REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS BRUNSWICK FARM APARTMENTS MANOR TWP., LANCASTER CO.

Transcription

1 REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS BRUNSWICK FARM APARTMENTS MANOR TWP., LANCASTER CO., PENNSYLVANIA FOR ELA GROUP, INC. OCTOBER 22, 2013

2 October 22, 2013 Mrs. Cheryl Love, RLA/ASLA Principal & Studio Director ELA Group, Inc. 743 South Broad Street Lititz, PA ECS Job No Reference: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Brunswick Farm Apartments Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Dear Mrs. Love: As authorized by your acceptance of our proposal No..42-GP dated September, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (ECS), has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analysis for the proposed residential development at the above referenced location. Our current geotechnical analysis is based on a series of five building soil borings, and nine test pits advanced at various locations across the site. The enclosed report discusses the subsurface exploration procedures, presents the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing programs, and presents our recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development and associated site work. Additional information with regard to construction considerations, estimated settlement, as well as other factors which may influence construction at the site, are discussed in detail in the accompanying report. We have enjoyed being of service to ELA Group, Inc. during the design phase of this project. If there are questions regarding the information and geotechnical recommendations contained in this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, ECS MID-ATLANTIC, LLC. J. Matthew Carroll, P.E. William D. Friedah, P.E. Geotechnical Manager Principal Engineer David A. Copeland Geotechnical Staff Project Manager 56 Grumbacher Road, Suite D, York, Pennsylvania T: F: ECS Carolinas, LLP ECS Florida, LLC ECS Midwest, LLC ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC ECS Southeast, LLC ECS Texas, LLP

3 REPORT PROJECT Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis Proposed Brunswick Farm apartments Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania CLIENT Mrs. Cheryl Love ELA Group, Inc. 743 South Broad Street Lititz, PA PROJECT #.3204 DATE /22/2013

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 Project Location and Site Description 1 Proposed Construction 1 Scope of Work 1 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 1 Subsurface Exploration Procedures 1 Laboratory Testing Program 2 Site Conditions 2 Regional Geology 3 Soils Mapping 3 Soil Conditions 3 Groundwater Conditions 4 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 Karst Related Risk - General 6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations 7 Fill Placement 8 Building Foundations 9 Floor Slab Design Lateral Earth Pressure 11 Excavation Slopes and Support 12 Seismic Design Considerations 13 Pavement Considerations 13 Stormwater Management 15 Construction Considerations 16 Closing 16 APPENDIX 16 PAGE

5 Project Location and Site Description PROJECT OVERVIEW The site is bordered by Donnerville Road to the west and private properties to the north. The borders to the west, south and east are residential properties, a baseball field and a golf ball driving range, respectively. The site is wooded along its northern boundary and then predominately consists of an agricultural soybean field. The central portion of the site is an old asphalt airplane landing strip. Concrete slabs were visible at the surface within the wooded area of the property. Proposed Construction The proposed construction consists of five 3-story apartment buildings, 3 parking lots, and multiple stormwater management basins. It is our understanding that the proposed apartment buildings will consist of concrete masonry block walls supporting 8-inch hollow core concrete plank with 2 concrete topping for the second and third floors. Estimated structural loading is kips / lineal foot. Based on the preliminary grading plan, cuts and fills in the building pad areas are expected to be on the order of 3 feet or less, with cuts associated with stormwater management of up to 9 feet in depth. Scope of Work The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on field subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and review of available geologic and/or geotechnical data. The subsurface exploration consisted of 5 soil borings (B-1 through B-5) within the proposed building footprints, 7 test pits for infiltration testing and 2 probe test pits for soil strata classification, in the proposed Stormwater/BMP areas. The borings located within the building addition footprint were scheduled to be extended to a depth of 25.0 feet below the existing ground surface or auger refusal, which ever was encountered first. The majority of borings did not reach design depth as the site is underlain by shallow, pinnacled limestone and shale bedrock. The number and general locations of the borings performed for the current subsurface exploration were selected by the ELA Group Inc. and located in the field for drilling purposes by representatives of ECS. The borings were located in the field using standard taping and pacing methods with respect to the existing site features. Subsurface Exploration Procedures EXPLORATION PROCEDURES The soil borings were performed with a truck mounted auger drilling rig. The drilling rig utilized continuous flight, hollow stem augers to advance the boreholes. Drilling fluid was not used in this process. Following drilling operations, the boreholes were backfilled with the auger spoils generated during the drilling process.

6 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 2 For the soil borings, representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split-barrel sampling procedure in accordance with ASTM Specification D In this procedure, a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of inches by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through a 12-inch interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) value and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs. This value can be used as a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of noncohesive soils. In a less reliable way, it also indicates the consistency of cohesive soils. This indication is qualitative, since many factors can significantly affect the standard penetration resistance value and prevent a direct correlation between drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer-rod-sampler assemblies. The test pits were excavated by utilizing a backhoe under the supervision of ECS and contracted by the owner. The test pits were excavated to identify the various soil horizons with their various soil types and thicknesses and to investigate for the presence of any limiting layers relative the potential of infiltrating stormwater. The test pits were excavated to determine the characteristics within the proposed stormwater management area to obtain general information on the subsurface conditions and depths to limiting layers in this area and to allow for infiltration testing. Following the excavation, the holes were backfilled to restore the ground to its previous elevation using the excavated materials. Backfill materials were placed in lifts and bucket compacted. Refer to the Subsurface Exploration Location Diagram in the Appendix for a depiction of the boring and test pit locations. Laboratory Testing Program Representative soil samples were selected and tested in our laboratory to check field classification and to determine pertinent engineering properties. The laboratory testing program included visual classifications, moisture content, Atterberg Limits, and particle size analysis. The results of the lab testing for physical properties are included on a summary sheet in the Appendix of this report, along with the individual test results. The encountered soils were classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A brief explanation of the Unified Soil Classification System is included with this report. The soil stratums were grouped into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs and profiles are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual. The soil samples will be retained in our laboratory for a period of 60 days, after which, they may be discarded unless other instructions are received as to their disposal. Site Conditions The site is bordered by Donnerville Road to the west and private properties to the north. The borders to the west, south and east are residential properties, a baseball field and a golf ball driving range, respectively. The site is wooded along its northern boundary and then

7 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 3 predominately consists of an agricultural soybean field. The central portion of the site is an old asphalt airplane landing strip. Concrete slabs were visible at the surface within the wooded area of the property. The wetlands depicted on the plans in the north-central and north-west of the site, consisted of a heavily wooded area with a dry stream bed bordering the site and private property. Regional Geology According to the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Interactive Map (PA DCNR), the eastern portion of the project site is underlain by the Conestoga Formation (OCc). The interactive map indicates that the western portion of the site in underlain by the Vintage Formation (Cv). The Engineering Characteristics of the Rocks of Pennsylvania, Second Edition, 1982, by Alan Geyer and Peter Wilshusen, states that the Conestoga Formation consists of gray, impure limestone with black graphitic shale partings. The bedrock is crudely to poorly bedded, thin and highly crumpled. The joint pattern is irregular, moderately abundant and widely spaced. The bedrock has good surface drainage and solution channel joints that provide a secondary porosity of low magnitude. Excavation is difficult in this bedrock. A fast drilling rate is obtainable in this formation. The PA DCNR interactive map describes the Vintage Formation to consist of dark gray, knotty, argillaceous dolomite having impure, light gray marble at the base. The bedrock is moderately well bedded. The joints have a blocky pattern are moderately abundant and irregularly spaced. The bedrock is slightly to moderately weathered to a shallow depth. The surface drainage is good with little subsurface drainage. This formation is difficult to excavate with pinnacles contributing this difficulty. A fast drilling rate is possible in this formation. Limestone is a carbonate bedrock formation that is prone to dissolution and sinkhole formation. Multiple closed depressions have been mapped within a ½-mile of the site by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Interactive Map. The Karst Features Diagram in the Appendix depicts the location of the mapped features. It should be noted that no open sinkholes were identified on the site. Soils Mapping The soil survey of Lancaster County Pennsylvania by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, indicates the project site soil is primarily Glenville silt loam consisting of 3 to 8% slopes. The surface is brown silt loam underlain by yellow brown silt loam with mottling. The soil is noted as being poorly drained with relatively low permeability and a slow rate of infiltration. Soil Conditions The soils borings encountered 1 foot of topsoil underlain by SILT, and Clayey SILT. The SILT layer was found to be dry and of medium dense consistency with blow counts ranging from 15 to 25 blows per foot. The underlying clayey SILT with mottling, was found to be dry to moist and range from loose to medium dense in consistency with blow counts ranging from 5 to blows

8 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 4 per foot. Underlying the mottled clayey SILT layer, a saturated dark gray to black clayey SILT layer was encountered. This soil was observed to be loose to medium dense in consistency with blow counts ranging from 5 to 13 blows per foot. Auger refusals were encountered in 4 of the 5 borings as a result of the shale / limestone bedrock, at depths varying between 14.4 feet and 19.3 feet. The varying degrees and shades of mottling in the upper soil layers (0 to 8 feet) appear to be associated with the natural weathering process of the soil combined with the overall area being somewhat low-lying. The general mottling observed in these layers is not indicative of a seasonal high groundwater table. A very clear delineation of the seasonal high groundwater table was encountered in the borings and test pits at depth of about 8 to 14 feet, where very dark gray to black soils were encountered / recorded, along with saturated conditions. The test pits in the existing paved area encountered 2 inches of asphalt underlain by 1 inch of ¾ inch stone with oil / tar. This layer was underlain by 8 to 12 inches of a mixture of crushed stone similar to AASHTO #1 stone, 3A stone, and fines. A layer of silty CLAY fill was encountered in test pits TP-5, TP-6, TP-7, underlying the surficial asphalt pavement and subbase. A stone fill layer was encountered in test pit TP-1, approximately 2.5 feet thick, underlying the topsoil and surfical to the clayey silt layer. The stone in this area may be associated with some of the previous structures at the site. This material had an organic odor and varying amounts of organic matter present and also appeared to be very moist to wet. Topsoil was encountered to a depth of 1 foot in the test pits located in the wooded area, towards the north end of the site. Underlying the topsoil, clayey silt was encountered, with mottling increasing with depth. An isolated pocket of light gray silty CLAY was found in test pit TP-3, from approximately 3 to 6 feet in depth. The soil encountered in both the borings and the test pits at the water table and surficial to the bedrock was a saturated dark gray to black clayey SILT. The subsurface conditions discussed and those shown on the boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. We note that the transition between different soil strata is usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was encountered in the borings and the test pits. The average ground water table depth in the southern portion of the site, from the analysis of the test borings was observed to be approximately EL 400 (approximately - feet from existing grade). The average water table depth from the analysis of the test pits in the central and north portion of the site was observed to be EL 398 (approximately -8 feet from existing grade). Observations for groundwater were made during sampling and upon completion of the drilling operations at each boring location and in the test pit excavations. In auger drilling operations, water is not introduced into the boreholes, and the groundwater position can often be determined by observing water flowing into or out of the boreholes. Furthermore, visual observation of the soil samples retrieved during the auger drilling exploration can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions. It should be noted that the groundwater elevation will be highly affected

9 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 5 by precipitation. Therefore, higher or lower groundwater levels may be encountered depending on the time of year and recent precipitation events. Areas of perched groundwater on top of the existing bedrock surface may also be encountered. The area on site noted as wetlands (in the north-central to north-west) on the plan, was visually explored by ECS. The wetlands were observed to consist of a heavily wooded area bordered by dry river bed (approximately 3 feet in width) that ran east / west across the width of the site, near the private property line. No bodies of water, pooling or ponding of water on the soil were observed within this area, noted on the plans as wetlands. Due to the groundwater table apparently being below the anticipated construction excavation depths, we expect that construction dewatering will not be required for building construction. If areas of perched water within the soils are encountered, we anticipate that an aggressive sump pit and pumping operation will be sufficient for dewatering the bottoms of the excavations. Infiltration Testing Results The planned depths for infiltration testing were able to be achieved in the test pits. The test pits were tested with double ring infiltration testing in general accordance with the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices (PA BMP) Manual Appendix C. A one-hour presoak was utilized at each test location to determine the testing interval. Test readings were recorded at half-hour intervals. A minimum of four consecutive, stable, readings were recorded. The soils tested were not frozen. Test Pit Location Surface Elevation (ft) Infiltration Testing Elevation (ft) Limiting Layer Elevation (ft) Corrected Infiltration Rate (in/hr) TP , TP , TP , TP , TP , TP , TP , *Double ring infiltration tests depths were adjusted based on the depths of the limiting layer encountered (water table), in test pits TP-3 and TP-4. Test Pit Location Surface Elevation (ft) Infiltration Testing Elevation (ft) Limiting Layer Elevation (ft) Corrected Infiltration Rate (in/hr) PROBE-A N/A - N/A PROBE-B N/A N/A

