HomeMy WebLinkAboutHinrix Geotech Report 2022Geotechnical Report
Hinrix Property
PGC Project No.: 22044-01
December 15, 2022
Prepared for:
Robert Hinrix
Prepared by:
PO Box 1064, Coupeville, WA 98239
wc.saa{. ggfsn * t# e $, { & r??
RECEIVED
DtC 2 2 ztn
cirY oF *offiJo*N$f,Nn
D,G PALMER..'.
360-929-5676
Po PALMER
December 15,2022
Robert Hinrix
Z3+7 tle Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98144
,..1".-.,i-:...,... .;,.,-.,-.,,i .,.....tr..,j,r /1!,,irt r4,.r. r/^lr1,ti,i.1, r.jt
206.852.1632
RE:Geotechnical Report
Parcel No. 931402903
330 Willow Street o Port Townsend, WA 98368
PGC Project22044
Dear Mr. Hinrix,
Palmer Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (PGC) is pleased to present this geotechnical report
regarding proposed improvements at the subject property. This report was prepared in accordance
with our proposal dated Augu st 9, 2022.
We apprecia.te the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have questions regarding this report,
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Palmer Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
Scott Palmer, P.E.
President
Palmer Geotechnical Consultants, fnc.
PO 9ox 1064 c Coupeville, WA 98239
360.929.5676
wwwpalmergeo.com
T;rhlc rri' flnriti:;ti,
3.0 Scope of Services 1
7.0 Foundation Design Recommendations 10
7 .2 W et weather conditions.
8.0 Seismic Design Criteria..
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Site Vicinity
Figure 2: Exploration Locations
Appendices:
Appendix A: Exploration Logs
Appendix B: Laboratory Testing
Appendix C: Slope Profile
Patmer Geotech nical Consultantg Inc.
PO 9ox 1064 ' Coupeville, WA 98239
360.929.5676
www.palmergeo.com
11
11
L.0 Introduction
A geotechnical report has been prepared for the evaluation of site conditions within the vicinity
and at the subject property in Port Townsend, Washington. The property is identified as parcel
number 931402903 by the Jefferson County Assessor and is approximately O.Vl-acres. Six hand
auger borings were compleGd to depths ranging from 1.8 to 5.0 feet below current site grades on
Wednesday, September 14, 2022.
2.0 Proiect Description
The project consists of a two-phase construction approach. The first phase consists of the
construction of a new gatage with an aparffient above. The second phase will include the
demolition of the existing residence and consfiuction of two new single-family residences at the
subject property
Building plans were not available at the time of this report. PGC assumes construction of the
structures will be wood-framed and supported on shallow footings.
3.0 Scope of Services
The goal of our scope was tq provide a critical areas analysis in accordance with City of Port
Townsend Code (CPTC) 19.05.100. In addition, our scope was to provide geotechnical
engineering recommendations for use in design and construction of the proposed residential
construction. Our services included visiting the site, advancing, logging, and sampling borings,
and preparing this report. Logs of the borings are provided in Appendix A.
4.0 Site Description flnd Subsurface Conditions
4.1 Surface Conditions
The proposed consfruction involves a parcel identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as parcel
number 93t402903. The parcel consists of two lots and totals approximately 0.24-acres and is
currently developed with a 1,080.0 square-foot (s.f.) residenc e,402.0 s.f. of deck, and a 120.0 s.f.
shed.
The area surrounding the building pad is covered with maintained lawn. The wesf south, and east
perimeter of the parcel consists of mature native coniferous and deciduous ffees mixed with a
healthy understory of native bushes and shrubs. The north end of the parcel is a gravel driveway
that provides access to the parcel from Willow Street.
The subject parcel is approximately rectangular in shape, trending west to east. The property
moderately slopes from the west property boundary to the building pad, then moderately to the
east property boundary. Developed residential parcels border the property to the south and east,
with Willow Sneet to the west, and a shared gravel driveway to the north. The property is accessed
from the north.
4.2 Subsurface Conditions
For this project, we advanced and observed six borings utilizing a 3-inch diameter hand auger and
a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). During advancement soils were classified and logged in
accordance with the United Soil Classification System (USCS), bagged and discretely labeled to
be transported to the laboratory for supplemental testing. Borings were advanced within the
vicinity of the proposed improvements.
The borings were advanced through approximately 0.5 feet of topsoil. This unit consisted of silty
sand with organiss and was loose, dry to moist, and dark brown. Beneath were units of 0.6- to
3.9-foot-thick units of silty sand with gravel to gravelly sand with trace amounts of silt. These
units were medium dense to dense, dry, and yellow brown to brown in color. Neither orange
mottling nor groundwater was observed in any of our exploratory borings. Groundwater is
expected to vary with seasonal conditions. See the exploration logs in Appendix A for additional
infonnation
The Geologic Map of the Port Townsend South and Part of the Port Townsend North 7.5-minute
Quadrangles, Jefferson County, Washington, published by the Washington State Division of
Geology and Earth Resources (Schasse and Slaughter,2005),maps the.site surface geology across
the parcel as Pleistocene Lodgment Till of the Vashon Stade (Qgt).
Qgt is generally described varying amounts of clay, silt, sand, and gravel with occasional boulders.
