HomeMy WebLinkAboutMadrona Ridge - Geotechnical Report_Final_2021.08.11GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Madrona Ridge Residential Development
Rainier Street
Port Townsend, Washington
Prepared for: Montebanc Management, LLC
Project No. 210338 August 11, 2021 FINAL
e
a
r
t
h
w
a
t
e
r
+
ppeecctt
C O N S U L T I N G
earth +water Aspect Consulting, LLC 350 Madison Avenue N. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206.780.9370 www.aspectconsulting.com
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Madrona Ridge Residential Development
Rainier Street
Port Townsend, Washington
Prepared for: Montebanc Management, LLC
Project No. 210338 August 11, 2021 FINAL
Aspect Consulting, LLC
Alison J. Dennison, LEG
Senior Engineering Geologist
adennison@aspectconsulting.com.com
Erik O. Andersen, PE
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
eandersen@aspectconsulting.com
V:\210338 Madrona Ridge\Deliverables\New Deliverable\Final\210338 Madrona Ridge - Geotechnical Report_2021.08.11.docx
8/11/2021 8/11/2021
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL i
i
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Scope of Services ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Understanding .................................................................................. 2
2 Surface Conditions ..................................................................................... 3
2.1 Site and Topography .................................................................................... 3
2.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Drainage and Surface Water ........................................................................ 3
3 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................... 4
3.1 Geologic Setting ........................................................................................... 4
3.2 Subsurface Investigation .............................................................................. 4
3.3 Stratigraphy .................................................................................................. 5
3.3.1 Topsoil ................................................................................................... 5
3.3.2 Fill ........................................................................................................ 5
3.3.3 Lodgment Till ......................................................................................... 5
3.4 Groundwater ................................................................................................ 6
3.5 Laboratory Testing Results .......................................................................... 6
4 Geologic Hazards ........................................................................................ 7
4.1 Seismic Design Considerations ................................................................... 7
4.2 Ground Response ........................................................................................ 7
4.3 Surficial Ground Rupture .............................................................................. 8
4.4 Liquefaction .................................................................................................. 8
4.5 Erosion Hazard ............................................................................................ 9
5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................... 10
5.1 Foundation Considerations ........................................................................ 10
5.1.1 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................ 10
5.2 Slab-On-Grade Support ............................................................................. 11
5.3 Retaining Walls .......................................................................................... 11
5.4 Temporary and Permanent Slopes ............................................................ 12
5.5 Drainage Considerations ............................................................................ 13
5.5.1 Stormwater Infiltration .......................................................................... 13
6 Earthwork and Construction Recommendations ................................... 14
6.1 Wet Weather Earthwork ............................................................................. 14
6.2 Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 14
6.3 Structural Fill .............................................................................................. 15
ASPECT CONSULTING
ii FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
6.3.1 Compaction Considerations ................................................................. 16
6.4 Utility Construction Considerations ............................................................ 16
6.4.1 Pipe Support and Bedding ................................................................... 16
6.4.2 Trench Backfill and Compaction Criteria .............................................. 17
7 Recommendations for Continuing Geotechnical Services .................... 18
7.1 Additional Design and Consultation Services ............................................ 18
7.2 Additional Construction Services ............................................................... 18
References ......................................................................................................... 19
Limitations ......................................................................................................... 20
List of Tables
1 Summary of Particle-Size Distribution Results
2 Seismic Design Parameters
3 Temporary Excavation Cut Slope
List of Figures
1 Site Location Map
2 Site Exploration Plan
List of Appendices
A Test Pit Logs
B Laboratory Testing Results
C Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 1
1
1 Introduction
This report summarizes Aspect Consulting, LLC’s (Aspect) observations, conclusions,
and recommendations made during a geotechnical evaluation for the Madrona Ridge
residential development (Project) located at 1601 Rainier Street in Port Townsend<
Washington (Site; Figure 1) on five adjoining Jefferson County (County) parcel numbers
001091002, 001092005, 001092006, 973200201, and 973200301.
We performed our services in accordance with our contract dated June 11, 2021.
1.1 Scope of Services
Our scope of services included a Site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and
geotechnical engineering analyses. This report describes Site conditions, summarizes the
results of the completed analyses, and provides geotechnical engineering conclusions and
design recommendations, including:
Site and Project descriptions.
Distribution and characteristics of subsurface soils and groundwater.
Seismic design considerations in accordance with the current version of the
International Building Code (IBC), as adopted by Port Townsend.
Suitable foundation types, allowable soil bearing pressure(s), anticipated
settlements, and geotechnical design parameters.
Lateral earth pressures for design of residential basement and exterior site
retaining walls.
General Site earthwork considerations, including:
▪Evaluation of the Site soils for use as fill.
▪Temporary and permanent slope inclinations.
▪Structural fill materials and preparation.
▪Wet weather/wet conditions considerations.
General Site earthwork considerations, including excavation, backfill, and
subgrade preparation.
Structural fill requirements and evaluation of the suitability of on-Site soil for
reuse as fill.
General stormwater drainage recommendations.