10 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 6 **Refer to the Analysis and Recommendations Section of this report for specific recommendations pertaining to the management of the stormwater. ***- Indicates none observed ****N/A (non applicable) test or measurement not required for a given entry ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project, the assumptions that we have stated in this report, the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing and our experience in geotechnical engineering. If our assumptions or our understanding of the proposed project are not correct we should be notified so that we may alter our recommendations as required. Karst Related Risk - General The Conestoga bedrock formation is a carbonate bedrock formation that can be prone to karst activity. This often takes the form of soft and loose soils above the bedrock, uneven bedrock surfaces, closed surficial depressions, and sinkholes. As noted previously, the project site is located in an area underlain by carbonate rocks consisting of potentially solution-prone limestone. The carbonate rocks in this area form variable rock surfaces due to solutioning in water over long periods of time. A low risk of sinkhole development does exist for the site given its geologic setting and based on our site observations. Although sinkholes stem from geologic conditions within the underlying rock, they are often triggered by changes in the surface and subsurface drainage patterns. In order to reduce the potential for future sinkhole development which could impact foundation performance, positive surface drainage should be maintained both during and after construction. We recommend that the following preventative measures be followed to reduce the potential inducement of sinkhole formation in proposed development areas. 1. Earthwork operations should be graded to drain away from the building area at all times. Upon completion of daily earthwork operations, the ground surface should be sealed by thorough rolling to reduce infiltration of precipitation and facilitate runoff. 2. Sediment control management facilities should be located outside of planned construction areas. Inlets associated with storm drain systems should not be utilized as temporary sediment control devices during construction. 3. During construction, care should be taken to reduce the ponding of surface water in and/or adjacent to the building. The foundations should be excavated and poured the same day, if possible, or the founding soils must be provided with a mud mat (lean concrete).

11 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 7 4. Visual observations during all earthwork operations should be carried out in order to detect any previous unexposed or recently created collapse features. Any such feature should be called to the geotechnical engineer s attention for remedial improvement. 5. Final site grading should include sloping grades and piping of downspouts away from the building. 6. Storm piping should be designed such that joints and structure tie-ins remain watertight with allowance for some settlement. Leaking storm pipes promote subsurface seepage and can instigate sinkhole development in the form of surficial dropouts with little or no warning. It may be beneficial to use bentonite clay around all pipe joints to minimize the potential for long-term leaking. Areas identified to be suspect during the initial earthwork phase should be further explored during construction to determine the extent, both vertically and horizontally, of possible solution activity. We recommend that all available geotechnical data be made available to the inspecting engineer or geologist during earthwork operations. Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations Site preparation activities should include stripping of topsoil on organic matter from the site surface prior to placement of structural fill. Based on the results of the exploration, it appears that the site has approximately 12 inches of topsoil. Furthermore, based on the site layout and grading, it is our understanding that the existing asphalt and stone subbase at the site will be removed and recycled for structural fill. This material will be suitable for use as structural fill in non-building pad areas provided it is appropriately blended and the maximum particle size is less than 4 inches. Refer to the Fill Placement section of this report for additional recommendations pertaining to the reuse of the pavement material. It should also be noted that several areas of existing concrete slabs were noted in the wooded area generally within the footprint of the large basin depicted on the preliminary grading plan. The concrete will require removal and may be crushed and reused as structural fill, if desired. After stripping to the desired grade and prior to construction operations, the exposed surface should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or his authorized representative. If practical, proofrolling using a loaded dump truck, having an axle weight of at least tons, may be used at this time to aid in identifying localized soft or unsuitable materials which should be removed. Soft or unsuitable material encountered during this proofrolling should either be densified in place or removed to a stable subgrade and replaced with an approved backfill compacted to the criteria given below. Proofrolling of the pad areas should be overseen by the ECS representative to determine the suitability of these materials for support of floor slabs. Because of the moderate fine-grained and cohesive content of the near surface soils across portions of the project site, it is recommended that the earthwork operations be performed during the warmer and dryer (i.e. late spring, summer, early fall) periods of the year. In the event that the earthwork operations are accomplished during the cooler and wetter periods of the year or even during the warmer periods where rainfall has occurred and drainage is poor, delays and additional costs should be anticipated since reduction of soil moisture and stabilization of the soils would have to be accomplished by a combination of mechanical

12 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 8 manipulation and/or the use of chemical additives such as quicklime, Portland cement and/or other related products to reduce the moisture content of the soils and permit subgrade stabilization and/or compaction. It should be noted that the application of agricultural lime would not be suitable for this application. Other alternatives would be to undercut excessively moist materials to firm subgrade and replace them with approved fill materials. The preparation of areas to receive engineered fill should be observed on a full-time basis. These observations should be performed by a geotechnical engineer, or his representative, to document that unsuitable materials have been removed, and that the subgrade is suitable for support of the proposed construction and/or fills. In some areas, excessively soft and/or wet soils may be encountered for fill subgrades, especially in the winter or early spring months. Soft areas should be excavated and removed. Fill Placement Soil placed as engineered fill should be an approved material classified as ML, CL, SM or SC, free of organic matter, debris, rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter, be a nonfrost susceptible soil, and have a liquid limit and plasticity index less than 40 and 20, respectively. High plasticity SILT or CLAY (MH, CH) soils were encountered at the site. These soils should be carefully evaluated during the earthwork process. The moderately to highly plastic soils at the site will likely be moisture sensitive and difficult to work with. The existing asphalt pavement and its underlying subbase may be milled and blended for use a structural fill. Considering the relatively thin layer of asphalt, breaking down of the asphalt may be accomplished with heavy tracked loaders or sheeps foot compactors. Reuse of the asphalt as fill should incorporate breaking down the asphalt into pieces smaller than 4 inches and blending with the underlying stone subbase, which is comprised of a variety of aggregate sizes. Placement of the asphalt fragments and oil and chip portions of the material should be limited to parking lot areas and non structural areas. Asphalt (bitumen) containing materials should not be placed in building pad areas. The blended asphalt and stone matrix may also be reused as aggregate subbase for the pavement areas subject to the field monitoring and approval of the Geotechnical Engineer of record. It is likely that if this material is used as subbase, additional subbase thicknesses will be recommended due to material variability. Fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and moisture conditioned to within ±2% of the optimum moisture content. Engineered fill placed in the expanded building limits should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698, Standard Proctor Method. The on-site materials may be reused as engineered fill provided that they do not contain organics, or foreign debris, are not highly plastic (CH), and conform to the criteria outlined above. It should be noted that an approximately 2 foot thick layer of dark gray fill / topsoil materials with varying amounts of organics was encountered in all three test pits excavated through the existing pavement (TP-5, TP-6, TP-7). These materials do no appear to be suitable for reuse as structural fill and will require undercutting in building foundation areas, and if encountered in other structural areas. Based on observations made during the subsurface exploration program and visual observation of the recovered soil samples, some of the surficial soils encountered at each of the boring locations may be suitable for reuse as engineered fill

13 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 9 material. Further evaluation of the suitability of existing fill or onsite soils for reuse as engineered fill should be performed in the field at the time of construction. It is likely that imported soils will be needed if the site earthwork is balanced. Moisture adjustment is anticipated to be required to condition suitable on-site material before its placement in new structural fill areas. Materials not considered to be suitable for reuse in structural areas should either be disposed of off-site or stockpiled for later use as fill material in green areas. Fill operations should be observed on a full-time basis by an authorized representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record to determine that compaction requirements are being met. Fill should be periodically tested to confirm that compaction is being achieved. A sufficient number of tests should be taken in each lift before the next lift is placed, on the order of at least one test per 2,500 sf of area on each lift. The elevation and location of the tests should be clearly identified and recorded at the time of fill placement. We recommend that the expanded footprint of the building areas be well staked, including the limits of the fill zones, at the time of fill placement. Grade control should be maintained throughout the earthwork operations. Compaction equipment suitable to the soil type used as fill should be selected to compact the fill. Theoretically, any equipment type can be used as long as the required density is achieved. Ideally, a steel drum roller would be most efficient for compacting and sealing the surface soils. Areas receiving fill should be graded to facilitate positive drainage away from the building pad areas of free water associated with precipitation and surface run-off. Building Foundations Based on the subsurface soil conditions combined with the anticipated bearing conditions and the construction methodology, we recommend the proposed building be supported on shallow spread foundations. Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are strictly adhered, the foundations bearing on natural soils may be designed for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf if bearing on natural soils or new structural fill. Soils capable of supporting the 2,500 psf bearing capacity can be identified on our boring logs as these exhibiting an SPT value of 8 blows per foot or greater. The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted to the foundation bearing soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. During construction, the bearing capacity at the final footing excavation should be observed in the field by the geotechnical engineer, or his authorized representative to document that the in situ bearing capacity at the bottom of each footing excavation is adequate for the design loads and meets or exceeds the design bearing pressure. It should be noted that footings may require localized stepping down or over excavation of the footings in order to achieve the recommended soil bearing pressure due to potential variations in the soil support characteristics. Footing installations should be observed on a full time basis by a representative of the geotechnical engineer, or his authorized representative. Fill placed within the building areas should be placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the section entitled Fill Placement.

14 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page As further precaution with regard to moisture content variations in the soils supporting exterior footings, we recommend that finished grades in the areas of the footings be relatively impervious and should slope downward and away from the structure. Planting and landscaping beds should not be located immediately adjacent to the building exterior. Furthermore, roof drainage from the building should be carried in water-tight lines away from the immediate structural area and suitably discharged into the storm drain system. On the basis of the design assumptions outlined in this report, settlement of the structures is expected to be within tolerance for the proposed development. For footings placed to bear on suitable natural soils, total settlements of up to 1 inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half this amount, are anticipated. These settlement values are based on our engineering experience with these materials and the anticipated structural loading, and are a guide to the structural engineer with his design. We recommend that continuous footings have a minimum width of 1.5 feet and that isolated column footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 2.5 feet. The minimum dimensions recommended above help reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local shear or "punching" action. In addition, footings should be placed at a depth to provide adequate frost cover protection. Therefore, we recommend perimeter footings subject to climatic variations be located at a minimum depth of 3.0 feet below finished grade. Exposure to the environment may weaken the materials at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing materials are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened materials must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. Continuous load-bearing wall foundations should be suitably reinforced. To provide continuity and to reduce the effects of differential settlements, the longitudinal reinforcing steel should be extended into column footings situated along the wall footings and the foundations should be constructed as a continuous unit through monolithic concrete placement to the extent practical. The reinforcing steel also should be continuous through the building corners. Where top and bottom steel is included in the continuous wall foundations, a minimum footing thickness of 12 inches should be provided. Prior to the placement of foundation concrete, the steel reinforcement should be observed to document that the bars are properly sized and positioned in accordance with the foundation plans and specifications. Floor Slab Design For the design and construction of slabs-on-grade for the proposed structure and outdoor display area, the recommendations provided in the section entitled Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations are followed. Following proper subgrade preparation, the floor slab for the proposed structure can be designed and constructed as a slab-on-grade. The slab subgrade area should be observed by an experienced geotechnical engineer at the beginning of slab subgrade construction in order to aid in locating soft deposits or unsuitable materials. Subgrades should then be thoroughly compacted to the criteria of structured fill given within this report and proofrolled prior to placement of subbase stone. ECS recommends that CH

15 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 11 materials not be placed in the top 1 foot of the fill in pavement areas and not used at all within the building footprint. Fill in these areas should consist of granular materials consisting of predominately silts, ands, and/or gravels. Refer to the Fill Placement section of this report for additional information. We recommend that the floor slab be isolated from the foundation footings so that differential settlement of the structure will not induce shear stresses in the floor slab. Furthermore, in order to minimize the crack width of shrinkage cracks that may develop near the surface of the slab, we recommend mesh reinforcement be included in the design of the floor slab. The mesh should be in the top half of the slab to be effective. Special attention should be given to the surface curing of the slab in order to minimize uneven drying of the slab and associated cracking. A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 0 pci may be used for the design of the slab-on-grade. We also recommend that the slabs-on-grade be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of granular material having a maximum aggregate size of 1.5 inches and no more than 2% fines. This granular layer will facilitate the fine grading of the subgrade and help prevent the rise of water through the floor slab. Prior to placing the granular fill, the floor slab subgrade soils should be properly compacted, and be free of standing water, mud, or frozen soil. Before the placement of concrete, a vapor barrier should be placed on top of the granular material to provide additional moisture protection. If floor loads in excess of 500 psf are expected, we recommend that the granular material beneath the floor be increased to a minimum thickness of 6 inches, with additional reinforcing placed, as determined by the structural engineer. In the event there is a significant time lag between the site grading work and fine grading of the slab area prior to the placement of stone or concrete, the Geotechnical Engineer should document the condition of the prepared subgrade. Prior to final slab construction, the subgrade may require scarification and recompaction to provide firm and unyielding conditions. Even though ground-supported slabs may be constructed during the warm months of the year, exposure of the interior slabs to freezing temperatures can result in frost heave. Consequently, to minimize the potential for frost heave beneath previously installed slabs, it is recommended that footing excavations and/or unpoured sections within the slab area be pumped out to minimize water flow into the subbase and/or subgrade materials. In addition, slab joints should be sealed to minimize surface water infiltration into the subbase materials. Lateral Earth Pressure Below-grade walls may be required to resist lateral earth pressure. This may include foundation walls, loading dock walls and retaining or wing walls designed to accommodate surface grade changes around the building and parking areas or adjacent to truck docks. The actual earth pressure on the walls will vary according to material types and backfill materials used and how the backfill is compacted. The equivalent fluid unit weights tabulated below provide recommended lateral earth pressures for design of these walls assuming that positive foundation drainage is provided to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure. The table also assumes that the walls will be backfilled with on-site materials that classify as SM or more