This unit is unsorted and overconsolidated with a low perrneability that is massive. Usually topped
by 0.5 to 4.0 feet of wind deposited sand with recessional outwash above and advance outwash
below.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) maps Townsend gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes on the subject parcel. This unit
consists oJ till with %I to 36 inches to a re'strictive feature and very low to moderately low
permeability. The Hydrologic Soil Group is c with a land capability classification of 4s.
Soil conditions encountered in the field consist of silty sand to gravelly sand with trace amounts
of silt. These conditions are typical of deposits in the region and are consistent with area geology
2
sources.
4.3 Groundwater Conditions
During our exploration the phreatic zone representative of a groundwater surface was not
encountered in any boring. Additionally, orange mottling was not observed. Mottled soils and
low chroma colors generally indicate wetting and drying cycles that occurin the upper soil column
from surface water and fluctuating interflow are hansmitted through snadgraphic variations of
perrneability.
The project scope did not include long-term measurement of groundwater level conditions. If on-
going groundwater level conditions are desired a direct monitoring program conducted during the
wet months, from October to May should be undertaken. It should be understood that water level
conditions within the soil column may fluctuate in coqiunction with sfatigraphic perrreability
variations.
A Department of Ecology search within the immediate vicinity of the subject propertry indicates
observed static water levels at depths from 5 to 43 feet BPG on properties with similar topographic
elevations to the subject property.
4.4 Potential Geologic Hazards
Below we discuss the potential of geologic hazards as defined by CPTC Chapter 19.02.100.
4.4.1 Erosional Hazard
The subject parcel is not an erosion hazard in accordance with CPTC chapter 19.05.100.C.1, as
the USDA NCRS soil map classification of 4s indicates that the soils limitations are restricted to
plants that require careful management because they are shallow, droughty, or stony. No part of
the parcel or surrounding areas are mapped as erosion hazards by the City of Port Townsend's
online assessor map.
The subject properly is located east of Willow Sffeet. The subject parcel moderately ascends from
Willow Sheet to the building pad, becomes level, then moderately ascends along the east property
boundary.
During our site visit we observed that the slopes on the subject property are well vegetated. No
signs of localized activity over the years were observed and trees were observed to be mature
deciduous and coniferous mixed within native ground cbver. Thus, we believe the risk oJerosion
to be low. Grading and clearing activities should be accompanied by appropriate erosion control
3
measures
4.4.2LandshdeHaznd
The subject parcel is not a landslide hazardin accordance with CPTC 19.05.100.C.2 as the parcel
does not meet any of the items listed in subsections a, b, c, d, or e. Nor do any areas within 200
feet of the subject property's boundaries in accordance with CPTC 19.05.100.G
To evaluate the slope, we utilized visual mapping of salient surface features, photo documentation,
and field evaluation of slope conditions of the offsite slopes. PGC conducted a visual
reconnaissance of the slopes to observe existing surface processes as related to the proposed site
improvements. During our visit, conditions were assessed and catalogued using hand
measurements, visual estimations, visual mapping of salielt surface features, photo
documentation, and field evaluation of slope conditions, as safe access allowed. Any indications
of past and ongoing surface raveling were noted, including geomorphic features and vegetation
patterns. The Jefferson County online assessors map does not map steep slopes or landslide hazatd
areas within 500 feet from all boundaries of the subject parcel.
The site elevation increases from L25 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at Willow Street to the
beginning of the building pad at 135 feet AMSL. Site topography is consistent to just east of the
shed where topography increases to 140 feet AMSL. The east property boundary lies at 145 feet
AMSL at the northeast property corner and 150 feet AMSL at the southeast property corner.
Both the slope along the west property boundary is vegetated with native bushes and shrubs. The
east slope is vegetated with mature coniferous and deciduous ffees over a healthy understory of
native bushes and shrubs. No areas of exposed soils were observed throughout the slope faces and
frees were observed to be in near vertical positions. During our field visit the slope appeared
relatively dry and seepage on the slope face was not observed. The inclination of the slope
increases from Willow Street at 20 degrees becoming 4 degrees near the property line
(approximately 20 feet from Willow Street) and across the property to the east slope toe that
increases to 12 degrees, becoming 23 degrees off property. The areas within the property
boundaries are generally level; being between 0 to 3 degrees.
Subsurface soils within the property were observed to consist of silty sand to gravelly sand with
trace of silt. Based on our observations in the field and photographic record the slope appears to
exhibit stable vegetation pattems with no apparent erosion and exposed soils. Due to forested or
hazardous conditions within the slope faces, the slope profiles Appendix D were approximated
from the Jefferson.County Assessorns website, therefore actual slope conditions may vary.
4
4.4.3 Seismic and Liquefaction Hazard
The subject property is not a seismic or liquefaction hazard in accordance with CPTC
19.05.100.C.3 as soils onsite are classified as silty sand to gravelly sand with trace amounts of silt,
where the silt content varied from 0.7 to 6.9 percent. Additionally, soil density was generally
medium dense to dense to depths of 5 feet BPG with low to negligible organibs and nor fill or
landslide materials,
The subject property does not contain mapped faults. An aerial photo review does not suggest
linear or faultic features and no such features were observed during our site visit. The site lies
south of the Southem Whidbey Island Fault Zone, with mapped or inferretl trenches approximately
1.7-miles to the north and west. We do not believe the proposed improvements will exacerbate
the conditions associated with the nearby faults. Based on our findings, we believe the risk of fault
rupture at the ground surface within the confines of the subject property to be low.
