0.1s.u.8.3pH MTDOT 232-1
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
09/15/25 09:11 / eli-h1ohm-cm5440Resistivity A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 3 of 11
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:DOWL
Project:5063.28072.01 Ursis Site
Lab ID:B25090776-002
Client Sample ID:39675, B-8 [4.0-5.5]
Collection Date:08/04/25 12:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:09/18/25
DateReceived:09/09/25
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethod
MCL/
QCLQualifiers
SULFATE BY MT DOT METHOD 532
09/16/25 18:11 / eli-h2mg/kg16Sulfate E300.0
WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS
09/12/25 16:41 / eli-h0.1mmhos/cm0.1Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
MT DOT 232-16
09/18/25 10:35 / eli-h0.1s.u.8.1pH MTDOT 232-1
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
09/15/25 09:11 / eli-h1ohm-cm7440Resistivity A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 4 of 11
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:DOWL
Project:5063.28072.01 Ursis Site
Lab ID:B25090776-003
Client Sample ID:39683, B-8 [5.0-6.5]
Collection Date:08/04/25 12:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:09/18/25
DateReceived:09/09/25
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethod
MCL/
QCLQualifiers
SULFATE BY MT DOT METHOD 532
09/16/25 18:40 / eli-h2mg/kg8Sulfate E300.0
WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS
09/12/25 16:42 / eli-h0.1mmhos/cm0.2Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
MT DOT 232-16
09/18/25 10:36 / eli-h0.1s.u.7.7pH MTDOT 232-1
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
09/15/25 09:11 / eli-h1ohm-cm6060Resistivity A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 5 of 11
Work Order:B25090776
QA/QC Summary Report
09/18/25Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:ASA10-3 Analytical Run: SOIL EC_250915A
Lab ID:ICV_1_250912_1 09/12/25 16:32Initial Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 95 90 1100.101.34 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:CCV_1_2509121_1 09/12/25 16:33Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 96 90 1100.104.79 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:CCV1_1_250801_1 09/12/25 16:33Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 98 90 1100.100.981 mmhos/cm
Method:ASA10-3 Batch: 79967
Lab ID:MB-79967 09/12/25 16:34Method Blank Run: SOIL EC_250915A
Conductivity, 1:2 0.05NDmmhos/cm
Lab ID:LCS-79967 09/12/25 16:35Laboratory Control Sample Run: SOIL EC_250915A
Conductivity, 1:2 104 70 1300.101.92 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:H25090353-001ADUP 09/12/25 16:38Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL EC_250915A
Conductivity, 1:2 100.10 0.13.39 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:H25090494-001ADUP 09/12/25 16:44Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL EC_250915A
Conductivity, 1:2 100.10 2.50.310 mmhos/cm
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 6 of 11
Work Order:B25090776
QA/QC Summary Report
09/18/25Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:E300.0 Analytical Run: IC METROHM_250916A
Lab ID:ICV 09/16/25 13:38Initial Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfate 102 90 1101.0407mg/L
Lab ID:CCV 09/16/25 14:22Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfate 102 90 1101.0204mg/L
Lab ID:CCV 09/17/25 19:14Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfate 104 90 1101.0209mg/L
Lab ID:CCV 09/17/25 23:34Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfate 101 90 1101.0201mg/L
Lab ID:CCV 09/18/25 08:26Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfate 101 90 1101.0203mg/L
Method:E300.0 Batch: 79979
Lab ID:MB-79979 09/16/25 17:28Method Blank Run: IC METROHM_250916A
Sulfate 0.2 mg/kg
Lab ID:LCS-79979 09/16/25 17:43Laboratory Control Sample Run: IC METROHM_250916A
Sulfate 97 70 1302.01980mg/kg
Lab ID:B25090776-002ADUP 09/16/25 18:26Sample Duplicate Run: IC METROHM_250916A
Sulfate 302.0 4610.2 mg/kg R
Due to low raw values close the the reporting limit, the difference between the samplle and dup is not significant.
Lab ID:B25090776-003AMS 09/16/25 18:55Sample Matrix Spike Run: IC METROHM_250916A
Sulfate 97 90 1102.11960mg/kg
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
R - Relative Percent Difference (RPD) exceeds advisory limit
Page 7 of 11
Work Order:B25090776
QA/QC Summary Report
09/18/25Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:MTDOT 232-16 Analytical Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A211_250918A
Lab ID:CCV1_1_250917_1 09/18/25 10:15Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
pH 99 98 1020.103.96 s.u.
Method:MTDOT 232-16 Batch: 79966
Lab ID:LCS-79966 09/18/25 10:17Laboratory Control Sample Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A2
pH 101 70 1300.107.56 s.u.
Lab ID:B25090776-001ADUP 09/18/25 10:34Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A2
pH 100.10 0.08.27 s.u.
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 8 of 11
Shipping container/cooler in good condition?
Custody seals intact on all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)?
Custody seals intact on all sample bottles?
Chain of custody present?
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?
Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?
Samples in proper container/bottle?
Sample containers intact?
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?
All samples received within holding time?
(Exclude analyses that are considered field parameterssuch as pH, DO, Res Cl, Sulfite, Ferrous Iron, etc.)
Container/Temp Blank temperature:
Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or
bubble that is <6mm (1/4").
Water - pH acceptable upon receipt?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
££
£
£
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
R
R
R
No VOA vials submitted
Not Applicable R
R
23.8°C No Ice
9/9/2025Danielle N. Harris
Hand Deliver
CMJ
Date Received:
Received by:
Login completed by:
Carrier name:
ysmith
9/11/2025
Reviewed by:
Reviewed Date:
Contact and Corrective Action Comments:
None
Temp Blank received in all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)?Yes No£R Not Applicable £
Lab measurement of analytes considered field parameters that require analysis within 15 minutes of sampling such as
pH, Dissolved Oxygen and Residual Chlorine, are qualified as being analyzed outside of recommended holding time.