16 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 12 granular soil types having an internal angle of friction of 30 degrees and a unit weight of 120 pcf. Wall backfill should not consist of clayey soil types. Backfill Type SM or more granular material At-Rest (Fixed-Headed) Active Condition (Free-Headed) Walls Walls Walls psf/ft psf/ft psf/ft Passive Condition (Free-Headed) The above values do not include the influence of foundation or surface load in or adjacent to the wall backfill. The use of the granular earth pressure coefficients requires that the entire failure wedge behind the wall be backfilled with granular material. Typically, this wedge can be assumed to comprise the area extending at a 45 angle up and away from the base of the footing. Backfill of foundation walls and retaining walls should consist of granular material. The backfill materials should be placed in 8-inch thick loose layers and compacted to 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that backfill directly behind the walls be compacted with hand-held compactors. Heavy compactors and grading equipment should not be allowed to operate within 5 to feet of the wall during backfilling to avoid developing excessive temporary or long-term lateral soil pressures. We recommend that a representative of the geotechnical engineer be present to monitor foundation excavations and fill placement. Below grade walls should also be designed to resist adjoining surcharge loads from foundations and/or equipment located in the zone of influence of the wall. It is recommended that below-grade walls and retaining walls be provided with a positive foundation drainage system. A typical below-grade wall drain would consist of a minimum 4 inch diameter flexible or rigid perforated drain pipe protected by a filter medium (clean, coarse granular fill), and a non-woven geotextile fabric. The non-woven filter fabric is intended to encircle or wrap the entire system. The foundation drain system should be tied to the storm drainage system, allowed to daylight down slope, or collected in a sump and pumped out. This system typically is installed directly on top of the footing with the free draining filter medium extending approximately inches behind the wall and to within 2 feet of the final grade. This free draining material should be capped by 2 feet of relatively impervious soil and graded to provide drainage away from the wall to reduce the infiltration of surface water. Excavation Slopes and Support For temporary cuts or excavations in soil, side slopes as steep as 1.5H:1V are possible. However, slopes for below grade excavations should be laid back in accordance with proper local, state and OSHA safety requirements. Temporary slopes should be aggressively protected, such as by seeding and mulching as soon as possible after placement to prevent from sloughing and erosion of the surficial soils.

17 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 13 Seismic Design Considerations In accordance with Table of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), Site Class C should be utilized for seismic analysis. This classification is based on the subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration and on our knowledge of the local geology. The subsurface exploration at this site included drilling of borings to depths on the order of 25+ feet below the existing site grades. The International Building Code (IBC) 2009 requires site classification for seismic design based on the upper 0 ft of a soil profile. Where site specific data are not available to a depth of 0 ft, appropriate soil properties are permitted to be estimated by the registered design professional preparing the soils report based on known geologic conditions. Three methods are utilized in classifying sites, namely the shear wave velocity (v s ) method, the unconfined compressive strength (s u ) method, and the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-Value) method. The latter method was used in classifying this site. Pavement Considerations Based on the soil types at this site, ECS recommends the existing upper 8 inches of the subgrade should be scarified to allow for moisture adjustment of the soil to within 3% of the optimum directly below pavement sections. The subgrade should then be compacted to within 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor Method (ASTM D698). California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was not performed as part of this project; however our experience with these soil types indicates that a CBR value of 3 should be used. Please note that any imported fill materials used in proposed pavement areas will need to be verified to determine if the above estimated CBR value is applicable. We have developed a preliminary pavement section based on guidelines from AASHTO and using a reliability of 90%, standard deviation of 0.35, a CBR of 5 (M r =7500 psi), and traffic loading conditions of 0.35 x 6 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) for light duty and 0.65 x 6 ESAL for heavy duty. These are based on a 20 year pavement design and this section is as follows: The design analyses for pavements have been based on methodology from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide of Design of Pavement Structures, 1993 and guidelines established for SUPERPAVE as outlined in the Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement Design Guide from the Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Association.

18 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 14 Pavement Materials Compacted Layer Thickness (Inches) For Indicated Traffic Condition Medium Duty Drive Lane Access Light Duty Parking Areas Surface Course Asphalt mm SUPERPAVE Base or Binder Course Asphalt mm SUPERPAVE Stone Aggregate Base (2A) Total Pavement Thickness (in.) The above pavement sections have been developed for the anticipated post-construction traffic conditions. It should be recognized that construction loading conditions may be more severe than in-service conditions and the Geotechnical Engineer should be advised of postconstruction traffic loading conditions (i.e. ESALs) that differ from those presented above in order to confirm and/or modify the pavement section recommendations. The partial construction of the design pavement section as a means to facilitate construction traffic may result in subgrade and pavement failures due to the reduced supportive qualities of a partial section and the heavy and sometimes dynamic loads associated with construction traffic activity. In light of potential damage associated with construction traffic, we suggest that placement of the final surface course not occur until the major construction has been completed for those particular pavement areas subjected to construction traffic. Should distressed areas be encountered subsequent to the use of the pavement areas by construction traffic, those areas should be undercut to firm ground, and returned to planned subgrade with approved controlled, compacted fill or bituminous concrete, as outlined in previous sections. The flexible pavement sections provided may not be suitable for the support of heavy concentrated static or wheel loads and/or dynamic (impact) loading conditions, such as those produced in front of the dumpster and loading areas. To provide uniform support beneath a rigid pavement, a minimum 6-inch thick select granular subbase should be utilized. Although we recommend that exterior pavement design be performed by the Structural Engineer knowledgeable of the specific static and dynamic loading conditions, for preliminary planning purposes and predicated on empirical information, a minimum 6-inch thick rigid pavement may be considered. It should be noted that the rigid pavement should be comprised of air entrained Portland cement concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi. The rigid pavement must be properly reinforced and provided with adequate jointing and load transfer devices. Immediately prior to new pavement construction, the exposed subsoils throughout the proposed paved areas must be carefully and thoroughly proofrolled/compacted and visually examined in order to detect yielding or soft soil conditions; particularly, in disturbed areas such as adjacent to the completed building where equipment movement has been concentrated and along recently installed utility lines, inlets and curbs. In the event that unstable conditions are

19 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 15 encountered, the yielding and loose areas must be densified, or undercut and returned to subgrade level with approved, controlled and compacted fill. Proofrolling should be accomplished with approved equipment and must be monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer or their authorized representative. Since the compacted subgrade soils will tend to minimize the downward migration of surface water, it is imperative that the subgrade soils in the paved areas be graded to facilitate surface drainage and provisions be made to remove free water from the select granular materials, such as in the planned low points of the new parking area. Discharge of accumulated water may be accomplished by the use of stub drains or Knock-outs, properly covered with filter fabric, which will permit free water to discharge into the storm drain system or onto protected slopes. Stormwater Management Due to clayey and fine grained soil types at the site and the negligible infiltration rates recorded in the field testing, combined with the potential for karst activity, based on the geologic mapping and our observation of the bedrock materials, ECS does not recommend that infiltration be performed at this site. Due to these factors, ECS recommends that alternative BMP facilities should be incorporated into the design to meet the intent of the stormwater management policy relative to water quality. Water quality requirements can typically be addressed through the use of rain gardens and bioretention areas constructed with underdrains or outlet structures to convey the water off of the site. As mentioned in the Subgrade Preparation section, it is recommended that field verification of the subgrade conditions be performed by the authorized ECS representative. ECS recommends that specific construction notes appear on the plans requiring full-time observation of the excavation of the basins by the authorized ECS representative to verify suitable conditions are present. Stormwater management facilities for the development should be clay-lined to minimize the infiltration rates and the associated potential propagation of sinkholes. Further testing of the existing on-site clays should be done to confirm they are suitable for use as a clay liner. They are classified as moderately to highly plastic and consist of greater than 80% fines, therefore we anticipate some soils will be suitable. Considering the low infiltration rates recorded at the site and the generally fine grained soil types at the site, it is our opinion that portions of the onsite soils will be suitable for use as a basin liner. The ECS representative should coordinate with the earthwork contractor during grading operations to delineate acceptable soil types for liner material. Detention facilities should have a minimum of a 2 feet thick clay liner, with swales or shallow BMP areas having a minimum of a 1 foot thick liner provided bedrock is greater than 2 feet below the bottom of the basin. A Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) such as Bentomat ST or equivalent is recommended for lining the stormwater management facilities. The installation of the Bentomat ST should be completed in accordance with the manufacturer s installation guidelines. In lieu of the GCL, a minimum of a 2-foot thick layer of soil, consisting of USCS classification group of CL, ML, or CH with no more that % larger that the #4 sieve and 0% passing the 2 sieve is also suitable for the clay liner. Clay liners should be compacted to 95% of the standard proctor at 0-3% above the

20 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 16 optimum moisture content. Permeability testing of the soil indented for use as the clay liner should be performed in order to determine the optimal specifications. Construction Considerations The subgrade and footing bearing surfaces should be prepared in accordance with the recommended procedures and the construction operations monitored by a qualified engineering technician. These precautions are necessary, as the materials observed in our borings are moisture and disturbance sensitive, and will become weakened if exposed to heavy traffic. We recommend that excavations be properly dewatered, if necessary, using conventional sump pit and pumping operations. The site should be graded such that surface water runoff is directed away from the excavations. Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are dug. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a 1-to 3-inch thick "mud-mat" of "lean" concrete be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel. Water must be removed from foundation and utility trenches prior to backfill or concrete placement. In a dry and undisturbed state, the majority of the soil at the site will provide good subgrade support for fill placement and construction operations. However, these soils are considered disturbance sensitive. When wet, these soils will degrade quickly with disturbance from contractor operations. Therefore, good site drainage should be maintained during earthwork operations which will help maintain the integrity of the soil. The surface of the site should be kept properly graded in order to enhance drainage of the surface water away from the proposed building areas during the construction phase. We recommend that an attempt be made to enhance the natural drainage without interrupting its pattern. The Contractor should provide and maintain good site drainage during earthwork operations to help maintain the integrity of the surficial soils. Erosion and sedimentation should be controlled in accordance with sound engineering practice and current local requirements. Closing This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist the design team with the design of the proposed building addition. The report scope is limited to this specific project and the location described. The project description represents our current understanding of the significant aspects of the proposed improvements relevant to the geotechnical considerations.

21 ELA Group, Inc. ECS Job No October 22, 2013 Page 17 We recommend that the construction activities be monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or his authorized representative to provide the necessary overview of grading activities to check the suitability of the subgrade soils for supporting the proposed footings. We would be pleased to provide these services. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the information and recommendations contained in this letter, or if we may be of further assistance to you in during planning or construction of this project, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience.