The site is mapped very low by the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Jefferson County,
Washington (Palmq 2004).
The site is not mapped in a Tsunami Inundation or Tsunami Evacuation Zone. We believe the risk
of Tsunami at the site to be quite low or negligible.
4.4.4 Other Geologic Hazards
The site is not near any known volcanoes and is located outside the volcanic arc of the Cascade
Range. The site is mapped outside known Lahar Deposits.
During our site visit we did not observe any indications of rock fall or mud flows. We did not
observe any signs of differential settlement at the subject property.
There is not any known present or historic mining in the area. Additionally, we did not observe
evidence of any adits, shafts, or other mine workings during our site visit.
5.0 Conclusions
Based on our review of available data, soil conditions encountered during exploration, laboratory
testing, and our analysis; the site is suitable for the proposed improvements.
6.0 Site Development Recommendations
6.1 Site Preparation
Initial grading shall include the removal of vegetation within proposed construction areas. The
5
actual depth of stripping should be reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer of Record at
the time of construction, with expected minimum stripping depths of approximately 0.5 feet BPG
to remove topsoil. Foundation bearing subgrade site preparation depths should be expected to be
a minimum of 2.A to 3.0 feet BPG, depending on location. Sfiipping depths could vary from the
recommended stripping depths to approximately 1.0 feet if a significant anount of time lapses
from the writing of this report.
All vegetation, frees, and roots larger than 7+-inch diameter or any accumulation of organic matter
that will result in an organic content of more than 3 percent should be removed and not used as
engineered fill. Roots larger than 7+-inch diameter should not be disced into the soils. These
materials should be raked and hand-picked, as necessary, to ensure proper removal of organic
materials.
Any areas proposed for structural filI should be relatively level with appropriately prepared
subgrade soils.
6.2 Construction Considerations
The near-surface fine-grained soil at the project site is easily disturbed during wet weather and
may become difficult to work with. Haul roads and staging area improvements may be necessary
for support of consffuction traffic during the rainy season or when the moisture content of the
subgrade soil begins to elevate, generally within a few percentage points above optimum. If not
carefully executed, site preparation and excavation activities can create extensive soft areas.
Earthwork should be planned and executed to minimize subgrade disturbance if site improvements'
are performed during wet weather months. The thickness of the haul roads and staging areas
should be selected by the contractor.
6.3 Erosion Control
The on-site soil is susceptible to erosion. Thus, we recommend that all efforts are made to limit
construction during periods of wet weather. Howevern if construction occurs during wet weather,
erosion control measures should be implemented prior to construction in accordance with local
and state ordinances.
6.4 Slooes and Buildins Locations
During our field reconnaissance the slopes were observed to be dry and free of seepage faces.
Based on this data we do not believe future soil movement will occur on the slope faces. If failure
occurs, it will likely be infinite slope (raveling) failures as opposed to deep-seated failures.
6
We did not observe any tension cracks, seepage faces or signs of instability. Furthermore, no
portions of the slopes on the subject property, nor within 20O feet of the properties boundaries
measured steeper than the City of Port Townsend's definition of a steep slope. Therefore, we
believe the risk of slope failure for improvements planned on the subject property to be quite low.
Based on these data we believe the proposed building locations are appropriate.
6.5 Slope Impact Mitigation
PGC recommends, that in areas of soil disturbance, a minimum of 5 feet of vegetative buffer is
planted at the slope crest to the west with root anchoring plants. Care should be taken to not
overwater during establishmentn and no irrigation should be installed within 15 feet of the slope
crest.
The following general recommendations should be implemented to reduce long term erosion
potential at the project site and maintain existing conditions for site slope stability:
1. Minimize the volume and velocity of water that fiavels toward and down the slope face.
2. To avoid accelerating slope erosion and mass wasting due to human activity refrain from
the following:
a) Adding side-cast debris to the slopes
b) Using heavy construction equipment on or near steep slopes
' c) Excavating near adjacent steep slope crests, toes or on the slope face
d) Placing loads of excavated soil near the slope crest
3. Prior to construction, silt fences and/or a continuous line of straw bales should be placed
downslope of the construction area. Inhibit the placement of heavy construction
equipment, construction materials, or native and imported soils from being placed within
close proximity to any erosion control devices. Suitable temporary erosion and sediment
control measures should be imFlemented at the consffuction site prior to, during and
immediately after ground disturbance occurs. Areas upslope and with minimal vegetation
should be protected from erosion via a blanket of straw or rolled erosion control product
(RECP) if site work is not continuous in the vicinity and prior to reseeding or re-vegetation.
4. At the completion of the project, all disturbed or removed vegetation should be repaired
and maintained until established. Surface water should not be allowed to concenfrate or
traverse the slope during or after the construction phase of the project. Outlets for all
drainage pipes should terminate in an energy dissipating device such as a T or through the
use of riprap. Similarly, concenhated drainages should be captured in closed pipe systems
and routed down slope to appropriate outfalls.
7
5. Avoid clearing of existing vegetation outside the construction area, especially on or near
to the existing slopes, unless approved by a qualified professional. Any cleared or loose
topsoil should be covered to minimize downslope movement.