A qualitative evaluation of stormwater infiltration feasibility.
The Site Exploration Plan (Figure 2) showing the locations of the exploratory test pits,
the exploration logs (Appendix A), and the lab testing results (Appendix B) are included
as appendices to this report.
ASPECT CONSULTING
2 FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
1.2 Project Understanding
The Site is located west of Rainier Street and south of 20th Street in Port Townsend,
Washington (Figure 2). The Project includes development of the 30-acre Site with about
180 single-family residential lots and associated infrastructure (Figure 2). To prepare the
area for development, cuts and fills up to 10 feet thick are planned along with the
installation of utilities and roadways. Four proposed stormwater facilities have been
identified at the southwest corner, northeast corner, and southeast corner of the Site. We
assume the new residential structures will typically be wood-framed above cast-in-place
concrete foundations with crawl spaces and/or with concrete slabs-on-grade.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 3
3
2 Surface Conditions
Aspect assessed the surface conditions of the Site through a literature review and field
observations. We conducted our Site reconnaissance on July 8, 2021. The following
sections discuss the results of our assessment.
2.1 Site and Topography
The approximately 30-acre Site occupies a rectangular footprint of approximately 640
feet (east-west) by 1,060 feet north-south (Figure 2). It is bounded by a City of Port
Townsend water storage facility to the north and undeveloped properties to the west, east,
and south. Rainier Street extends in a north-south direction through the eastern portion of
the Site.
The western parcel, 001091002, is developed with a single-family residence and some
outbuildings. The gravel access driveway to this residence crosses through the east-
adjacent parcel, 001092005.
The Site gently slopes down to the west with less than 50 feet of elevation loss. A ravine
is located towards the southwest corner of the Site and is out of the area of planned
development.
2.2 Vegetation
The area around the existing residence and outbuildings has been cleared and is vegetated
with grass. Other areas of the Site are vegetated with young to mature evergreens and
deciduous trees with an established understory of ferns, woody shrubs, herbaceous
ground cover, and areas of blackberries. In general, the mature evergreen trees were
relatively straight, indicating relatively stable ground conditions.
2.3 Drainage and Surface Water
No surface water or saturated soils were observed on the Site in the areas traversed.
Surface drainage conditions at the Site will vary with fluctuations in precipitation, Site
usage (such as irrigation), and off-Site land use.
ASPECT CONSULTING
4 FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
3 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions at the Site are inferred from our review of applicable geologic
literature and maps, our experience with the local geology, and our subsurface
explorations advanced on July 8, 2021. The following sections discuss the results of our
assessment.
3.1 Geologic Setting
The Site is located within the Puget Lowland, a broad area of tectonic subsidence flanked
by two mountain ranges: the Cascades to the east and the Olympics to the west. The
sediments within the Puget Lowland are the result of repeated cycles of glacial and
nonglacial deposition and erosion. The most recent cycle, the Vashon Stade (stage) of the
Fraser Glaciation (about 13,000 to 16,000 years ago), is responsible for most of the
present day geologic and topographic conditions.
During the Vashon Stade, the 3,000-foot-thick Cordilleran ice sheet advanced into the
Puget Lowland from the north. As the ice sheet advanced southward, sediments
transported by rivers flowing from the ice front were deposited in advance of the ice in
rivers (glaciofluvial deposits or glacial outwash) and lakes (advance glaciolacustrine
deposits). When the advancing ice overran these preglacial and proglacial sediments, it
deposited a veneer of glacial till and then consolidated the entire package with its
enormous weight, creating dense and hard soil deposits. In addition to consolidating the
soils it overran, the Cordilleran ice sheet sculpted and smoothed the surface, directly by
the ice and by high-pressure water flowing under the ice. Then, as the Cordilleran ice
sheet retreated from the Puget Lowland, it left a layer of recessional deposits over the
glacially consolidated deposits. This sequence of glacial deposition and erosion has been
repeated as many as 7 times in the past 2 million years.
The geologic map indicates that the Site is underlain by Vashon-age ablation till (Qgta)
with Vashon-age lodgment till (Qgt) mapped nearby (Schasse and Slaughter, 2011).
Ablation till is found overlying lodgment till up to 5 feet thick and forms as the ice is
melting. The lodgment till is deposited under the moving ice and has been consolidated
by the weight of the ice sheet. Both deposits are described as an unsorted mix of silt,
sand, and gravel. However, the lodgment till is considerably denser.
3.2 Subsurface Investigation
Aspect conducted a subsurface investigation on July 8, 2021, to collect subsurface soil
and groundwater information. Fifteen test pits, ATP-01 through ATP-15, were excavated
to depths of 6 to 12 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). A summary of our field
explorations, including geologic soil units and groundwater observations, are presented in
the following sections. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in
our explorations, as well as the depths where characteristics of the soils changed, are on
the test pit logs presented in Appendix A. Locations of the explorations are shown on
Figure 2.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 5
5
3.3 Stratigraphy
Our explorations encountered a relatively thin layer of topsoil and/or fill overlying native
soil consisting of lodgment till (Qgt). The soil conditions we observed in the subsurface
explorations are described in stratigraphic order from top to bottom below.