22 APPENDIX Site Location Diagram Geologic Features Diagram Karst Related Features Diagram Subsurface Exploration Location Diagram Boring Logs B-1 through B-5 Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-7 and Probes P-A, P-B Infiltration Test Results Laboratory Test Results Unified Soil Classification System Reference Notes for Boring Logs

23 SITE Source: GoogleMaps NORTH Proposed Brunswick Farm Apartments Donnerville Road Manor Twp., Lancaster Co., PA Appendix Site Location Diagram ECS Project.3204 October 2013

24 SITE Source: The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Interactive Map NORTH Proposed Brunswick Farm Apartments Donnerville Road Manor Twp., Lancaster Co., PA Appendix Regional Geology ECS Project.3204 October 2013

25 Source: The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Interactive Map NORTH Proposed Brunswick Farm Apartments Donnerville Road Manor Twp., Lancaster Co., PA Appendix Karst Features ECS Project.3204 October 2013

26

27 CLIENT JOB # BORING # SHEET ELA Group, Inc. PROJECT NAME 3204 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER B-1 1 OF 1 Brunswick Farm Apartments SITE LOCATION Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County NORTHING EASTING STATION DEPTH (FT) 0 5 SAMPLE NO. S-1 S-2 S-3 SAMPLE TYPE SS SS SS SAMPLE DIST. (IN) RECOVERY (IN) 15 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BOTTOM OF CASING SURFACE ELEVATION Topsoil Depth [12"] 411 SILT, Tannish Light Brown, Dry, Medium Dense (ML) Silty CLAY, Orangish Light Brown, Dry to Moist, Stiff, Trace Mottling (CL) ENGLISH UNITS LOSS OF CIRCULATION WATER LEVELS ELEVATION (FT) BLOWS/6" CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY RQD% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% PLASTIC LIMIT % REC.% WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT LIQUID LIMIT % S-4 SS SILT With Sand, Orange, Red, Brown, Gray, Moist to Saturated, Loose to Medium Dense, Mottling increasing with depth (ML) S-5 SS S-6 SS S-7 SS Clayey SILT, Dark Gray to Black, Saturated, Medium Dense (ML) END OF 25.00' THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WL WS WD BORING STARTED /04/13 WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED /04/13 CAVE IN DEPTH WL RIG 45C Tk. FOREMAN Chris Lindhorst DRILLING METHOD ASTM D

28 CLIENT JOB # BORING # SHEET ELA Group, Inc. PROJECT NAME 3204 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER B-2 1 OF 1 Brunswick Farm Apartments SITE LOCATION Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County NORTHING EASTING STATION DEPTH (FT) 0 SAMPLE NO. S-1 S-2 SAMPLE TYPE SS SS SAMPLE DIST. (IN) RECOVERY (IN) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BOTTOM OF CASING SURFACE ELEVATION Topsoil Depth [12"] 409 Lean CLAY With Sand, Tannish Light Brown, Dry, Medium Dense (CL) ENGLISH UNITS LOSS OF CIRCULATION WATER LEVELS ELEVATION (FT) 405 BLOWS/6" CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY RQD% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% PLASTIC LIMIT % REC.% WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT LIQUID LIMIT % 5 S-3 SS S-4 SS Clayey SILT, Orange, Red, Brown, Gray, Moist to Saturated, Medium Dense, Mottling (ML) S-5 SS Clayey SILT, Dark Gray to Black, Saturated, Loose (ML) S-6 SS AUGER 19.33' / / THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WL WS WD BORING STARTED /04/13 WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED /04/13 CAVE IN DEPTH WL RIG 45C Tk. FOREMAN Chris Lindhorst DRILLING METHOD ASTM D

29 CLIENT JOB # BORING # SHEET ELA Group, Inc. PROJECT NAME 3204 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER B-3 1 OF 1 Brunswick Farm Apartments SITE LOCATION Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County NORTHING EASTING STATION DEPTH (FT) 0 SAMPLE NO. S-1 S-2 SAMPLE TYPE SS SS SAMPLE DIST. (IN) RECOVERY (IN) 14 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BOTTOM OF CASING SURFACE ELEVATION Topsoil Depth [12"] 411 SILT, Tannish Light Brown, Dry to Moist, Trace Mottling (ML) ENGLISH UNITS LOSS OF CIRCULATION WATER LEVELS ELEVATION (FT) 4 BLOWS/6" CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY RQD% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% PLASTIC LIMIT % 19 REC.% WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT LIQUID LIMIT % 5 S-3 SS S-4 SS Clayey SILT, Orange, Red, Brown, Gray, Moist to Saturated, Loose, Mottling (ML) S-5 SS Clayey SILT, Dark Gray to Black, Saturated (ML) AUGER THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WL 1 WS WD BORING STARTED /04/13 WL(BCR) 1 WL(ACR) 1 BORING COMPLETED /04/13 CAVE IN DEPTH WL RIG 45C Tk. FOREMAN Chris Lindhorst DRILLING METHOD ASTM D

30 CLIENT JOB # BORING # SHEET ELA Group, Inc. PROJECT NAME 3204 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER B-4 1 OF 1 Brunswick Farm Apartments SITE LOCATION Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County NORTHING EASTING STATION DEPTH (FT) 0 5 SAMPLE NO. S-1 S-2 S-3 SAMPLE TYPE SS SS SS SAMPLE DIST. (IN) RECOVERY (IN) 12 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BOTTOM OF CASING SURFACE ELEVATION Topsoil Depth [12"] 4 Clayey SILT, Dark Gray to Black, Wet, Medium Dense (ML) Clayey SILT, Orange, Red, Brown, Gray, Moist, Loose, Mottling (ML) ENGLISH UNITS LOSS OF CIRCULATION WATER LEVELS ELEVATION (FT) BLOWS/6" CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY RQD% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% PLASTIC LIMIT % REC.% WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT LIQUID LIMIT % S-4 SS Clayey SILT, Dark Gray to Black, Wet to Saturated, Loose (ML) S-5 SS AUGER 15.00' THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WL 1 WS WD BORING STARTED /04/13 WL(BCR) 1 WL(ACR) 1 BORING COMPLETED /04/13 CAVE IN DEPTH WL RIG 45C Tk. FOREMAN Chris Lindhorst DRILLING METHOD ASTM D

31 CLIENT JOB # BORING # SHEET ELA Group, Inc. PROJECT NAME 3204 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER B-5 1 OF 1 Brunswick Farm Apartments SITE LOCATION Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County NORTHING EASTING STATION DEPTH (FT) 0 SAMPLE NO. S-1 S-2 SAMPLE TYPE SS SS SAMPLE DIST. (IN) RECOVERY (IN) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BOTTOM OF CASING SURFACE ELEVATION Topsoil Depth [12"] SILT, Tannish Light Brown, Dry, Loose, Trace Mottling (ML) Clayey SILT, Orange, Red, Brown, Gray, Dry to Moist, Loose, Mottling (ML) ENGLISH UNITS LOSS OF CIRCULATION WATER LEVELS ELEVATION (FT) 4 BLOWS/6" CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY RQD% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% PLASTIC LIMIT % REC.% WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT LIQUID LIMIT % 5 S-3 SS S-4 SS SILT, Dark Gray to Black, Wet to Saturated, Loose (ML) S-5 SS AUGER 14.42' 50/5 50/ THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WL 1 WS WD BORING STARTED /04/13 WL(BCR) 1 WL(ACR) 1 BORING COMPLETED /04/13 CAVE IN DEPTH WL RIG 45C Tk. FOREMAN Chris Lindhorst DRILLING METHOD ASTM D

32 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP PROBE-A QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT Topsoil Depth [12"] DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Clayey SILT, With Trace Mottling to feet, Rock Fragments from 6 to feet, Light Brown, Dry to Moist (ML) E M END OF TEST 1' REMARKS: Deep probe for soil strata analysis, no bedrock or groundwater encountered. THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Lee DATE: David A. Copeland deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: 09/30/13

33 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP PROBE-B QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT. 0 Topsoil Depth [12"] DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL E Clayey SILT, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Dry to Moist (ML) M Silty CLAY, Dark Gray to Black, Wet To Saturated (CL) END OF TEST 1' REMARKS: Deep probe for soil strata analysis, water table encountered at 8 feet. THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Lee DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: /01/13

34 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP TP QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Topsoil Depth [2"] PennDOT Type 3A Stone with Clayey Silt, Light Brown, Dry (FILL) E Clayey SILT, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Dry to Moist (ML) M Silty CLAY, Dark Gray to Black, Wet to Saturated (CL) END OF TEST 8.70' REMARKS: Limiting water layer observed at EL 397.0, DR test EL at and THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Lee DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: 09/30/13

35 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP TP QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Topsoil Depth [4"] PennDOT Type 2A With Fines, Gray, Dry (FILL) Clayey SILT, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Dry to Moist (ML) E M Silty CLAY, Dark Gray to Black, Wet to Saturated (CL) END OF TEST 9.2' REMARKS: Seasonal groundwater table high observed at EL 397.8, DR test EL at , THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Les DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: /01/13

36 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP TP QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT. 0 Topsoil Depth [12"] DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL E 405 Clayey SILT, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Dry to Moist (ML) SILT With Sand, Mottling, Dark Greenish Grayish Brown, Moist (CL) 5 E Silty CLAY, Dark Gray to Black, Wet to Saturated (CL) END OF TEST 9.25' REMARKS: Seasonal water table high observed at EL 399.3, water observed at EL 398.3, DR test EL 404.0, THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Les DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: /01/13

37 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP TP QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT. 0 Topsoil Depth [12"] DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL E Clayey SILT, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Dry to Moist (ML) E Silty CLAY, Dark Gray to Black, Wet to Saturated (CL) 400 END OF TEST REMARKS: Water table observed at EL 401.5, DR tests at EL 406.5, THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Les DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: /01/13

38 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP TP QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Asphalt Depth [2"] 1" of 3/4" Stone with Oil/Tar, 8 to " of PennDOT 3A, AASHTO #1 Stone and Fines, Gray, Dry, Loose to Dense (FILL) Silty CLAY, With Trace Wood, Organics, Dark Greenish Grayish Brown, Wet (CL Fill) D Clayey SILT, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Moist (ML) M Silty CLAY, Dark Gray to Black, Wet to Saturated (CL) END OF TEST 8.50' REMARKS: Seasonal groundwater table high observed at EL 400.5, water observed at EL 399.5, DR test EL 405.0, THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Lee DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: 09/30/13

39 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP TP QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT. 0 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Asphalt Depth [2"] 1 inch of 3/4" Stone with Oil/Tar, 8 to inches of PennDOT Type 3A, AASHTO #1 Stone, Fines, Gray, Dry (FILL) Silty CLAY, With Trace Wood, Organics, Dark Greenish Grayish Brown, Wet (CL Fill) D Clayey SILT, Light Brown, Moist (ML) M END OF TEST 8.25' REMARKS: No limiting layers observed, DR test EL 405.0, THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Lee DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: 09/30/13

40 PROJECT NAME: TEST PIT #: DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) CLIENT: Brunswick Farm Apartments JOB #: ELA Group, Inc. LOCATION: Donnerville Road, Mountville, Lancaster County ARCH/ENG: 3204 EXCAV. EFFORT SURFACE ELEVATION DCP TP QP SAMPLE NO. MOIST. CONT DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Asphalt Depth [2"] 1" 3/4" Stone with Oil/Tar, 8" to " of PennDOT Type 3A, AASHTO #1 Stone and Fines, Gray, Dry, Loose to Dense (FILL) Clayey SILT, With Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Dry to Moist (ML) D 2.5 Silty CLAY, With Trace Wood, Organics, Dark Greenish Grayish Brown, Wet (CL Fill) Gravelly Silty CLAY With Sand, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Moist (CL- ML) M END OF TEST 13.0' REMARKS: No limiting layers observed, DR test EL 398.0, THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. CONTRACTOR: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: MAKE: DH FUNK & SONS MODEL: Lee DATE: David A. Copeland Deere 4G Backhoe REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: 09/30/13

41 ECS Project #.3204 Brunswick Farm Apartments Date Tested: 9-30 to -1, 2013 Infiltration Testing Field Measurements Field Data TP-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-2 Test Depth/Elevation 2'8" / EL '8" / EL '2" / EL '2" / EL Time Reading Time Reading Time Reading Time Reading Presoak Start/Water Depth 12:30 6.0" 12:30 6.0" 7:30 6" 7:30 6" Presoak 30 Min 1:00 1:00 8:00 8:00 Presoak 60 Min 1:30 1:30 8:30 8:30 START TEST 1:30 6.0" 1:30 6.0" 8:30 6.0" 8:30 6.0" Reading Interval 30 min 30 min 30 min 30 min Reading # 1 (in) 2:00 2:00 9:00 9:00 Reading # 2 (in) 2:30 2:30 9:30 9:30 Reading # 3 (in) 3:00 3:00 :00 :00 Reading # 4 (in) 3:30 3:30 :30 :30 Reading # 5 (in) Reading # 6 (in) Reading # 7 (in) Reading # 8 (in) O.D. of Double Ring Infiltrometer (in) Initial Water Depth (in) Final Water Level Drop (in) Average Stabilized Reading (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Safety Factor Corrected Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Notes: 1. Infiltrometer refilled to water depth of 6 inches (inner and outer ring) after each reading.