6. Grading or excavation of soils during construction should be accompanied by grass
reseeding and re-vegetation as the project is completed.
7. Care should be given to species selection regarding mature height o{ planted/reseeded
vegetation to avoid adverse wind/storm damage to the slope. Species with a mature height
of 15 feet or more should be avoided on the slope face or within 10 feet of the crest.
According to "slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation" (Myers, 1993)
Table 1 below highlights vegetation that provide increased slope impact mitigation.
Table 1. Slope Stabilizing Vegetation
Common Name Botanical Name DeciduouslEvergreen Mature Height
(ft)
Vine Maple Acer cricinatum Deciduous 10+
Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor Deciduous 10+
Willow Salix spp.Deciduous 10+
Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Deciduous 3+
Rose Rose spp.Deciduous 2-r0
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Deciduogs To 12
Salal Gaultheria shallon Evergreen To4
Oregon grape Mahoniaspp.Evergreen To6
Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Deciduous To 12
Evergreen hucHeberry Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen To8
Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Deciduous 12+
If extensive site landscaping or replanting is considered in the fufure, an approved and qualified
licensed professional should be consulted prior to implementation.
6.6 Drainage
Footing drains should be installed outside the footing at the lowest portion of the foundation
elements. Footing drains should be installed in such a iluurner to prevent backflow from other
drainage sources. Drainage from footing drains and roof tightlines should be collected in separate
systems. Each could discharge to a Low Lnpact Development Feature (LD) or to a newly
constructed tightline.
Any LID feature or discharge point should be lqcated at least 10 feet away from the foundation
elements of any structure.
p
If a new tighfline is selected it should be constructed from Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS)
comrgated smooth interior polypropylene pipe or high-density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) and
discharge a minimum of 10 feet from any structure's foundation elements. The new tightline
should be of sufficient size to carry the proposed runoff from proposed structures and discharge to
an area away from any structures or the slope face or crest.
PGC recommends ensuring that the connections are watertight and sealed and routine maintenance
is conducted along the length of pipe. Additionally, care should be taken to ensure that the tightline
is not damaged during construction and is sufficient to carry the proposed runoff.
PGC also recommends that an annual inspection program is initiated to ensure no damage or
disconnect ofthe pipe, or its accessories occurs.
6.7 Structural Fill
Structural fill includes fill proposed for use beneath foundations, slabs, pavements, any other areas
intended to support structures, or within the influence zones of sttuctures. Structural fill shall be
free of organic matter and other deleterious material and, in general, should consist of a maximum
particle size no larger than 6 inches in diams1s1. Recommendations for suitable fill material are
provided in the following sections.
6.7.1 On-Site Native Soil
The on-site native soil may be suitable for use as structural fill. Due to the variable fines content,
our experience, and laboratory testing, the on-site will be sensitive to small changes in moisture
content and may be difficult, if not impossible, to corpact adequately during extreme weather or
when its moisture content is more than a few percentage points offoptimum. Soil excavated onsite
consisting of silty sand with gtavel should be thoroughly mixed with the sandy gravel with varying
amounts of silt, prior to replacement. If appropriate compaction cannot be achieved, we
recommend using imported granular material for structural fill.
6.7.2 Imported Granular Material
Imported material can be used as structural fill. Imported structural fill material should conform
to Section 9-03.14(2), Select Borrow, Section 9-03.9(3) Crushed Surfacing Base Course or
Crushed Surfacing Top Course as outlined in the most recent edition of the State of Washington
Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction (WSDOT Standard Specifications), or approved equal verified by the geotechnical
engineer of record.
9
Trenches and other areas proposed for the waterline should be backfilled utilizing material that
conforms to Section 9-03.12(3) Baclfill for Pipe Zone Bedding as outlined in the most
recent edition of WSDOT Standnrd Speciftcations.
A11 granular material must be durable such that there is no degradation of the material during and
after installation as structural fill. The percentage of fines can be increased to 12 percent if the fill
is placed during dry weather and provided the fill material is moisture conditioned, as necessary,
for proper compaction. The material should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted
thickness of 8 inches and compacted to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as
determined by ASTM D 1557. During the wet season or when wet subgrade conditions exist, the
initial lift should have a maximum thickness of 15 inches and should be compacted by rolling with
a smooth-drum, non-vibratory roller. :
7.0 Foundation Design Recommendations
The site is expected to tie underlain by medium dense becoming very dense sandy gravel with
varying amounts of silt to srlty sand with varying amounts of gravel. l,ocations with a high fines
content will be difficult to work with in extreme dry or wet conditions. Any areas receiving filI or
with recompacted soils should extend a minimum of 1.0 foot laterally beyond the foundation
element.
As the proposed construction is planned to be on the generally flat slopes of between 3 to 5 degrees,
we conclude that the proposed construction improvements for the single-family residence can be
supported on shallow footings. If planned locations change, to areas of steep slopes, we should be
contacted to develop alternative recommendations. Recommendations are provided in the
following sections.
7.1 Spread Footinss
We recommend that footings be designed with a minimum depth (bottom of footing) of 24 inches
from the ground surface, and a minimum width of 18 inches. An allowable bearing capacity of
2,000 psf may be used for design assuming a total settlement of l-incli and differential settlement
of r/z-inchin 50 feet. A one-third increase in allowable bearing pressure is aiso typical for such
systems when resisting short-term loads such as wind and seismic forces.