3.3.1 Topsoil
Topsoil refers to a unit that contains a high percentage of organics. Topsoil varying from
6 to 12 inches thick was encountered at the ground surface in our explorations ATP-01,
ATP-02, ATP-04 through ATP-11, ATP-13, and ATP-15. The topsoil is dark in color and
contains numerous organics.
3.3.2 Fill
Fill refers to human-placed material. Fill was encountered in ATP-03, ATP-12, and
ATP-14, varying from about 10 to 18 inches thick. The fill was identified by color,
presence of refuse, and lower density. It is typically very loose to medium dense,1 dry to
moist, brown to brown to dark brown, silty sand (SM)2 with various amounts of gravel,
iron-oxide staining, and refuse.
Our interpretations of the extents and depths of fill at the Site are based on limited,
isolated, and discontinuous subsurface data across the Site. Variation in the subsurface
conditions should be expected and verification of our interpretations and
recommendations can only be completed at the time of construction.
3.3.3 Lodgment Till
Lodgment till was encountered underlying the topsoil or fill in all test pits, and extending
to the maximum depths explored, 6 to 12 feet bgs. The lodgment till consists of medium
dense to very dense, slightly moist, brown to gray, silty sand (SM) with variable amounts
of gravel, cobbles, and boulders. The upper 2 to 4 feet of this unit is weathered with iron-
oxide staining and is slightly less dense.
As observed in some of the test pits, lodgment till contains occasional large cobbles and
boulders, which can impede earthwork activities, and should be expected during Site
earthwork. Lodgment till exhibits high shear strength and low compressibility
characteristics, making it suitable for support of new structure foundations. The very
dense nature and high silt/clay content (fines) of this unit yields very low permeability
causing an impediment to groundwater movement. It has moderate to high moisture
sensitivity due to its significant fines content.
1 Relative density was qualitatively assessed with a 0.5-inch-diameter, pointed steel T-probe at various
depth intervals and difficulty by the excavator to advance the test pit.
2 Soils were classified per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with
ASTM International (ASTM) D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils
(ASTM, 2018).
ASPECT CONSULTING
6 FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
3.4 Groundwater
We did not observe any groundwater seepage or signs of saturated soils (such as
hydrophilic vegetation) at the Site. A perched groundwater condition may develop on the
top of the lodgment till in localized closed depressions during extended periods of wet
weather.
3.5 Laboratory Testing Results
Seven samples collected from the test pits were submitted for laboratory testing to
characterize engineering and index properties of the Site soils. Moisture content was
measured for all seven samples and the particle-size distribution was determined for six
of those samples. The table below contains a summary of the results and soil type based
on the USCS. The laboratory testing report is presented in Appendix B. The moisture
content results are also presented on the test pit logs presented in Appendix A.
Table 1. Summary of Particle-Size Distribution Results
Exploration
Number
Sample
Depth
(feet bgs)
Percent
Gravel
Percent
Sand
Percent
Fines
Moisture
Content
(percent) USCS
ATP-01 6 0 68.5 31.5 5.8 SM
ATP-01 9.5 0 67.8 32.2 5.3 SM
ATP-02 2 0 79.8 20.2 6.2 SM
ATP-05 +
ATP-06 4 8.3 57.9 33.8 10.5 SM
ATP-09 6 11.5 53.0 35.5 5.5 SM
ATP-10 2 6.5 59.1 34.4 8.9 SM
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 7
7
4 Geologic Hazards
The following sections describe the geologic hazards at and near the Site and associated
design considerations, including seismic considerations, erosion hazards, and slope
stability.
4.1 Seismic Design Considerations
The Site is located within the Puget Lowland physiographic province, an area of active
seismicity that is subject to earthquakes on shallow crustal faults and deeper subduction
zone earthquakes. The Site area lies just south of the Southern Whidbey Island fault zone,
which consists of shallow crustal tectonic structures that are considered active (evidence
for movement within the Holocene [since about 15,000 years ago]) and is believed to be
capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater. The recurrence interval of
earthquakes on this fault zone is believed to be on the order of 1,000 years or more. The
most recent large earthquake on the Southern Whidbey Island fault occurred about 3,200
to 2,800 years ago. There are also several other shallow crustal faults in the region
capable of producing earthquakes and strong ground shaking (Pratt et al., 2015).
The Site area also lies within the zone of strong ground shaking from earthquakes
associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Subduction zone earthquakes
occur due to rupture between the subducting oceanic plate and the overlying continental
plate. The CSZ can produce earthquakes up to magnitude 9.3 and the recurrence interval
is thought to be on the order of about 500 years. A recent study estimates the most recent
subduction zone earthquake occurred around 1700 (Atwater et al., 2015).
Deep intraslab earthquakes, which occur from tensional rupture of the sinking oceanic
plate, are also associated with the CSZ. An example of this type of seismicity is the 2001
Nisqually earthquake. Deep intraslab earthquakes typically are magnitude 7.5 or less and
occur approximately every 10 to 30 years.