42 ECS Project #.3204 Brunswick Farm Apartments Date Tested: 9-30 to -1, 2013 Infiltration Testing Field Measurements Field Data TP-3 TP-3 TP-4 TP-4 Test Depth/Elevation 2'3" / EL '3" / '0" / EL '0" EL Time Reading Time Reading Time Reading Time Reading Presoak Start/Water Depth 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 Presoak 30 Min 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 Presoak 60 Min :00 :00 :00 :00 START TEST :30 :30 :30 :30 Reading Interval 30 min 30 min 30 min 30 min Reading # 1 (in) 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Reading # 2 (in) 11:30 11:30 11:30 11:30 Reading # 3 (in) 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Reading # 4 (in) 12:30 12:30 12:30 12:30 Reading # 5 (in) Reading # 6 (in) Reading # 7 (in) Reading # 8 (in) O.D. of Double Ring Infiltrometer (in) Initial Water Depth (in) Final Water Level Drop (in) Average Stabilized Reading (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Safety Factor Corrected Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Notes: 1. Infiltrometer refilled to water depth of 6 inches (inner and outer ring) after each reading.

43 ECS Project #.3204 Brunswick Farm Apartments Date Tested: 9-30 to -1, 2013 Infiltration Testing Field Measurements Field Data TP-5 TP-5 TP-6 TP-6 Test Depth/Elevation 2'6" / EL '6" / '3" / '3" / Time Reading Time Reading Time Reading Time Reading Presoak Start/Water Depth 11:15 6.0" 11:15 6.0" 7:45 6" 7:45 6" Presoak 30 Min 11:45 11:45 8:15 8:15 Presoak 60 Min 12:15 12:15 8:45 8:45 START TEST 12:15 6.0" 12:15 6.0" 8:45 6.0" 9:15 6.0" Reading Interval 30 min 30 min 30 min 30 min Reading # 1 (in) 12:45 12:45 9:15 9:15 Reading # 2 (in) 1:15 1:15 9:45 9:45 Reading # 3 (in) 1:45 1:45 :15 :15 Reading # 4 (in) 2:15 2:15 :45 :45 Reading # 5 (in) Reading # 6 (in) Reading # 7 (in) Reading # 8 (in) O.D. of Double Ring Infiltrometer (in) Initial Water Depth (in) Final Water Level Drop (in) Average Stabilized Reading (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Safety Factor Corrected Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Notes: 1. Infiltrometer refilled to water depth of 6 inches (inner and outer ring) after each reading.

44 ECS Project #.3204 Brunswick Farm Apartments Date Tested: 9-30 to -1, 2013 Infiltration Testing Field Measurements Field Data TP-7 TP-7 Test Depth/Elevation 8'0" / '0" / Time Reading Time Reading Presoak Start/Water Depth :00 6.0" :00 6.0" Presoak 30 Min :30 :30 Presoak 60 Min 11:00 11:00 START TEST 11:00 11:00 Reading Interval 30 min 30 min Reading # 1 (in) 11:30 11:30 Reading # 2 (in) 12:00 12:00 Reading # 3 (in) 12:30 12:30 Reading # 4 (in) 1:00 1:00 Reading # 5 (in) Reading # 6 (in) Reading # 7 (in) Reading # 8 (in) O.D. of Double Ring Infiltrometer (in) Initial Water Depth (in) Final Water Level Drop (in) Average Stabilized Reading (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Safety Factor Corrected Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Notes: 1. Infiltrometer refilled to water depth of 6 inches (inner and outer ring) after each reading.

45 Sample Source Sample Number Depth (feet) MC1 (%) Laboratory Testing Summary Soil Type2 Atterberg Limits3 LL PL PI Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve4 Moisture - Density (Corr.)5 Maximum Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) CBR Value6 Page 1 of 1 Other B-1 S S S S ML S S S B-2 S S S CL S S S B-5 S ML NP NP NP 96.5 TEST PIT 7 Sample CL-ML TEST PIT 3 Sample ML Notes: 1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 43, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test method Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content (ASTM D 2974) Project No Project Name: PM: PE: Brunswick Farm Apartments David A. Copeland William D. Friedah Printed On: Thursday, October 17, 2013

46 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 # #20 #30 #40 #60 #0 #140 # PERCENT FINER PERCENT COARSER GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines % +3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 #4 # #40 #60 #0 # silt with sand Atterberg Limits PL= 34 LL= 49 PI= 15 Coefficients D 90 = D 85 = D 60 = D 50 = D 30 = D 15 = D = C u = C c = USCS= ML Soil Description Classification AASHTO= Remarks A-7-5(12) * (no specification provided) Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: Sample Number: S-4 Date: Client: Project: ELA Group, Inc. Brunswick Farm Apartments Project No: 3204 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

47 4 7 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils CL or OL CH or OH CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS silt with sand ML Project No Client: ELA Group, Inc. Remarks: Project: Brunswick Farm Apartments Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: Sample Number: S-4 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

48 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 # #20 #30 #40 #60 #0 #140 # PERCENT FINER PERCENT COARSER GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines % +3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 #4 # #40 #60 #0 # Soil Description lean clay with sand CL Atterberg Limits PL= 20 LL= 28 PI= 8 Coefficients D 90 = D 85 = D 60 = D 50 = D 30 = D 15 = D = C u = C c = USCS= CL Classification AASHTO= Remarks A-4(4) * (no specification provided) Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: Sample Number: S-3 Date: Client: Project: ELA Group, Inc. Brunswick Farm Apartments Project No: 3204 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

49 4 7 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils CL or OL CH or OH CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS lean clay with sand CL CL Project No Client: ELA Group, Inc. Remarks: Project: Brunswick Farm Apartments Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: Sample Number: S-3 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

50 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 # #20 #30 #40 #60 #0 #140 # PERCENT FINER PERCENT COARSER GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines % +3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 #4 # #40 #60 #0 # SILT Atterberg Limits PL= NP LL= NP PI= NP Coefficients D 90 = D 85 = D 60 = D 50 = D 30 = D 15 = D = C u = C c = USCS= ML Soil Description Classification AASHTO= Remarks A-4(0) * (no specification provided) Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: Sample Number: S-4 Date: Client: Project: ELA Group, Inc. Brunswick Farm Apartments Project No: 3204 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

51 4 7 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils CL or OL CH or OH CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS SILT NP NP NP ML Project No Client: ELA Group, Inc. Remarks: Project: Brunswick Farm Apartments Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: Sample Number: S-4 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

52 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 # #20 #30 #40 #60 #0 #140 # PERCENT FINER PERCENT COARSER GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines % +3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 #4 # #40 #60 #0 # Soil Description dark green, gray, brown SILT with sand ML Atterberg Limits PL= 31 LL= 43 PI= 12 Coefficients D 90 = D 85 = D 60 = D 50 = D 30 = D 15 = D = C u = C c = USCS= ML Classification AASHTO= Remarks A-7-5() * (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TEST PIT 3 Depth: Sample Number: Sample-2 Client: Project: ELA Group, Inc. Brunswick Farm Apartments Date: Project No: 3204 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

53 4 7 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils CL or OL CH or OH CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS SILT With Sand, Mottling, Dark Greenish Grayish Brown, Moist, ML ML Project No Client: ELA Group, Inc. Remarks: Project: Brunswick Farm Apartments Source: TEST PIT 3 Depth: Sample No.: Sample-2 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

54 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 # #20 #30 #40 #60 #0 #140 # PERCENT FINER PERCENT COARSER GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines % +3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 #4 # #40 #60 #0 # Soil Description gravelly silty clay with sand CL-ML Atterberg Limits PL= 19 LL= 26 PI= 7 Coefficients D 90 = D 85 = D 60 = D 50 = D 30 = D 15 = D = C u = C c = USCS= CL-ML Classification AASHTO= Remarks A-4(2) * (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TEST PIT 7 Depth: Sample Number: Sample-1 Client: Project: ELA Group, Inc. Brunswick Farm Apartments Date: Project No: 3204 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

55 4 7 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils CL or OL CH or OH CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS Gravelly Silty CLAY With Sand, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Moist CL-ML CL-ML Project No Client: ELA Group, Inc. Remarks: Project: Brunswick Farm Apartments Source: TEST PIT 7 Depth: Sample No.: Sample-1 Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

56 Dry density, pcf %, pcf 13.1%, pcf 0 ZAV for Sp.G. = Water content, % - Rock Corrected - Uncorrected Test specification: ASTM D Method B Standard ASTM D Oversize Corr. Applied to Each Test Point Elev/ Classification Nat. % > % < Sp.G. LL PI Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/8 in. No CL-ML A-4(2) ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = pcf Optimum moisture = 11.3 % pcf 13.1 % Project No Client: ELA Group, Inc. Remarks: Project: Brunswick Farm Apartments Date: Source of Sample: TEST PIT 7 Sample Number: Sample-1 Gravelly Silty CLAY With Sand, Trace Mottling, Light Brown, Moist CL-ML Figure Tested By: PJS Checked By: JMC

57 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487) Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria Coarse-grained soils (More than half of material is larger than No. 200 sive size) Fine Grained Soils (More than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size) Gravels (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size) Sands (More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve size) Silts and clays (Liquid limit less than 50) Silts and clays (Liquid limit greater than 50) Highly organic Clean Gravels (Little or no fines) soils Gravels with fines (Appreciablle Amount of fines) Clean sands (Little or no fines) Sands with fines (Appreciable amount of fines) GW GP GM a d u GC SW SP SM a d u SC ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, 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 mixtures 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 Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain size curve. Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual symbols b C u = D 60 /D greater than 4; C c = (D 30 ) 2 /D x D 60 between 1 and 3 Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Atterberg limits below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 Atterberg Limits below "A" line with P.I. greater than 7 C u = D 60 /D greater than 6; C c = (D 30 ) 2 /D x D 60 between 1 and 3 Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW Atterberg limits above "A" line or P.I. less than 4 Atterberg limits above "A" line with P.I. greater than 7 Above "A" line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring the use of dual symbols Limits plotting in hatched zone with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring the use of dual symbols a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when L.L is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u is used when L.L. is greater than 28. b Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing the characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example: GW-GC, well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder. From Winterkorn and Fang, 1975

58 REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS I. Drilling Sampling Symbols: SS Split Spoon Sampler ST Shelby Tube Sampler RC Rock Core, NX, BX, AX PM Pressuremeter DC Dutch Cone Penetrometer RD Rock Bit Drilling BS Bulk Sample of Cuttings PA Power Auger (no sample) HAS Hollow Stem Auger WS Wash Sample II. Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties: Standard Penetration (Blows/Ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb. Hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D The blow count is commonly referred to as the N value. A. Non-Cohesive Soils (Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations) Density Relative Properties Under 3 blows/ft. Very Loose Adjective Form 36% to 49% 4 to blows/ft. Loose With 21% to 35% 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Dense Some 11% to 20% 31 to 50 blows/ft. Dense Trace 1% to % 51 to 80 blows/ft. Very Dense Over 80 blows/ft. Extremely Dense Particle Size Identification Boulders 8 inches or larger Cobbles 3 to 8 inches Gravel Coarse 1 to 3 inches Medium ½ to 1 inch Fine ¼ to ½ inch Sand Coarse 2.00mm to ¼ inch (dia. of lead pencil) Medium 0.42 to 2.00mm (dia. of broom straw) Fine to 0.42mm (dia. of human hair) Silt and Clay 0.0 to 0.074mm (particles cannot be seen) B. Cohesive Soils (Clay, Silt, and Combinations) Unconfined Comp. Strength Blows/Ft Consistency Q P (tsf) Degree of Plasticity Plasticity Index Under 4 Very Soft Under 0.25 None to Slight to 5 Soft Slight to Medium Stiff Medium to 15 Stiff High to Very High Over to 30 Very Stiff to 50 Hard Over 51 Very Hard Over 8.00 III. Water Level Measurement Symbols WL Water Level BCR Before Casing Removal WS While Sampling ACR After Casing Removal WD While Drilling WCI Wet Cave-In DCI Dry Cave-In The water levels are those water levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in a granular soil. In clay and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.