Lateral loads can be resisted by passive pressure against bwied portions of the footings, retaining
earth walls for the daylight basement, and sliding resistance between the bottoms of the footings.
Table 2 below provides our recommended allowable soil parameters for shallow foundation
design.
10
Table 2. . Soil Parameters
Parameter Value Factor of
Safe$
Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf 3.0
Active - Free to Rotate 40 pcf 1.0
Active - At Rest 60 pcf 1.0
Passive 180 pcf 2.0
Soil Frictional Coefficient 0.33 1.5
These values assume footings are backfilled with native soils or structural fill. The upper 18 inches
of soil should be ignored unless the area is paved or covered with concrete due to soil disturbance
associated with freezelthaw action.
Sliding resistance between subgrade soils and foundations value assumes concrete placed direcfly
on the subgrade.
7.2 Wet weather conditions
If unstable conditions are encountered due to wet weather, windrowing, or mixing with dry
materials may be required. In some cases, a sacrificial lift of unsuitable material may need to be
used to cap the fill and removed later to continue fill process dwing more suitable weather
conditions.
8.0 Seismic Desien Criteria
T\e Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Istand County (Palmer et a7.,2004) indicates that there is
a Yery low susceptibility of liquefaction in the vicinity of the proposed improvements (Site Class
C). All structures should be designed according to criteria outlined by the latest edition, at the
time of construction, of the Intemational code council@ for Site class c.
9.0 Construction Observation
We recommend that PGC is retained to review final design plans and to ensure conforrrance with
our recornmendations. Satisfactory earthwork and foundation performance depend to a large
degree on the quality of construction. Subsurface conditions observed during consfuction should
1t
be compared with those encountered during the subsurface explorations. Recognition of changed
conditions often requires experience; therefore, qualified personnel should visit the site with
sufficient frequency to detect whether subsurface conditions conform or have changed
significantly from those anticipated.
10.0 Gener4 Comments
The analysis and rerommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from
our exploration locations, available public records, and from other information and sources
discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between known data
points, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and
extent of such variations may not become evident until construction begins or is completed.
Should variations appear that differ from the data and recommendations contained within this
report, PGC should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental
recommendations can be provided. PGC is not responsible for ensuring that other members of the
project team implement our recommendations.
The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions or
dewatering operations. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods,
techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with the generally accepted practices. This report has been prepared for the exclusive
use of our client and their representatives for specific application to the project discussed and has
been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this
area atthe time this report was prepared. This report may not be relied upon by third parties or for
other sites.
No waranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site safety and dewatering
requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or
location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations
contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless PGC reviews the changes and either
verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.
12
It you have questions concerning this letter, please feel free to contact me at 3ffi.929.5676.
Sincerely,
Palmer Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
.d
t ,t
"' i\l a 't-' r.+,:l. i I i_12-15-2022
Meghan Hallam Scott A..Palmer, P.E.
13
Figure 1: Site Vicinity
rf: I
i :r1t :t: t .,,ji
il.
E L FioHinrix Property
Port Townsend, WA 1
re:
a a
Figure 2:, Exploration Locations
$
',t
{
4Alt
hrtY.il
\f
it
'I i
.t. '1|i!"'"
{i
Figure:
2
Not to Sca/e
Not to be Used for Construction
Hinrix Property
Port Townsend, WA
Appendix A: Exploration Logs
B-1-
SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE
0'
1 I
2',
3'
4',
5'
Loo
=ioc
JoL(,
ctIoc
o
o-
E$a
oatr
Loa-
E(sa
6o
Ea
.o-co'(EL(,
6c
E
ct)aoU)l
Exploration Method: Hand Auger
Ground Surface Elev: Approx 1 35' AMSL
IL
.A
=o
%@z
occo(1)og
E8(U>
o)
E(,
LoIo(L
EcoU)
c0)oLo(L
oo
.gIL
cq)o
c)(LSOIL DESCRIPTION
SM
(0.0 - 0.5) ToPSotL
silg SAND with organics, loose, moist. DARK BROWN
42
18
3.7
1.6 32.0 67.3 0.7
f''-:
,'l-
SP
(0.5 - 1.8) grav_elly SAND with trace silt, dense becoming medium dense, drla
BROWN
Refusal at 1.8 feet BPG. No Groundwater Encountered.
Z PALMER Hinrix Propertv
Port Townsend, WA
Los of:
B-1
B-2
SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE
0'
1'.
z',
3'
4'.
5',
o
(s
=T'c
JI(,
6
Lc)c
oo
Eoa
oo-
F
oo.
E(6
U)
o-oE
U)
.9-cogo
oo
E
@
U)
C)U)f
Exploration Method: Hand Auger
Ground Surface Elev: Approx 135' AMSL
lro3oq
aoz
c9*cco0)og
E8g
c)
Eo
cooLoIL
Ec(5a
c
o)o
o(L
.tto).ctl-
co(J
oILSOIL DESCRIPTION
rab
(0.0 - 0.5) ToPSOIL
silty SANDwith organics, loose, dry. BROWN
18
0
20
20
19
4.0
5.0
4.3
3.8
3.3 17.3 82.0 0.8
@,dry.BRowN
SP
(4.4 -gravely uANu wln race
BROWN
silt, medium dense, dry. YELLOW
Termination at 5.0 feet BPG. No Groundwater Encountered.