The following sections present descriptions of seismic design considerations for the
Project.
4.2 Ground Response
Seismic design of the residences will be in accordance with the 2018 International
Building Code (IBC) that references the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE, 2018) for seismic design. In accordance with these codes, the seismic design will
consider a “Maximum Considered Earthquake” (MCE) ground motion with a 2 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years, or a return period of 2,475 years (ICC, 2018).
The effects of Site-specific subsurface conditions on the MCE ground motion at the
ground surface are determined based on the “Site Class.” The Site Class can be correlated
to the average standard penetration resistance (N-value), average shear wave velocity, or
average undrained strength (for fine-grained soils) in the upper 100 feet of the soil
profile. Based on the difficulty digging our test pits and the known geologic conditions,
ASPECT CONSULTING
8 FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
we conclude the Site soil profile can be classified as Site Class C (very dense soil and
stiff rock).
The design spectral response acceleration parameters adjusted for Site Class C in
accordance with the 2018 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-16 are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Seismic Design Parameters
Design Parameter Recommended Value
Site Class C – Very dense soil
and soft rock
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.543g(1)
Short Period Spectral Acceleration (Ss) 1.306g
1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration (S1)0.529g
Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.300
Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration (SDS) 0.871g
Design 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration (SD1) 0.459g
Notes:
1.g = gravitational force
Based on the latitude and longitude of the Site: 48.112717°N, 122.809659°W, World
Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84).
The risk category used was II, residential use.
Based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) hazard tool (ASCE, 2018).
4.3 Surficial Ground Rupture
A trace of an east-west trending thrust fault zone (Southern Whidbey Island fault zone)
projects through Port Townsend, with the nearest known active fault trace (an unnamed
fault, class B) located approximately 1.9 miles southeast of the Site (Johnson et al.,
2000). Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and the distance between the Site
and the mapped fault trace, the potential for surficial ground rupture at the Site is
considered low.
4.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, and relatively cohesionless soil deposits
temporarily lose strength from seismic shaking. The primary factors controlling the onset
of liquefaction include intensity and duration of strong ground motion, characteristics of
subsurface soil, in situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater.
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maps the Site as having very
low liquefaction susceptibility (Palmer et al., 2004). Given the relative density, grain-size
distribution, and geologic origin of the soils at the Site, liquefaction is not a hazard for
this Site and Project.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 9
9
4.5 Erosion Hazard
Erosion risk increases on sloped areas, whether natural or excavated during construction.
Based on our observation of the Site and subsurface conditions, it is our opinion that the
erosion hazard at the Site is relatively low and can be addressed through standard
temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) best management practices (BMPs)
during construction. TESC measures should be used in accordance with the local BMPs.
Specific TESC measures may include appropriately placed silt fencing, straw wattles,
rock check dams, and plastic covering of exposed slope cuts and soil stockpiles. Outside
of the proposed construction areas, the existing vegetation should be retained.
Permanent erosion control within the areas of construction should be achieved through
pavement surfacing or the reestablishment of vegetation.
Areas on/near the Site slopes exposed to construction activities should be aggressively
revegetated. Depending on the weather patterns, slope inclination, and degree of
disturbance, the placement of an erosion-control blanket to provide temporary ground
cover while vegetation takes root, or the use of live-staking, may be required to ensure
successful establishment of new vegetation.
ASPECT CONSULTING
10 FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
The native Vashon lodgment till underlying the Site will provide good bearing support
for planned structures, retaining walls, and pavements. Structures may be supported using
conventional spread footings, and site development may be completed via standard
equipment and methods.
The lodgment till is infeasible for large-scale stormwater infiltration due its high relative
density and high fines content. Stormwater generated from new impervious surfaces will
need to be collected and conveyed off the Site.
The following sections present details of our geotechnical engineering recommendations
for the Project.
5.1 Foundation Considerations
Spread footings and/or slab-on-grade are planned to be used for planned residence
support. Bearing surfaces for the footings should be prepared as described in the Site
Preparation Section 6.2.
5.1.1 Shallow Foundations
Shallow conventional isolated or continuous spread footings may be used to support the
planned residence, provided they are founded on native, undisturbed lodgment till. Based
on the anticipated foundation-bearing soils and our understanding of the planned
construction, we recommend a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per
square foot (psf) for spread and strip footings bearing on competent lodgment till. The
recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third (i.e.,
to 4,000 psf) for short-term transient conditions, such as wind and seismic loading.
All exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent
finished grade for frost protection; interior footings may be founded a minimum of
12 inches below grade.
Assuming construction is accomplished as recommended above, we estimate total
settlement of spread foundations of less than 1 inch and differential settlement between
two adjacent load-bearing components supported on competent soils of less than 0.5
inches. We anticipate that the majority of the estimated settlement will occur during
construction, effective immediately after loads are applied.
Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the planned residence to
lateral forces. Lateral forces on a structure will be resisted by a combination of sliding
resistance of its base or footing on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against
the buried portions of the structures.