59 Ms. Cheryl L. Love, RLA/ASLA Principal & Studio Director ELA Group, Inc. 743 South Broad Street Lititz, PA September 17, 2013 ECS Proposal No GP Reference: Proposal for Supplemental Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis Proposed Brunswick Farm Apartments Donnerville Road Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Dear Ms. Love: Pursuant to our recent follow-up conversations following the submittal of our recent proposal for infiltration testing at the above-referenced property, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (ECS) is pleased to present this proposal addendum for providing subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analysis associated with the proposed apartment buildings in order to provide foundation bearing capacity, slab support, and general earthwork recommendations for the Community Basics, Inc. Brunswick Farms Apartments. The project is located near the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Donnerville Road and Columbia Avenue in Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. It is our understanding that the proposed project will consist of the development of the property to contain 5 apartment buildings along with associated parking lots and stormwater management areas As a part of the proposal preparation process we have reviewed schematic sketch plans and an existing conditions plan provided by ELA, along with a review of aerial photographs and maps of the area. It is our understanding that the site contains a deteriorated pavement area that was a previous air strip, along with areas of cultivated soybeans in the non-paved areas. SCOPE OF SERVICES Subsurface Exploration/Geotechnical Engineering Analysis It is our understanding that the Client will be providing the excavation services for the project, and is interested in having exploration performed at the apartment building locations in order to gather information on the subsurface characteristics of the materials that will be supporting the apartments. Based on the previous correspondence, we understand that the Client has requested test pits/probes at three of the five apartment building locations. Based on our experience in the area and standard practice protocols, ECS recommends that exploration and testing for determining the geotechnical engineering recommendations for support of the buildings 56 Grumbacher Road, Suite D, York, Pennsylvania T: F: ECS Carolinas, LLP ECS Florida, LLC ECS Midwest, LLC ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC ECS Southeast, LLC ECS Texas, LLP

60 ECS Proposal 4221-GP September 17, 2013 Page 2 incorporate a minimum of one test pit per building, with the possibility of adding supplemental test pits if conditions are variable. Testing of the soils will be performed either with Scope A - a traditional Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) or Scope B - a Wildcat TM DCP, depending on the depth of the soil overburden. Scope A - If rock or rock-like materials are encountered at depths of less than feet, the traditional DCP can be utilized. DCP testing will be performed at select intervals in the exploratory excavations in order to evaluate the relative density, consistency, and strength of the subsurface materials. This testing will be performed at benched intervals not to exceed feet in depth. Scope B - If deeper soil overburdens exist, ECS will utilize the Wildcat TM DCP, which is a manually operated geotechnical exploration tool that utilizes a 35 pound hammer with a 15 inch drop to drives a 1 diameter rod into the testing surface. The rods utilize polymer slurry in the hole to minimize energy loss due to soil to rod friction and provide a continuous log of the in-place consistency of the soil. The rods are driven in cm increments and blow counts are recorded by a representative in the field. This data is then correlated to normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values that are more commonly found in geotechnical exploration. A field log of the blow counts, and observations taken at the site, was maintained by an ECS representative. We have assumed that the proposed apartments will not impose loads greater than 7 kips/lf, with interior column loads not exceeding 75 kips. If structural loading is greater than these assumed values, ECS should be contacted to evaluate whether the magnitude of the actual loads will affect the approach to exploration and testing at the site. Higher loading will result in larger footings and therefore influence the soils to a greater depth and therefore require the use of larger equipment for conventional soil borings. Scope C If highly variable bedrock and/or very soft soils are encountered in the test pits we may recommend that the borings be completed with a traditional geotechnical drilling rig. This will advance SPT split spoons that can more effectively be used in evaluation of deeper or softer soil profiles. We will advance up to 5 borings, one in each building footprint, to a depth of 20 feet or auger refusal, which ever is less. The reporting will be similar to that which will be provided within scope A or B. It is our understanding that the excavation of the test pits will be provided by the Owner s excavator, D.H. Funk. ECS will coordinate with D.H. Funk for the scheduling and completion of the field work. The excavation work will not be contracted through ECS. In order to avoid conflicts with on-site utilities and the borings, we will contact Pennsylvania One-Call to locate underground utilities at the site. However, our experience indicates that Pennsylvania One-Call will normally not locate private utilities or public utilities on private property. Therefore, the client will need to make us aware of the location of any utilities on the site. If requested, ECS can obtain a private utility location company to assist in the location of buried utilities and components throughout the site prior to excavation. Since excavation is being provided through the Owner, ECS will not be responsible for site restoration, including grading, reseeding, restoration, or crop damage. It should be noted that minor damage to crop areas, including ruts or tire marks, is likely from ECS personnel accessing the test locations. It should also be noted that ECS recommends that the test pits in/near the building footprints be backfilled in a controlled manner, with controlled lifts and adequate compactive effort. Lifts should be

61 ECS Proposal 4221-GP September 17, 2013 Page 3 kept to 12 inches or less, and compaction should be to 95% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density. ECS can provide testing and monitoring of the backfill as an alternate service, if desired. Geotechnical Evaluation Following completion of the field and laboratory investigations, an ECS engineer will evaluate the subsurface conditions and will prepare a written report of findings and recommendations for the proposed construction. Our engineering report will provide the following: a. A review and summary of published soils and geologic information. b. Descriptions of the field exploration procedures and laboratory tests performed will be provided; c. A test pit location plan will be included in the report to show the locations of the test pits; d. Records of the field exploration (test pit logs/dcp/wildcat/boring logs) will be provided in accordance with the standard practice of geotechnical engineers, indicating descriptions, thicknesses and relative degrees of firmness for the different strata encountered; e. Results of soil index laboratory tests will be plotted on the final test pitlogs and/or included on separate test report sheets; f. Assessment of the risk of future sinkhole development due to solution prone limestone. We will also include recommendations with regard to minimizing sinkhole development in the future and during construction. g. A discussion on the potential reuse of the aggregate and/or recycled pavement from the airstrip for aggregate needed for the new construction. h. Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, as indicated by the field exploration and laboratory testing, will be described; i. Recommendations for allowable soil bearing pressure for conventional spread footing foundations and estimates of predicted foundation settlement, if applicable; j. Recommendations for intermediate or deep foundation systems for support of the proposed structures, if appropriate; k. Recommendations for slab-on-grade construction, including comments on subgrade improvements and underslab drainage recommendations, if necessary; l. Evaluation of the on-site soil characteristics encountered in the soil borings. Specifically, we will comment on the suitability of the on-site materials for reuse as engineered fill to support the foundations, floor slabs, and/or pavements. We will include general compaction requirements and guidelines for suitable fill materials; m. Measurement of the topsoil and/or existing fill thicknesses at each boring location and notation of this information on the boring logs and in the text of the report;

62 ECS Proposal 4221-GP September 17, 2013 Page 4 n. Recommended pavement sections based on estimated CBR values for support of asphaltic concrete pavements and estimated pavement sections. If necessary, we will provide comments on subgrade stabilization; o. Assessment of depths to rock that may require rock excavation methods for removal and comments on re-use of the rock as engineered fill, if encountered; p. Recommendations for Seismic Site Classification in accordance with IBC 2009; q. Field infiltration testing results, identification of potential limiting zones, and stormwater management recommendations. r. As requested, we will provide additional consultation and engineering analysis on other problems related to performance of the structure and subsurface conditions at the unit rates outlined in this proposal. COSTS The cost provided below is based on our experience with similar types of projects and the proposed amount of work that is anticipated to accomplish the project objectives. One of the two DCP alternates will be implemented depending on the subsurface conditions. Scope A - Rock less than feet Conventional DCP Exploration/Testing and Geotechnical Report Scope B - Rock greater than feet Wildcat DCP Exploration/Testing and Geotechnical Report Scope C Soft soils and variable rock profile Traditional Geotechnical Drilling Rig/Testing and Reporting Lump Sum $ 1,20 Lump Sum $ 2,40 Lump Sum $3,80 OPTIONAL SERVICE Monitoring/Testing/Documentation of Test Pit Backfill $55.00/Hr It should be noted that the total cost presented herein is based on our experience with similar projects and anticipated site conditions. If unusual conditions are encountered during the field investigation, the scope of service may require modification. We will contact you for authorization prior to modifying the scope of service presented in this proposal. It should also be noted that we anticipate that only one option will be utilized and that this determination will be made during the field work for the infiltration testing. We will notify you before performing the final Scope. SCHEDULE Our services can be initiated immediately upon receiving formal written authorization to proceed. We anticipate that the field work will take approximately 1-2 weeks to schedule and complete, with laboratory testing and report generation taking an additional approximately 1-2 weeks. It is our understanding that

63 ECS Proposal 4221-GP September 17, 2013 Page 5 test results by the end of September is requested to meet the project schedule. Assuming prompt authorization is provided, this schedule can be readily achieved. ECS will expedite the investigation period to the best of our abilities. It should also be noted that verbal discussions and updates will be provided throughout the investigation period, if requested. We are pleased to have this opportunity to offer our services and look forward to working with you on the project. If you have any questions or comments concerning the contents of the enclosed documents or other related topics, please feel free to contact us. Respectfully, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC J. Matthew Carroll, P.E. William D. Friedah, P.E. Geotechnical Department Manager Vice President Enclosures: Proposal Acceptance Terms and Conditions of Service

64 ECS Proposal 4221-GP September 17, 2013 Page 6 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Proposal No.: Scope of Work: Location: GP Geotechnical Engineering Analysis Apartment Locations Brunswick Farm Apartments Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Client Signature: Date: Please complete and return this page to ECS to indicate acceptance of this proposal and to initiate work on the above-referenced project. The Client s signature above also indicates that he/she has read or has had the opportunity to read the accompanying General Conditions of Service and agrees to be bound by such General Conditions of Service. Name of Client: Name of Contact Person: Telephone No. Of Contact Person: BILLING INFORMATION (Please Print or Type) Party Responsible for Payment: Company Name: Person/Title Department: Billing Address: Address Telephone Number: Fax Number:

65 Proposal No.: GP Client: ELA Group, Inc. (hereinafter the Proposal ) ECS MID-ATLANTIC, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE The professional services (the Services ) to be provided by ECS MID-ATLANTIC, LLC [ ECS ] pursuant to the Proposal shall be provided in accordance with these Terms and Conditions of Service ( Terms ), including any addenda as may be incorporated or referenced in writing shall form the Agreement between ECS and Client. 1.0 INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT STATUS - ECS shall serve as an independent professional consultant to CLIENT for Service on the Project, identified above, and shall have control over, and responsibility for, the means and methods for providing the Services identified in the Proposal, including the retention of Subcontractors and Subconsultants 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES - It is understood that the fees, reimbursable expenses and time schedule defined in the Proposal are based on information provided by CLIENT and/or CLIENT S contractors and consultants. CLIENT acknowledges that if this information is not current, is incomplete or inaccurate, if conditions are discovered that could not be reasonably foreseen, or if CLIENT orders additional services, the scope of services will change, even while the Services are in progress. 3.0 STANDARD OF CARE 3.1 In fulfilling its obligations and responsibilities enumerated in the Proposal, ECS shall be expected to comply with and its performance evaluated in light of the standard of care expected of professionals in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at that time in the region (the Standard of Care ). Nothing contained in the Proposal, the agreed-upon scope of Services, these Terms and Conditions of Service or any ECS report, opinion, plan or other document prepared by ECS shall constitute a warranty or guaranty of any nature whatsoever. 3.2 CLIENT understands and agrees that ECS will rely on the facts learned from data gathered during performance of Services as well as those facts provided by the CLIENT. CLIENT acknowledges that such data collection is limited to specific areas that are sampled, bored, tested, observed and/or evaluated. Consequently, CLIENT waives any and all claims based upon erroneous facts provided by the CLIENT, facts subsequently learned or regarding conditions in areas not specifically sampled, bored, tested, observed or evaluated by ECS. 3.3 If a situation arises that causes ECS to believe compliance with CLIENT S directives would be contrary to sound engineering practices, would violate applicable laws, regulations or codes, or will expose ECS to legal claims or charges, ECS shall so advise CLIENT. If ECS professional judgment is rejected, ECS shall have the right to terminate its Services in accordance with the provisions of Section 25.0, below. 3.4 If CLIENT decides to disregard ECS recommendations with respect to complying with applicable Laws or Regulations, ECS shall determine if applicable law requires ECS to notify the appropriate public officials. CLIENT agrees that such determinations are ECS sole right to make. 4.0 CLIENT DISCLOSURES 4.1 Where the Scope of Services requires ECS to penetrate a Site surface, CLIENT shall furnish and/or shall direct CLIENT S consultant(s) or agent(s) to furnish ECS information identifying the type and location of utility lines and other man-made objects known, suspected, or assumed to be located beneath or behind the Site's surface. ECS shall be entitled to rely on such information for completeness and accuracy without further investigation, analysis, or evaluation. 4.2 Hazardous Materials shall include but not be limited to any substance that poses or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment whether contained in a product, material, by-product, waste, or sample, and whether it exists in a solid, liquid, semi-solid or gaseous form. CLIENT shall notify ECS of any known, assumed, or suspected regulated, contaminated, or other similar Hazardous Materials that may exist at the Site prior to ECS mobilizing to the Site. 4.3 If any Hazardous Materials are discovered, or are reasonably suspected by ECS after its Services begin, ECS shall be entitled to amend the scope of Services and adjust its fees to reflect the additional work or personal protective equipment and/or safety precautions required by the existence of such Hazardous Materials. 5.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS - CLIENT waives, releases and discharges ECS from and against any claim for damage, injury or loss allegedly arising out of or in connection with errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in documents and other information in any form provided to ECS by CLIENT or CLIENT s agents, contractors, or consultants, including such information that becomes incorporated into ECS documents. 6.0 CONCEALED RISKS - CLIENT acknowledges that special risks are inherent in sampling, testing and/or evaluating concealed conditions that are hidden from view and/or neither readably apparent nor easily accessible, e.g., subsurface conditions, conditions behind a wall, beneath a floor, or above a ceiling. Such circumstances require that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions, which may not be verifiable without expending additional sums of money or destroying otherwise adequate or serviceable portions of a building or component thereof. Accordingly, ECS shall not be responsible for the verification of such conditions unless verification can be made by simple visual observation. Client agrees to bear any and all costs, losses, damages and expenses (including, but not limited to, the cost of ECS Additional Services) in any way arising from or in connection with the existence or discovery of such concealed or unknown conditions. 7.0 RIGHT OF ENTRY/DAMAGE RESULTING FROM SERVICES 7.1 CLIENT warrants that it possesses the authority to grant ECS right of entry to the Site for the performance of Services. CLIENT hereby grants ECS and its subcontractors and/or agents, the right to enter from time to time onto the property in order for ECS to perform its Services. CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold ECS harmless from any claims arising from allegations that ECS trespassed or lacked authority to access the Site. 7.2 CLIENT warrants that it possesses all necessary permits, licenses and/or utility clearances for the Services to be provided by ECS except where ECS Proposal explicitly states that ECS will obtain such permits, licenses, and/or utility clearances. 7.3 ECS will take reasonable precautions to limit damage to the Site and its improvements during the performance of its Services. CLIENT understands that the use of exploration, boring, sampling, or testing equipment may cause minor, but common, damage to the Site. The correction and restoration of such common damage is CLIENT S responsibility unless specifically included in ECS Proposal. 7.4 CLIENT agrees that it will not bring any claims for liability or for injury or loss against ECS arising from (i) procedures associated with the exploration, sampling or testing activities at the Site, (ii) discovery of Hazardous Materials or suspected Hazardous Materials, or (iii) ECS findings, conclusions, opinions, recommendations, plans, and/or specifications related to discovery of contamination. 8.0 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 8.1 ECS shall exercise the Standard of Care in evaluating client-furnished information as well as information readily and customarily available from public utility locating services (the Underground Utility Information ) in its effort to identify underground utilities. The extent of such evaluations shall be at ECS sole discretion. 8.2 CLIENT recognizes that the Underground Utility Information provided to or obtained by ECS may contain errors or be incomplete. CLIENT understands that ECS may be unable to identify the locations of all subsurface utility lines and man-made features. 8.3 CLIENT waives, releases, and discharges ECS from and against any claim for damage, injury or loss allegedly arising from or related to subterranean structures (pipes, tanks, cables, or other utilities, etc.) which are not called to ECS attention in writing by CLIENT, not correctly shown on the Underground Utility Information and/or not properly marked or located by the utility owners, governmental or quasigovernmental locators, or private utility locating services as a result of ECS or ECS subcontractor s request for utility marking services made in accordance with local industry standards. 9.0 SAMPLES 9.1 Soil, rock, water, building materials and/or other samples and sampling by-products obtained from the Site are and remain the property of CLIENT. Unless other arrangements are requested by CLIENT and mutually agreed upon by ECS in writing, ECS will retain samples not consumed in laboratory testing for up to sixty (60) calendar days after the issuance of any document containing data obtained from such samples. Samples consumed by laboratory testing procedures will not be stored. 9.2 Unless CLIENT directs otherwise, and excluding those issues covered in Section.0, CLIENT authorizes ECS to dispose of CLIENT S non-hazardous samples and sampling or testing process by-products in accordance with applicable laws and regulations..0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS.1 When Hazardous Materials are known, assumed, suspected to exist, or discovered at the Site, ECS will endeavor to protect its employees and address public health, safety, and environmental issues in accordance with the Standard of Care. CLIENT agrees to compensate ECS for such efforts..2 When Hazardous Materials are known, assumed, or suspected to exist, or discovered at the Site, ECS and/or ECS subcontractors will exercise the Standard of Care in containerizing and labeling such Hazardous Materials in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and will leave the containers on Site. CLIENT is responsible for the retrieval, removal, transport and disposal of such contaminated samples, and sampling process byproducts in accordance with applicable law and regulation..3 Unless explicitly stated in the Scope of Services, ECS will neither subcontract for nor arrange for the transport, disposal, or treatment of Hazardous Materials. At CLIENT S written request, ECS may assist CLIENT in identifying appropriate alternatives for transport, off-site treatment, storage, or disposal of such substances, but CLIENT shall be solely responsible for the final selection of methods and firms to provide such services. CLIENT shall sign all manifests for the disposal of substances affected by contaminants and shall otherwise exercise prudence in arranging for lawful disposal..4 In those instances where ECS is expressly retained by CLIENT to assist CLIENT in the disposal of Hazardous Materials, samples, or wastes as part of the Proposal, ECS shall do so only as CLIENT S agent (notwithstanding any other provision of this AGREEMENT to the contrary). ECS will not assume the role of, nor be considered a generator, storer, transporter, or disposer of Hazardous Materials..5 Subsurface sampling may result in unavoidable cross-contamination of certain subsurface areas, as when a probe or excavation/boring device moves through a contaminated zone and links it to an aquifer, underground stream, pervious soil stratum, or other hydrous body not previously contaminated, or connects an uncontaminated zone with a contaminated zone. Because sampling is an essential element of the Services indicated herein, CLIENT agrees this risk cannot be eliminated. Provided such services were performed in accordance with the Standard of Care, CLIENT waives, releases and discharges ECS from and against any claim for damage, injury, or loss allegedly arising from or related to such crosscontamination. ECS Proposal No::4221-GP Page 1 of 3 Ver. 06/04/13

66 .6 CLIENT understands that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is conducted solely to permit ECS to render a professional opinion about the likelihood of the site having a Recognized Environmental Condition on, in, beneath, or near the Site at the time the Services are conducted. No matter how thorough a Phase I ESA study may be, findings derived from its conduct are highly limited and ECS cannot know or state for an absolute fact that the Site is unaffected or adversely affected by one or more Recognized Environmental Conditions. CLIENT represents and warrants that it understands the limitations associated with Phase I ESAs OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 11.1 ECS shall be deemed the author and owner (or licensee) of all documents, technical reports, letters, photos, boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, designs, plans, specifications, reports, or similar documents and estimates of any kind furnished by it [the Documents of Service ] and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. CLIENT shall have a limited, non-exclusive license to use copies of the Documents of Service provided to it in connection with the Project for which the Documents of Service are provided until the completion of the Project ECS Services are performed and Documents of Service are provided for the CLIENT S sole use. CLIENT understands and agrees that any use of the Documents of Service by anyone other than the CLIENT, it s licensed consultants and its contractors is not permitted. CLIENT further agrees to indemnify and hold ECS harmless for any errors, omissions or damage resulting from its contractors use of ECS Documents of Service CLIENT agrees to not use ECS Documents of Service for the Project if the Project is subsequently modified in scope, structure or purpose without ECS prior written consent. Any reuse without ECS written consent shall be at CLIENT S sole risk and without liability to ECS or to ECS subcontractor(s). CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold ECS harmless for any errors, omissions or damage resulting from its use of ECS Documents of Service after any modification in scope, structure or purpose CLIENT agrees to not make any modification to the Documents of Service without the prior written authorization of ECS. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold ECS harmless from any damage, loss, claim, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys fees and defense costs) arising out of or in connection with any unauthorized modification of the Documents of Service by CLIENT or any person or entity that acquires or obtains the Documents of Service from or through CLIENT. CLIENT represents and warrants that the Documents of Service shall be used only as submitted by ECS SAFETY 12.1 Unless expressly agreed to in writing in its Proposal, CLIENT agrees that ECS shall have no responsibility whatsoever for any aspect of site safety other than for its own employees. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve CLIENT and/or its contractors, consultants or other parties from their responsibility for site safety. CLIENT also represents and warrants that the General Contractor is solely responsible for Project site safety and that ECS personnel may rely on the safety measures provided by the General Contractor In the event ECS assumes in writing limited responsibility for specified safety issues, the acceptance of such responsibilities does not and shall not be deemed an acceptance of responsibility for any other non-specified safety issues, including, but not limited to those relating to excavating, trenching, shoring, drilling, backfilling, blasting, or other construction activities CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND REMEDIATION SERVICES 13.1 CLIENT understands that construction testing and observation services are provided in an effort to reduce, but cannot eliminate, the risk of problems arising during or after construction or remediation. CLIENT agrees that the provision of such Services does not create a warranty or guarantee of any type Monitoring and/or testing services provided by ECS shall not in any way relieve the CLIENT S contractor(s) from their responsibilities and obligations for the quality or completeness of construction as well as their obligation to comply with applicable laws, codes, and regulations ECS has no responsibility whatsoever for the means, methods, techniques, sequencing or procedures of construction selected, for safety precautions and programs incidental to work or services provided by any contractor or other consultant. ECS does not and shall not have or accept authority to supervise, direct, control, or stop the work of any contractor or consultant or any of their subcontractors or subconsultants ECS strongly recommends that CLIENT retain ECS to provide construction monitoring and testing services on a full time basis to lower the risk of defective or incomplete Work being installed by CLIENT S contractor(s). If CLIENT elects to retain ECS on a part time basis for any aspect of construction monitoring and/or testing, CLIENT accepts the risks that a lower level of construction quality may occur and that defective or incomplete work may result and not be detected by ECS part time monitoring and testing. Unless the CLIENT can show that the error or omission is contained in ECS reports, CLIENT waives, releases and discharges ECS from and against any other claims for errors, omissions, damages, injuries, or loss alleged to arise from defective or incomplete work that was monitored or tested by ECS on a part time basis. Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold ECS harmless from all damages, costs, and attorneys fees, for any claims alleging errors, omissions, damage, injury or loss allegedly resulting from Work that was monitored or tested by ECS on a part time basis CERTIFICATIONS - CLIENT may request, or governing jurisdictions may require, ECS to provide a certification regarding the Services provided by ECS. Any certification required of ECS by the CLIENT or jurisdiction(s) having authority over some or all aspects of the Project shall consist of ECS inferences and professional opinions based on the limited sampling, observations, tests, and/or analyses performed by ECS at discrete locations and times. Such certifications shall constitute ECS professional opinion of a condition's existence, but ECS does not guarantee that such condition exists, nor does it relieve other parties of the responsibilities or obligations such parties have with respect to the possible existence of such a condition. CLIENT agrees it cannot make the resolution of any dispute with ECS or payment of any amount due to ECS contingent upon ECS signing any such certification BILLINGS AND PAYMENTS 15.1 Billings will be based on the unit rates, plus travel costs, and other reimbursable expenses as stated in the Professional Fees section of the Proposal. Any Estimate of Professional Fees stated in these Terms shall not be considered as a not-toexceed or lump sum amount unless otherwise explicitly stated. CLIENT understands and agrees that even if ECS agrees to a lump sum or not-to-exceed amount, that amount shall be limited to number of hours, visits, trips, tests, borings, or samples stated in the Proposal CLIENT agrees that all Professional Fees and other unit rates shall be adjusted annually to account for inflation based on the most recent 12-month average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for all items as established by when the CPI-U exceeds an annual rate of 2.0% Should ECS identify a Changed Condition(s), ECS shall notify the CLIENT of the Changed Condition(s). ECS and CLIENT shall promptly and in good faith negotiate an amendment to the Scope of Services, Professional Fees, and time schedule CLIENT recognizes that time is of the essence with respect to payment of ECS invoices, and that timely payment is a material consideration for this agreement. All payment shall be in U.S. funds drawn upon U.S. banks and in accordance with the rates and charges set forth in the Professional Fees. Invoices are due and payable upon receipt If CLIENT disputes all or part of an invoice, CLIENT shall provide ECS with written notice stating in detail the facts of the dispute within fifteen (15) calendar days of the invoice. CLIENT agrees to pay the undisputed amount of such invoice promptly ECS reserves the right to charge CLIENT an additional charge of one-and-one-half (1.5) percent (or the maximum percentage allowed by Law, whichever is lower) of the invoiced amount per month for any payment received by ECS more than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the invoice, excepting any portion of the invoiced amount in dispute. All payments will be applied to accrued interest first and then to the unpaid principal amount. Payment of invoices shall not be subject to unilateral discounting or set-offs by CLIENT CLIENT agrees that its obligation to pay for the Services is not contingent upon CLIENT S ability to obtain financing, zoning, approval of governmental or regulatory agencies, permits, final adjudication of a lawsuit, CLIENT S successful completion of the Project, settlement of a real estate transaction, receipt of payment from CLIENT S client, or any other event unrelated to ECS provision of Services. Retainage shall not be withheld from any payment, nor shall any deduction be made from any invoice on account of penalty, liquidated damages, or other sums incurred by CLIENT. It is agreed that all costs and legal fees including actual attorney's fees, and expenses incurred by ECS in obtaining payment under this Agreement, in perfecting or obtaining a lien, recovery under a bond, collecting any delinquent amounts due, or executing judgments, shall be reimbursed by CLIENT Unless CLIENT has provided notice to ECS in accordance with Section 16.0 of these Terms, payment of any invoice by the CLIENT shall mean that the CLIENT is satisfied with ECS Services and is not aware of any defects in those Services DEFECTS IN SERVICE 16.1 CLIENT, its personnel, its consultants, and its contractors shall promptly inform ECS during active work on any project of any actual or suspected defects in the Services so to permit ECS to take such prompt, effective remedial measures that in ECS opinion will reduce or eliminate the consequences of any such defective Services. The correction of defects attributable to ECS failure to perform in accordance with the Standard of Care shall be provided at no cost to CLIENT. However, ECS shall not be responsible for the correction of any deficiency attributable to CLIENTfurnished information, the errors, omissions, defective materials, or improper installation of materials by CLIENT s personnel, consultants or contractors, or work not observed by ECS. CLIENT shall compensate ECS for the costs of correcting such defects Modifications to reports, documents and plans required as a result of jurisdictional reviews or CLIENT requests shall not be considered to be defects. CLIENT shall compensate ECS for the provision of such Services INSURANCE - ECS represents that it and its subcontractors and subconsultants maintain Workers Compensation insurance, and that ECS is covered by general liability, automobile and professional liability insurance policies in coverage amounts it deems reasonable and adequate. ECS shall furnish certificates of insurance upon request. The CLIENT is responsible for requesting specific inclusions or limits of coverage that are not present in ECS insurance package. The cost of such inclusions or coverage increases, if available, will be at the expense of the CLIENT..0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.1 CLIENT AGREES TO ALLOCATE CERTAIN RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT BY LIMITING ECS TOTAL LIABILITY TO CLIENT ARISING FROM ECS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, I.E. PROFESSIONAL ACTS, ERRORS, OR OMISSIONS AND FOR ANY AND ALL CAUSES INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF WARRANTY, INJURIES, DAMAGES, CLAIMS, LOSSES, EXPENSES, OR CLAIM EXPENSES (INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY S FEES) RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. THE ALLOCATION IS AS FOLLOWS..1.1 If the proposed fees are $,000 or less, ECS total aggregate liability to CLIENT shall not exceed $20,000, or the total fee received for the services rendered, whichever is greater..1.2 If the proposed fees are in excess of $,000, ECS total aggregate liability to CLIENT shall not exceed $40,000, or the total fee for the services rendered, whichever is greater..2 CLIENT agrees that ECS shall not be responsible for any injury, loss or damage of any nature, including bodily injury and property damage, arising directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from acts or omissions by the CLIENT, its employees, agents, staff, consultants, contractors, or subcontractors to the extent such injury, damage, ECS Proposal No::4221-GP Page 2 of 3 Ver. 06/04/13