Solid/soil samples are reported on a wet weight basis (as received) unless specifically indicated. If moisture corrected,
data units are typically noted as –dry. For agricultural and mining soil parameters/characteristics, all samples are dried
and ground prior to sample analysis.
The reference date for Radon analysis is the sample collection date. The reference date for all other Radiochemical
analyses is the analysis date. Radiochemical precision results represent a 2-sigma Total Measurement Uncertainty.
For methods that require zero headspace or require preservation check at the time of analysis due to potential
interference, the pH is verified at analysis. Nonconforming sample pH is documented as part of the analysis and
included in the sample analysis comments.
Trip Blanks and/or Blind Duplicate samples are assigned the earliest collection time for the associated requested
analysis in order to evaluate the holding time unless specifically indicated.
Standard Reporting Procedures:
Work Order Receipt Checklist
DOWL B25090776
Page 9 of 11
www.energylab.com
Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11
PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t e p o r t Appendix D
Calculations
Column Footing
Strip FootingStrip Footing
Column Footing
0.13
0.18
Total Settlement
(in)
max (all): 0.18 in
max (stage): 0.18 in
0.000
0.019
0.038
0.057
0.076
0.095
0.114
0.133
0.152
0.171
0.190
Analysis Description Conventional Spread Footing Analysis at B-8A
Company DOWLDrawn By N. Couch
File Name Footings_B-8A.s3zDate08/26/2025
Project
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
SETTLE3 5.026
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Total Settlement (in)
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Elevation (ft)Query Point 14 (Stage 1)
Total Settlement vs. Elevation
Reference Stage: None
Analysis Description Conventional Spread Footing Analysis at B-8A
Company DOWLDrawn By N. Couch
File Name Footings_B-8A.s3zDate08/26/2025
Project
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
SETTLE3 5.026
Column Footing
Strip FootingStrip Footing
Column Footing
0.08
0.11
Total Settlement
(in)
max (all): 0.11 in
max (stage): 0.11 in
0.000
0.011
0.022
0.033
0.044
0.055
0.066
0.077
0.088
0.099
0.110
Analysis Description Conventional Spread Footing Analysis at B-10
Company DOWLDrawn By N. Couch
File Name Footings_B-10.s3zDate08/26/2025
Project
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
SETTLE3 5.026
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Total Settlement (in)
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Elevation (ft)Query Point 14 (Stage 1)
Total Settlement vs. Elevation
Reference Stage: None
Analysis Description Conventional Spread Footing Analysis at B-10
Company DOWLDrawn By N. Couch
File Name Footings_B-10.s3zDate08/26/2025
Project
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
SETTLE3 5.026
Column Footing
Strip FootingStrip Footing
Column Footing
0.11
0.13
Total Settlement
(in)
max (all): 0.13 in
max (stage): 0.13 in
0.000
0.014
0.028
0.042
0.056
0.070
0.084
0.098
0.112
0.126
0.140
Analysis Description Conventional Spread Footing Analysis at B-12
Company DOWLDrawn By N. Couch
File Name Footings_B-12.s3zDate08/26/2025
Project
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
SETTLE3 5.026
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13
Total Settlement (in)
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Elevation (ft)Query Point 14 (Stage 1)
Total Settlement vs. Elevation
Reference Stage: None
Analysis Description Conventional Spread Footing Analysis at B-12
Company DOWLDrawn By N. Couch
File Name Footings_B-12.s3zDate08/26/2025
Project
LM Project Ursis Site Due Diligence
SETTLE3 5.026
PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t e p o r t Alaska
Anchorage 907.562.2000 5015 Business Park Blvd, Suite 4000,
Anchorage, AK 99503
Fairbanks 907.374.0275 3535 College Rd, Suite 100, Fairbanks, AK 99709
Juneau 907.780.3533 9085 Glacier Highway, Suite 102, Juneau, AK 99801
Arizona
Phoenix 480.753.0800 4686 E. Van Buren St, Suite 175, Phoenix, AZ 85008
Montana
Billings 406.656.6399 222 N. 32nd St, Suite 700, Billings, MT 59101
Bozeman 406.586.8834 1283 North 14th Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715
Helena 406.442.0370 1300 Cedar St, Helena, MT 59601
Oregon
Bend 541.385.4772 1001 SW Emkay Dr, Suite 120, Bend, OR 97702
Eugene 541.683.6090 920 Chad Dr, Suite 200, Eugene, OR 97408
Lake Oswego 503.620.6103 5 Centerpointe Dr, Suite 350, Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Medford 541.774.5590 3502 Excel Dr, Medford, OR 97504
Portland 971.280.8641 309 SW 6th Ave, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97204
Salem 503.589.4100 4275 Commercial St SE, Suite 100, Salem, OR 97302
Washington
Bellevue 425.869.2670 15325 SE 30th Place, Suite 300, Bellevue, WA 98007
Vancouver 360.314.2391 805 Broadway St, Suite 615, Vancouver, WA 98660
Wyoming
Sheridan 307.672.9006 1833 S Sheridan Ave, Sheridan, WY 82801
1283 N 14th Ave, Suite 101
Bozeman, MT 59601
(406) 586-8834
Lab
222 N. 32nd Street │ Billings, MT 59101
(406) 656-6399