An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be assumed along the interface between
the base of the footing and subgrade soils. An allowable passive earth pressure of 300
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be assumed for soils adjacent to footings or other below-
grade elements. The upper 1 foot of passive resistance should be neglected in design.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 11
11
The above-recommended allowable coefficient of friction and passive pressure values
include factors of safety of 1.5.
5.2 Slab-On-Grade Support
Slab-on-grade subgrade preparation should be completed in the same manner as shallow
foundations described above in Section 5.1 (for foundations) except for interior
slabs-on-grade beneath enclosed heated/air-conditioned interior spaces (such as those
covered with flooring and carpet).
For interior slabs-on-grade, we recommend the uppermost 6 inches of the subgrade
consist of compacted capillary break material (in lieu of 6 inches of Crushed Surfacing
Base Course [CSBC]) to provide uniform support and moisture control. The capillary
break material should consist of free-draining, clean, fine gravel and coarse sand with a
maximum particle size of about 1 inch and less than 3 percent material passing the
U.S. No. 200 sieve by weight (fines). Angular material manufactured by crushing is
preferred over rounded material, such as bank run sand and gravel, to provide a subgrade
surface that is not easily disturbed by workers laying steel rebar and concrete formwork.
The capillary break material should be compacted to relatively firm and unyielding
condition and evaluated by Aspect prior to placement of steel rebar and formwork.
For building areas where vapor intrusion mitigation would be detrimental to the interior
finished space (such as air-conditioned office areas that may be covered with flooring),
consideration should be given to placement of a vapor barrier over the capillary break.
Detailed design and performance issues with respect to vapor intrusion and moisture
control as it relates to the interior environment of the structure are beyond the expertise of
Aspect. A building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these
issues, as needed.
5.3 Retaining Walls
Based on our project understanding, retaining walls up to 8 feet in height may be used to
accommodate exterior grade changes, and will be used in residences with daylight
basements.
Yielding walls, such as cantilever retaining walls, should be designed using a lateral earth
pressure based on an equivalent fluid having a unit weight of 35 pcf. Nonyielding or
restrained walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf. These
values assume level backslope conditions, and adequate drainage. If inclined backslopes
exist, we recommend adding 1 pound per cubic foot for each degree of inclination. For
example, if the backslope is inclined at 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical; or 26 degrees) and
the subject wall is a nonyielding basement wall, then the design earth pressure that should
be utilized is 81 (55 plus 26) pcf.
Adequate drainage should consist of a subsurface drain combined with a free-draining
wall backfill material that meets the gradation requirements described in Section
9-03.12(2) of the Standard Specifications for Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT, 2021).
Refer to the following section, Drainage Considerations, for detailed subsurface drain
recommendations.
ASPECT CONSULTING
12 FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
Earthquake shaking will subject walls to a temporary additional earth pressure. We
estimated the lateral seismic soil pressure increment using the Mononobe-Okabe method,
with consideration of the possible backfill soil properties and MCE. For retaining walls
that support inhabited structures, such as daylight basement walls, we recommend an
average seismic soil pressure increment of 8H (where H is the height of the wall)
represented by a uniform rectangular pressure along the height of the wall. For exterior
site walls that are less than 10 feet tall, the incremental seismic earth pressure need not be
considered.
Lateral forces that may be induced on the wall due to other surcharge loads should be
considered by the Structural Engineer.
Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the proposed structures to
lateral forces. Lateral forces will be resisted by passive and frictional resistance of below-
grade portions of foundation elements. Please refer to Section 5.1.1 of this report for
allowable design parameters for friction and passive earth pressure.
5.4 Temporary and Permanent Slopes
Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the
responsibility of the Contractor. All temporary cuts in excess of four feet in height that
are not protected by trench boxes, or otherwise shored, should be sloped in accordance
with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155 (WAC, 2009), as
shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Temporary Excavation Cut Slope
Soil Unit
OSHA Soil
Classification
Maximum
Temporary
Slope
Maximum
Height (ft)
Vashon Lodgment Till A 0.75H:1V 20
The estimated maximum cut slope inclinations are provided for planning purposes only
and are applicable to excavations without groundwater seepage, or runoff, and assume
dewatered conditions. Flatter slopes will likely be necessary in areas where groundwater
seepage exists, or where construction equipment surcharges are placed in close proximity
to the crest of the excavation.
With time and the presence of seepage and/or precipitation, the stability of temporary
unsupported cut slopes can be significantly reduced. Therefore, all temporary slopes
should be protected from erosion by installing a surface water diversion ditch or berm at
the top of the slope. In addition, the Contractor should monitor the stability of the
temporary cut slopes, and adjust the construction schedule and slope inclination
accordingly. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause caving
and raveling of the temporary slopes. In such an event, lateral support for the temporary
slopes should be provided by the Contractor to prevent loss of ground support.
Ideally, permanent slopes for the Project should be no steeper than 2H:1V. Please contact
us if permanent cut or fill slopes steeper than 2H:1V are proposed in certain locations.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 13
13
Lateral forces that may be induced on the wall due to other surcharge loads should be
considered by the Structural Engineer.