67 or loss is caused by acts or omissions of CLIENT, its employees, agents, staff, consultants, contractors, subcontractors or person/entities for whom CLIENT is legally liable..3 CLIENT agrees that ECS liability for all non-professional liability arising out of this agreement or the services provided as a result of the Proposal be limited to $500, INDEMNIFICATION 19.1 Subject Section.0, ECS agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CLIENT from and against damages arising from ECS negligent performance of its Services, but only to the extent that such damages are found to be caused by ECS negligent acts, errors or omissions, (specifically excluding any damages caused by any third party or by the CLIENT.) 19.2 To the fullest extent permitted by Law, CLIENT agrees to indemnify, and hold ECS harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, damages, demands, fines, penalties, costs and expenditures (including reasonable attorneys fees and costs of litigation defense and/or settlement) [ Damages ] caused in whole or in part by the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the CLIENT or CLIENT S employees, agents, staff, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and clients, provided such Damages are attributable to: (a) the bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease and/or death of any person; (b) the injury to or loss of value to tangible personal property; or (c) a breach of these Terms. The foregoing indemnification shall not apply to the extent such Damage is found to be caused by the sole negligence, errors, omissions or willful misconduct of ECS It is specifically understood and agreed that in no case shall ECS be required to pay an amount of Damages disproportional to ECS culpability. IF CLIENT IS A HOMEOWNER, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CONDOMINIUM OWNER, CONDOMINIUM OWNER S ASSOCIATION, OR SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL OWNER, ECS RECOMMENDS THAT CLIENT RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT TO EXPLAIN CLIENT S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER, AND THE LIMITATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THIS AGREEMENT. CLIENT AGREES THAT FAILURE OF CLIENT TO RETAIN SUCH COUNSEL SHALL BE A KNOWING WAIVER OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON GROUNDS OF AVOIDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT IF CLIENT IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDER OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER, CLIENT SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS ECS AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR DEMANDS DUE TO INJURY OR LOSS INITIATED BY ONE OR MORE HOMEOWNERS, UNIT-OWNERS, OR THEIR HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, COOPERATIVE BOARD, OR SIMILAR GOVERNING ENTITY AGAINST CLIENT WHICH RESULTS IN ECS BEING BROUGHT INTO THE DISPUTE IN NO EVENT SHALL THE DUTY TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD ANOTHER PARTY HARMLESS UNDER THIS SECTION 19.0 INCLUDE THE DUTY TO DEFEND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES 20.1 CLIENT shall not be liable to ECS and ECS shall not be liable to CLIENT for any consequential damages incurred by either due to the fault of the other or their employees, consultants, agents, contractors or subcontractors, regardless of the nature of the fault or whether such liability arises in breach of contract or warranty, tort, statute, or any other cause of action. Consequential damages include, but are not limited to, loss of use and loss of profit ECS shall not be liable to CLIENT, or any entity engaged directly or indirectly by CLIENT, for any liquidated damages due to any fault, or failure to act, in part or in total by ECS, its employees, agents, or subcontractors SOURCES OF RECOVERY 21.1 All claims for damages related to the Services provided under this agreement shall be made against the ECS entity contracting with the CLIENT for the Services, and no other person or entity. CLIENT agrees that it shall not name any affiliated entity including parent, peer, or subsidiary entity or any individual officer, director, or employee of ECS, specifically including its professional engineers and geologists In the event of any dispute or claim between CLIENT and ECS arising out of in connection with the Project and/or the Services, CLIENT and ECS agree that they will look solely to each other for the satisfaction of any such dispute or claim. Moreover, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision herein, CLIENT and ECS agree that their respective shareholders, principals, partners, members, agents, directors, officers, employees, and/or owners shall have no liability whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the Project and/or Services provided hereunder. In the event CLIENT brings a claim against an affiliated entity, parent entity, subsidiary entity, or individual officer, director or employee in contravention of this Section 21, CLIENT agrees to hold ECS harmless from and against all damages, costs, awards, or fees (including attorneys fees) attributable to such act THIRD PARTY CLAIMS EXCLUSION - CLIENT and ECS agree that the Services are performed solely for the benefit of the CLIENT and are not intended by either CLIENT or ECS to benefit any other person or entity. To the extent that any other person or entity is benefited by the Services, such benefit is purely incidental and such other person or entity shall not be deemed a third party beneficiary to the AGREEMENT. No third-party shall have the right to rely on ECS opinions rendered in connection with ECS Services without written consent from both CLIENT and ECS, which shall include, at a minimum, the thirdparty's agreement to be bound to the same Terms and Conditions contained herein and third-party s agreement that ECS Scope of Services performed is adequate DISPUTE RESOLUTION 23.1 In the event any claims, disputes, and other matters in question arising out of or relating to these Terms or breach thereof (collectively referred to as Disputes ), the parties shall promptly attempt to resolve all such Disputes through executive negotiation between senior representatives of both parties familiar with the Project. The parties shall arrange a mutually convenient time for the senior representative of each party to meet. Such meeting shall occur within fifteen (15) days of either party s written request for executive negotiation or as otherwise mutually agreed. Should this meeting fail to result in a mutually agreeable plan for resolution of the Dispute, CLIENT and ECS agree that either party may bring litigation CLIENT shall make no claim (whether directly or in the form of a third-party claim) against ECS unless CLIENT shall have first provided ECS with a written certification executed by an independent engineer licensed in the jurisdiction in which the Project is located, reasonably specifying each and every act or omission which the certifier contends constitutes a violation of the Standard of Care. Such certificate shall be a precondition to the institution of any judicial proceeding and shall be provided to ECS thirty (30) days prior to the institution of such judicial proceedings Litigation shall be instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county or district in which ECS office contracting with the CLIENT is located. The parties agree that the law applicable to these Terms and the Services provided pursuant to the Proposal shall be the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, but excluding its choice of law rules. Unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing by both parties, CLIENT waives the right to remove any litigation action to any other jurisdiction. Both parties agree to waive any demand for a trial by jury CURING A BREACH 24.1 A party that believes the other has materially breached these Terms shall issue a written cure notice identifying its alleged grounds for termination. Both parties shall promptly and in good faith attempt to identify a cure for the alleged breach or present facts showing the absence of such breach. If a cure can be agreed to or the matter otherwise resolved within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the termination notice, the parties shall commit their understandings to writing and termination shall not occur Either party may waive any right provided by these Terms in curing an actual or alleged breach; however, such waiver shall not affect future application of such provision or any other provision TERMINATION 25.1 CLIENT or ECS may terminate this agreement for breach or these terms, nonpayment, or a failure to cooperate. In the event of termination, the effecting party shall so notify the other party in writing and termination shall become effective fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of the termination notice Irrespective of which party shall effect termination, or the cause therefore, ECS shall promptly render to CLIENT a final invoice and CLIENT shall immediately compensate ECS for Services rendered and costs incurred including those Services associated with termination itself, including without limitation, demobilizing, modifying schedules, and reassigning personnel TIME BAR TO LEGAL ACTION - Unless prohibited by law, and notwithstanding any Statute that may provide additional protection, CLIENT and ECS agree that a lawsuit by either party alleging a breach of this agreement, violation of the Standard of Care, nonpayment of invoices, or arising out of the Services provided hereunder, must be initiated in a court of competent jurisdiction no more than two (2) years from the time the party knew, or should have known, of the facts and conditions giving rise to its claim, and shall under no circumstances shall such lawsuit be initiated more than three (3) years from the date of substantial completion of ECS Services ASSIGNMENT - CLIENT and ECS respectively bind themselves, their successors, assigns, heirs, and legal representatives to the other party and the successors, assigns, heirs and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of these Terms. Neither CLIENT nor ECS shall assign these Terms, any rights thereunder, or any cause of action arising therefrom, in whole or in part, without the written consent of the other. Any purported assignment or transfer, except as permitted above, shall be deemed null, void and invalid, the purported assignee shall acquire no rights as a result of the purported assignment or transfer and the non-assigning party shall not recognize any such purported assignment or transfer SEVERABILITY - Any provision of these Terms later held to violate any law, statute, or regulation, shall be deemed void, and all remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. CLIENT and ECS shall endeavor to quickly replace a voided provision with a valid substitute that expresses the intent of the issues covered by the original provision SURVIVAL - All obligations arising prior to the termination of the agreement represented by these Terms and all provisions allocating responsibility or liability between the CLIENT and ECS shall survive the substantial completion of Services and the termination of the agreement TITLES; ENTIRE AGREEMENT 30.1 The titles used herein are for general reference only and are not part of the Terms and Conditions These Terms and Conditions of Service together with the Proposal, including all exhibits, appendixes, and other documents appended to it, constitute the entire agreement between CLIENT and ECS. CLIENT acknowledges that all prior understandings and negotiations are superseded by this agreement CLIENT and ECS agree that subsequent modifications to the agreement represented by these shall not be binding unless made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties All preprinted terms and conditions on CLIENT S purchase order, Work Authorization, or other service acknowledgement forms, are inapplicable and superseded by these Terms and Conditions of Service CLIENT s execution of a Work Authorization, the submission of a start work authorization (oral or written) or issuance of a purchase order constitutes CLIENT s acceptance of this Proposal and its agreement to be fully bound the foregoing Terms. If CLIENT fails to provide ECS with a signed copy of these Terms or the attached Work Authorization, CLIENT agrees that by authorizing and accepting the services of ECS, it will be fully bound by these Terms as if they had been signed by CLIENT. ECS Proposal No::4221-GP Page 3 of 3 Ver. 06/04/13

68