% PALMER PropertvHinrix
end
Los of:
B-2
B-3
SAMPLE DATA SOIL P OFILE
0)
G
=15c
JoL(,
0'
1',
2'
3'
4'.
5'
E
=oc
oo
E(5a
oo.
F
L
-oo-
E(sa
E
a
.og(t(5L(,
o-oEaac)(t):)
Exploration Method: Hand Auger
Ground Surface Elev: Approx 135'AMSL
IL
alt
=oq
@z
Eg*ccooog
E8(5
=
6
E(,
co()L0)(L
Ec(U
U)
0)oLo(L
oo.c
LtL
co()Lc)(LSOIL DESCRIPTION
3rab
Grab
Grab
SM
silty SAND with organics, loose, dry. BROWN
17
39
38
3.8
4.3
4.4 9.6 88.6 1.8
I i:':
: \\:.
,::::.i
:1."'
_"- J
i,..:f,
'.1r.:l
'ir'.1
, ,-:1
: ajj'l_..\,l
SP
some medium dense
dense, dry.
Termination at 3.5 feet BPG. No Groundwater Encountered.
z MER Hinrix Propertv
Port TownseNd, WA
Loq of:
B-3
I
B-4
SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE
0'
1'.
z'.
3'
4',
5'
o
(s
=oc
JIo
6aoc
oo
E(sa
oo
F
oo
Eoa
E-aE
U)
.9.co
Eo
o-o
E
aaO
c/)f,
Exploration Method: Hand Auger
Ground Surface Elev: Approx 145'AMSL
LL
tt
=oq
@z
c
0)ccooog
E8g
o
Eo
c
0)Io(L
Eco
U)
c(DoLo(L
oo)
.E
LL
coeo)(LSOIL DESCRIPTION
\Jt du
SM
(0.0 - 0.5) ToPSorL
silty SAND with organics, loose, dry. BROWN
13
15
3.6
2.6 28.1 70.7 1.2
SP
(0.5 - 1.8) gravelly SAND with trace silt, medium dense, dry. BROWN
Termination at 1.8 feet BPG. No Groundwater Encountered.
b PALMER Hinrix Propertv
Port Townsend. wA
Los of:
B-4
B-5
SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE
Lo(!
=ioc
o(,
0'
1'.
2'
3'
4I
5'
GPoc
0)o
E(U
U)
oo-a
Loa-
E(sa
oo
E
a
.()-co'(5L(,
o-o
Ea
U)
C)af
Exploration Method: Hand Auger
Ground Surface Elev: Approx 140'AMSL
ILo
=oq
@z
c9*ccooog
b8(5
=
o
(ULo
EooL
0)(L
Ec(5
U)
coIo
TL
ao.cIL
c0)oLo(LSOIL DESCRIPTION
Grab
Grab
SM
(0.0 - 0.s) ToPSotL
silty SAND with organics, loose, dry. BROWN
26
32
2.1
1.8 1 0 1 83.1 6.9
!(':-'
r-';)
SP
SM
(0.5 - 2.1 ) SANp yith gravel and some silt, medium dense becoming dense,dry. YELLOW BROWN
Refusal at 2.1 feet BPG. No Groundwater Encountered.
z PALMER Hinrix Propertv
Port Town WA
Los of:
B-5
B-6
SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE
_0,
1 I
z'.
t- 4'.
5'
Lo
(s
=oc3o(,
6eoc
.0)o.
E(u
U)
oo-
F
oo-
E(sa
o-oEa
.9to(EL
CI
6-oE
U)
U)
C)a3
Exploration Method: Hand Auger
Ground Surface Elev: Approx 140' AMSL
L!o
=oq
@z
coc,co(t)og
E8g
E
(5(,
E0)Io(L
Ec(ga
c
0)oLo[L
oo.sLr
c0)oLo(LSOIL DESCRIPTION
SM
(0.0 - 0.5) ToPSorL
silty SAND with organics, loose, dry. BROWN
12
37
2.7
1.0 13.8 84.8 1.4
":.
SM
(0.5-2.1) SANDwith and trae silt, medium dense becoming dense,
dry
Refusal at2.1 teet BPG. No Groundwater Encountered.
Z PALMER Hinrix Propertv
Port d. WA
Los of:
B-6
F
!I=
i-
Appendix B: Laboratory Testing
+!:lt :tl t.J
*6o *o\O
+t1..)oo o1!o It5 :fr
Oo
Its{o It :ltt\)a :rtA A b+t i-ra-\i oo ie {!"oo o
3Se3$dF338888EsBHsEBB$BgEHs;aE gggis
a
E
J.