5.5 Drainage Considerations
The outside edge of all perimeter footings and embedded walls should be provided with a
drainage system consisting of a 4-inch-diameter, perforated, rigid pipe embedded in free-
draining gravel meeting the requirements of Section 9-03.12(4) of the Standard
Specifications for Gravel Backfill for Drains (WSDOT, 2021). The footing and wall
drains should be a minimum of 1 foot thick, and a layer of low permeability soils should
be used over the upper foot of the drain section to reduce potential for surface water to
enter the drain curtain. Prefabricated drain mats combined with relatively free-draining
backfill may be used as an alternative to washed-rock footings and wall drains.
Final grades around the planned residences should be sloped such that surface water
drains away from the structures. Downspouts and roof drains should not be connected to
the foundation drains to reduce the potential for flooding foundation drains and clogging.
The footing drains should include cleanouts to allow for periodic maintenance and
inspection.
5.5.1 Stormwater Infiltration
The Project’s current layout includes four stormwater ponds. Test pits advanced in and
nearby to the areas of the planned ponds encountered very dense, lodgment till within 6
feet of the ground surface. Seasonal high groundwater was not encountered; however, a
perched groundwater condition could develop at the contact with the lodgment till.
Stormwater infiltration facilities are designed to collect stormwater runoff and convey it
into underlying soils where it can infiltrate and disperse. This requires moderate to higher
permeability soils, absence of shallow groundwater, absence of shallow perching stratum,
and an absence of nearby facilities that may be sensitive to increases in groundwater
level, or discharge of groundwater to surface sources.
Lodgment till is glacially consolidated and has a high fines content (20 to 36 percent silt
and clay). Infiltrated stormwater would generally perch, or mound, on this low
permeability soil and migrate laterally and downgradient. The presence of relatively
impermeable lodgment till combined with potential for shallow perched groundwater
during the wet, winter months indicates that large-scale stormwater infiltration is
infeasible at the Site. It should be assumed that infiltration rates would be less than 0.3
inches per hour for the lodgment till.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 14
15
6 Earthwork and Construction Recommendations
Based on the explorations performed and our understanding of the Project, it is our
opinion that the Contractor should be able to complete planned excavations and
earthwork with standard construction equipment. However, the presence of potential
obstructions, such as small boulders or other large debris, in any of the materials
encountered should be anticipated.
The soils encountered contain a significant percentage of fines (particles passing the U.S.
Standard No. 200 sieve), making them moisture sensitive and subject to disturbance when
wet. We recommend planning the earthwork portions of the Project during the drier
summer months. From a geotechnical standpoint, the lodgment till may be suitable for
reuse as structural fill on the Project provided the materials are screened to ensure they
are relatively free of organics and other deleterious debris and can be moisture
conditioned for compaction.
6.1 Wet Weather Earthwork
The soils encountered during explorations at the Site contain a high percentage of fines
(silty and clay, soil particles passing the No. 200 sieve) and are typically moisture
sensitive and will be difficult to handle, prepare, or compact with construction equipment
during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed
under dry weather conditions. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet
weather or under wet conditions when soil moisture content is difficult to control, we
provide the following recommendations:
Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet
weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soils should be followed
promptly by the placement and compaction of clean structural fill. The size and
type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil
disturbance.
If bearing surfaces are open during the winter season or periods of wet weather,
it may be helpful to provide a layer of crushed rock or gravel to help preserve
the subgrade. If gravel is used to protect the bearing surfaces, it should meet the
gradation requirements for Class A Gravel Backfill for Foundations, as
described in Section 9-03.12(1)A of the Standard Specifications (WSDOT,
2021).
The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth
drum vibratory roller (or equivalent) and under no circumstances should be left
uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils which become too wet for
compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular materials.
Local BMPs for erosion protection should be strictly followed.
6.2 Site Preparation
Site preparation within the proposed construction footprint should include removal of
topsoil and fill containing roots, organics, debris, and any other deleterious materials. The
ASPECT CONSULTING
15FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
suitable bearing soils should consist of undisturbed, medium dense or better lodgment till.
The Contractor must use care during Site preparation and excavation operations so that
any bearing surfaces are not disturbed. If disturbance does occur, the disturbed material
should be removed to expose undisturbed material or be compacted in place to acceptable
criteria as determined by Aspect. Overexcavated soils in footing subgrade areas should be
replaced with compacted CSBC specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the Standard
Specifications (WSDOT, 2021) and placed as structural fill.
All bearing surfaces should be trimmed neat, and the bottom of the excavation should be
carefully prepared. All loose or softened soil should be removed or compacted in place
prior to placing reinforcing steel bars, concrete, structural fill, or capillary break
materials. We recommend that all bearing surfaces be observed by Aspect prior to
placing steel and concrete to verify the recommendations in this report have been
followed.
If bearing surfaces are open during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it may be
helpful to provide a layer of crushed rock or gravel to help preserve the subgrade. If
gravel is used to protect the bearing surfaces, it should meet the gradation requirements
for Class A Gravel Backfill for Foundations, as described in Section 9-03.12(1)A of the
Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2021).
6.3 Structural Fill
Structural fill is anticipated to be required for the minor grade adjustments, foundation
support, pavement support, and for utility trench backfill. the lodgment till may be
suitable for reuse as structural fill on the Project provided the materials are screened to
ensure they are relatively free of organics and other deleterious debris and can be
moisture conditioned for compaction. For these applications, we provide the following
recommendations:
Excavation and placement of fill should be observed by Aspect to verify that all
unsuitable materials are removed, and suitable compaction is achieved.
Imported structural fill should consist of relatively freely draining, uniformly
graded sand and gravel. We recommend Gravel Borrow, as specified in Section
9-03.14(1) of the Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2021), be specified for
imported structural fill.
CSBC as specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the Standard Specifications (WSDOT,
2021) should be underneath new pavement.
Structural fill should be at or within 3 percent of optimum moisture content at
the time of placement and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density (MDD; ASTM D1557; ASTM, 2018).
Overcompaction of the backfill behind retaining walls should be avoided. In this
regard, we recommend compacting the backfill to about 90 percent of the MDD
(as determined by test method ASTM D1557). Heavy compactors and large
pieces of construction equipment should not operate within 5 feet of any
embedded wall to avoid the buildup of excessive lateral pressures. Compaction
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 16
17
close to the walls should be accomplished using hand-operated vibratory plate
compactors.
The moisture content of the structural fill should be controlled to within
3 percent of the optimum moisture. Optimum moisture is the moisture content
corresponding to the MDD (as determined by test method ASTM D 1557).
Nonstructural fill areas (e.g., general grading, landscape, or common areas not
beneath or around structures, utilities, slabs-on-grade, or below paved areas) that
can accommodate some settlement may be placed and compacted to a relatively
firm and unyielding condition.
6.3.1 Compaction Considerations
The procedure to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size
and type of compacting equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being
compacted, and certain soil properties. Structural fill should be placed and compacted in
lifts with a loose thickness no greater than 12 inches when using relatively large
compaction equipment, such as a vibrating plate attached to an excavator (hoe pack) or a
large drum roller. If small, hand-operated compaction equipment is used to compact
structural fill, lifts should not exceed 6 inches in loose thickness. A sufficient number of
in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is placed to verify the required
relative compaction is being achieved. The frequency of the in-place density testing can
be determined by Aspect at the time of final design, when more details of the Project
grading and backfilling plans are available.
Generally, loosely compacted soils are a result of poor construction technique or
improper moisture content. Soils with a high percentage of silt or clay are particularly
susceptible to becoming too wet, and coarse-grained materials easily become too dry, for
proper compaction. Silty or clayey soils with a moisture content too high for adequate
compaction should be dried, as necessary, or moisture conditioned by mixing with drier
materials or other methods.
6.4 Utility Construction Considerations
6.4.1 Pipe Support and Bedding
The fill encountered in our completed subsurface explorations is generally expected to
provide suitable foundation support for the utilities, provided it is free of
organics/deleterious debris and is not disturbed during construction, and appropriate
provisions for bedding and backfilling are included. Disturbance of trench bottoms can be
minimized by excavating with a smooth-bladed bucket wherever possible and limiting
foot traffic on the trench bottoms. If very soft, organic-rich, or otherwise unsuitable soils
are encountered at the invert level of utilities, we recommend that they be removed and
replaced with bedding materials or a geosynthetic fabric may be used to maintain
separation between the bedding and poor subgrade soil. The fill could contain oversized
particles that if encountered, should be removed from the utility subgrade and replaced
with bedding materials.
ASPECT CONSULTING
17FINAL PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
We recommend that pipe bedding meet the requirements of Section 7-08.3(1)C of the
Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2021). Specific recommendations relative to the
bedding of the proposed underground pipelines include:
Bedding for the proposed pipes should meet the gradation requirements for
Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding, Section 9-03.12(3) of the Standard
Specifications (WSDOT, 2021).
Prior to installation of the pipe, the bedding material should be shaped to fit the
lower portion of the pipe exterior with reasonable closeness to provide
continuous support along the pipe.
Backfill around the pipe should be placed in layers and tamped around the pipe
to obtain complete contact. Pipe zone bedding material should extend at least 6
inches above the crown of the pipe, for the full width of the trench. In areas
where a trench box is used, the bedding material should be placed before the
trench box is advanced.
Where a trench box is used and restraint of the installed pipe appears to be in
question, we recommend that pipe restraint in the form of a cable and winch
system be used inside the pipe so that the joints of previously laid pipe are not
pulled apart as the trench box is advanced.
6.4.2 Trench Backfill and Compaction Criteria
For general structural fill and compaction considerations, refer to Section 6.3 of this
report. The following criteria for trench backfill and compaction is provided.
Trench backfill should follow the requirements of Section 7-08.3(3) of the Standard
Specifications (WSDOT, 2021). During placement of the initial lifts, the trench backfill
material should not be bulldozed into the trench or dropped directly on the pipe.