O
ot!
oc)oo
{i€!JaY{oO
9{t>9as
qo,{99oANRS 6
6E
o
=6s,G
o
SSSFFFSS $$$FF $F$$$5FFFFFFFFF o
oo!FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF c'9EO,43
999999c)oooFSSRSSSSSRFFRFFFFFFFRFFsFFFFF >9
F6
o
'EEOE
6S
d='6d
-|.-
t-i--
I
I
-
-rl-#T-
I
I
^/
I
L
I
I
-
l
I)7
I)-
I
% Possing
ob
.tS
oIo
dtSoo
o
!o:L
oovtNo
3f
o
o
5
1D
NoI
vl
crtr
o
=
o
Io
o
Io
d'S
N)ot)
d's
(job
"tS
Apo
ba
(rpo
d'S
o.Io
d'9
\po
bs
oIo
bs
.oob
bs
o s)ol$ ir PoSG 9o@io9s)o.\
c)\
at
&oo
oB
EI
D
c
o
6!t
IN
hX
^u -v ^uEE.dililil
iol-X\9€6i+oa
Ets333E
o\a
=&&o\c)orFaeailil[oo\o{:J\,s.?€
9oooDA
o'FF'tO
=dt6F.')5i.o,.iqe x f?i.so<ai
E-c)OcCc)Trtlt
"; 8s
gBFEfxo5'F:tlit
:- td9j-3f-Q@ts tJN
-...-';[1.-].-l .r I
6.00'
4.00"
3.00"
2.50r
2.00u
1.75"
1.50"
1.25u
1.00"
'118'
314',
5/8"
lnu
3/8"
U4',
#4
#8
#10
#t6
#20
#30
#40
#50
#60
#80
#100
#140
#170
#200
US Metric
Sieve Size
53.00
s0.00
45.00
37.50
31.50
25.00
)) ao
1e.09
16,00
12.50
9.50
6.30
4;15
2.360
2.000
1.180
0.850
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.250
0.180
0.150
0.106
0.090
0.075
150.00
100.00
75.00
Percent
Actual
Cumulative
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
89.2%
2.3%
0.8%
1.4%
87.5o/o
82j%
76.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
95.1%
89.2o/o
88.6%
88.0%
87.5o/o
84.3o/o
82.7%
7'7.3%
76s%
37.9o/o
22.3%
r0j%
2.3%
l.9o/o
1.7%
15%
1.40/o
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
Specs
Max
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
r00,0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
i00.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent Min
Specs
0.0%
b.otz"
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Q.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.tr/o
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
PG PALMER
Hinrix
Unified Soils Classifi cation Systen
SP
Yo C:ravel= l'1 '3o/o
%Sand= 820%
% Silt & ClaY = 0.8%
Coeff. ofCurvature, Cg = 1 06
Coeff. of UniformrtY, CU = 2'80
Fineness Modulus= 4'12
DateTested: 101412022
SamPle #: B'2
DePth: 4.4-4'5
D1to1= 0.589
D1eol= 1.013
Dloo;= 1.650
mm
mm
mm
ilf
iltl.
ffir
ilil t.I'I llltt
\
a
I
I t\ ilil
t
Elc66oo-
bs
100.0%
i0.0%
100
Grain Size Distribution
10 0.1 0.01
u. I
90.0%
80.0%
7O.Wo
60.0%
50.0%
40.07"
9.A%
20.070
0.0%
0
o.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1
Portlcle Slze (mm)
4.00,
3.00,
2.50,
2.00,
1.75u
1.50"
1.25'
1.00,
7/gu
3/4'
5/gr
1/2u
3/8'
l/4u
#4
#8
#10
#16
#20
#30
#40
#s0
#60
#80
#100
#140
#170
#200
00,
100.00
75.00
63.00
50.00
45.00
37.50
31.50
25.00
22.40
19.00
16.00
12.50
9.50
6.30
4.7s
2.360
2.000
1.180
0.8s0
0.600
0.42s
0.300
0.2s0
0.1 80
o.iso
0. t06
0.090
0.07s
MetricUS
Sieve Size
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0o/o
1.8%
3.7%
3.2%
959%
90.4%
81.9%
Percent
Acfual
100.U/o
100.0o/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100,0%
100.U/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98.7%
97.2%
9s.9%
92.2%
90/%
83.0%
81.9%
41.2%
24.8%
12.4%
3.7%
35%
3,4%
3.3o/o
3.2%
2.4o/o
2.1%
1.8%
100.0%
100.00/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.00/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.0o/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.0o/o
100.00/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1@.0%
100.0%
100.
Specs
Max
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.|n/o
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.o%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.v/o
0.0o/o
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0,0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Specs
Min
Cumulative
Percent
ilil
llllllit
.ililt[
llll
lilt
t/11
il
lll
-\
IN;
ilIil
I
Il
atsaatoG
be
10.07"
100.0%
r00 l0
Portlcle Slze (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
0.1 0.01
0.1
0.9
0.0%
20.o70
n.o%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.070
80.0%
90.0%
0
0.3
v.l
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.7
Po
Unified Soils Ciassification System
SP
PALfiIER
Hinrix
D1tol= 0.553 mm
D1301= 0.955 mm
D1601= 1.559 mm
YoCravel= 9.6%
% Sand = 88.6%
%Srlt&Clay= t.g/o
Coeff of Curvature, Cg = 1.06
Coeff of Uniformity,CU = 2.g2
Fineness Modulus= 3.Tl
DateTested: lO/4/2022
Sarnple #: B-3
Depth: 3.4-3.5
:fr*5 ir)t*s
Ab o\-o{
@{t5
h)
o !-,ot*@*@
{@oo\b.)+oit5o
4!o*oIt@o
+
Fo{o
*Na
3s
o
o
EEBH$saEsBsaEUgExE6dsEE99F>
=i6ouioo
dEE9'o'oeoo
F0otao
oE>9!a
l0c
o
oo99oo\o \o
@:q6
s-=.Nq'N
\o
a{@Nf-?sss
s ! F s $.t i s Fs su u i !F !Ss$FF gFs F Fg
z9
HB
oI
33FFF3FFFFFFFF
o
bsR?FRFRFFFFFgg
oIEEog
.i !go$.lt<
2 a
o
FFFFFFFSSSFFSFFFFSFFsFFggFSS
G)\
lx
Hx
a-tss--
o
ao
o9
trt
t0
ou
U)
-v ^u ^ugg€
ll ll ll
FER
ets3tsts3
a
ho\oagE.?ed
Illll { h-)ie990
o88sg
;lEoH5c)asa5FFHoo7coittllF!p:-gG5
aEEOE.€*eF*F
EdiuL<;E N},J
-------l
-T
-l-t.'tt-l
I
:
{
I
l
t-
l
% Possing
oo'o
"=S
o'o
bs
oo
o
!,
=an
No
tr,
vl
C'g
o
J
o
o
ob o
.oob
"=S
coo'o
.=s
\o'o
"-s
o'oo
.=q
(,o'o
bs
sob
bS
(,oo
.=s
N)o'o
.=S
oo
>s
o'.OoIN)
oO\boPLhO,99(r5
!o
odv,
No
33
l
*:+E*
:+E*@ Itqto\Ao{*\)It6 :+EA
tl
o
l*Ao :*
o\
:ttNo o A tb-Q\i--o t\J o {!')o No o Ao
oI 5 N)N {I{oo\
Io\oo t\)6
Is19
Io {eo
I6o )oIt,
o@
\,
o\o <t!r,
o
0 !ooo Ao
N!4 :..
o
A!^o6 Ioo
o\l,{!4
o oo o
v1
z
s.a
ao
6
U)
N
oo
oo
€Ft35o\ \o
\o
!a -{{FF3ss$o
p
9:{>l{6a=*-s $ $s$$F$F$$u$*F$$$$$FFFFFFFF
88888
RSRSRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 3gsoxa
FFFFFFFFFFFRRFFFFFFsFFFFFFFF sgE6
l!o
oEI
E
o
D
o
I{.--l+-|--T--F--f*-
rJ
l
I_l
I
I
% Possing
s)o;s oob
"tS
oo
o
0r5
In
NoI
.A
trc
o3
o
.tto
n
6-v,Ho
3
3
o
ob
o
Io
bs
N)ob
bs
(,po
"tS
AIo
"tS
(jC)t)
d's
orIo
"tS
\Io
"'S
oob;s
.oIo
dtS
I
I
5;
o S)oN td 9oAG 9ooioPoo\\
c)\
IN
/$
E
oo.oo
o
19
=ts
Fa
6
v)
aK
X
o\a
&o\as$'€eaililfl66b119
9osa
41 toi-6dY.l
A r5?r-.FEFFE-O.]cCc)Tt u rresb
6u au =ui, i' 9,
aboi->tNoqoo
335353
gF
.CU€fF$F:.tDf,iS:.<eB
s
f.J
1t 5*IoItNIt
F{
O
l')oo+@ t*5 @
qo -lN@ooFoOr
+f.)o+oitAo
+h:so\o1L@o1t
O-to
*I,J
U)
2
a
oa
N
o o o i !..) L) o' o\ e G A 6 S S F S E P Q isEBEgB;EsUBBsce38I8Ioooo999a::--*NailEe8888
ouoooooo
Fg
oF D
oooob<)XEsS.J5
o\
t,o\
3KFsss
s$ $s FH$$5$$[!$$sFiEi33RF€F33F
z
E
oE
??RF?ERgg??g
ao
sggFgFRSFg?338888
sSSS
Fg
It
Eo
!do
D
AgFQ,FFFFggSFFFFSFFFFFFFFFsFFFFFFS
Btoo
ct)
()
to
Et
B
oIta
o
a
q\
IN
\F
E='
)<
-v ^u ^uq, q, 0,,
ooqioq{{-l
3tststs38
v)
ho\6)egEAasilllll
af:'ao6@
o88!tg
=1 i;a E9ag35EF?-oo7CoTtlll
si8
UaBEO
qE3i*Ptt=T6E!'., bobJN
--------*------------r---- l
--------+
-
-,.,1-----+
----1
|,'.I--T--------'r----1 _l
-r'4
at=--
-
I
I
% Possing
oob
.=S
oo'o
"=s
o
bs
(,o'o
bs
oo
o
!,5tn
NoI
vt
crc
o5
o
!o
oov,
No
33
I
l
o
ob o
\ooo
.=S
!ob
"=S
o.o'o
bs
(,o'o
.=s
so'o
"tS
N)ob
.=s
oo
"=S
o'.oo'cooIN)
op'G O.op'oS
a a
Appendix C:Slope ProfiIe
\
Hinrix ProPertY
Port Townsend, WA
Nof fo Scale
Not to be Used for Construction
200'
200'
A'
A
P
P
PP
STREET 403002
931402903 93 r402904
1402801 STREET
931402803 93
RESIDENCE 26',
81'
34',
29',
13'
25',
30'
51'
58'
7t'
SloPe Profile
A. A'
Date: 11.01.2022
By: M' Hallam