Furthermore, heavy vibratory equipment should not be permitted to operate over the pipe
until at least 2 feet of backfill has been placed. The trench backfill should be placed in 8-
to 12-inch, loose lifts and compacted using mechanical equipment. Trench backfill more
than 3 feet below the finish grades should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
MDD (ASTM D1557). Within the proposed building pads or extents of the access
roadways, the upper 3 feet of the backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of
the MDD to provide an adequate subgrade for the future buildings and pavement
sections.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL 18
19
7 Recommendations for Continuing Geotechnical
Services
Throughout this report, we have provided recommendations where we consider it would
be appropriate for Aspect to provide additional geotechnical input to the design and
construction process. Additional recommendations are summarized in this section.
7.1 Additional Design and Consultation Services
Before construction begins, we recommend that Aspect:
Continue to meet with the design team, as needed, to address geotechnical
questions that may arise throughout the remainder of the design process.
Review the geotechnical elements of the Project plans and specifications to see
that the geotechnical engineering recommendations are properly interpreted.
7.2 Additional Construction Services
We are available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the geotechnical elements depends on proper Site
preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to
be made in the field if variations in subsurface conditions become apparent.
During the construction phase of the Project, Aspect should perform the following tasks:
Review applicable submittals
Observe and evaluate subgrade and structural fill placement for all footings,
slabs-on-grade, and retaining walls
Evaluate pavement subgrade prior to placement of base coarse
Attend meetings, as needed
Address other geotechnical engineering considerations that may arise during
construction
The purpose of our observations is to verify compliance with design concepts and
recommendations, and to allow design changes or evaluation of appropriate construction
methods should subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of
construction.
ASPECT CONSULTING
19FINALPROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2018, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool,
https://asce7hazardtool.online/, accessed July 28, 2021.
Atwater, B.F., S. Musumi-Rokkaku, D. Satake, Y. Tsuji, K. Ueda, and D.K. Yamaguci
(Atwater et al.), 2015, The orphan tsunami of 1700—Japanese clues to a parent
earthquake in North America, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1707.
International Code Council (ICC), 2018, International Building Code (IBC), Prepared by
International Code Council, January 2018.
Johnson, S. Y.; D.C. Mosher, S.V. Dadisman, J.R. Childs, and S.B. Rhea (Johnson et al.),
2000, Tertiary and Quaternary structures of the eastern Juan de Fuca Strait--
Interpreted map. IN Mosher, D.C., Johnson, S.Y. editors, and others,
Neotectonics of the eastern Juan de Fuca Strait--A digital geological and
geophysical atlas: Geological Survey of Canada Open File Report 3931.
Palmer, S.P., S.L. Magsino, E.L. Bilderback, J.L. Poelstra, D.S. Folger, and R.A.
Pratt, T.L., K.G. Troost, J.K. Odum, and W.J. Stephenson (Pratt et al.), 2015, Kinematics
of shallow backthrusts in the Seattle fault zone, Washington State, Geosphere, v.
11, no. 6, p. 1–27, doi:10.1130/GES01179.1.
Schasse, H.W. and S.L. Slaughter (Schasse and Slaughter), 2005, Geologic Map of the
Port Townsend South and Port of the Port Townsend North 7.5-minute
Quadrangles, Jefferson County, Washington, Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geologic Map
GM-57, Scale 1:24,000, June 2005.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2021, Standard
Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, Document M 41-10.
Washington State Legislature, 2009, Washington Administrative Code (WAC),
April 1, 2009.
Niggemann (Palmer et al.), 2004, Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Kitsap
County, Washington: Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open-File Report
2004-20.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021FINAL20
21
Limitations
Work for this project was performed for Montebanc Management, LLC (Client), and
this report was prepared consistent with recognized standards of professionals in the same
locality and involving similar conditions, at the time the work was performed. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect).
Recommendations presented herein are based on our interpretation of site conditions,
geotechnical engineering calculations, and judgment in accordance with our mutually
agreed-upon scope of work. Our recommendations are unique and specific to the project,
site, and Client. Application of this report for any purpose other than the project should
be done only after consultation with Aspect.
Variations may exist between the soil and groundwater conditions reported and those
actually underlying the site. The nature and extent of such soil variations may change
over time and may not be evident before construction begins. If any soil conditions are
encountered at the site that are different from those described in this report, Aspect
should be notified immediately to review the applicability of our recommendations.
Risks are inherent with any site involving slopes and no recommendations, geologic
analysis, or engineering design can assure slope stability. Our observations, findings, and
opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the Client.
It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to this project, including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, and agents, are made aware of this report in its entirety. At the
time of this report, design plans and construction methods have not been finalized, and
the recommendations presented herein are based on preliminary project information. If
project developments result in changes from the preliminary project information, Aspect
should be contacted to determine if our recommendations contained in this report should
be revised and/or expanded upon.
The scope of work does not include services related to construction safety precautions.
Site safety is typically the responsibility of the contractor, and our recommendations are
not intended to direct the contractor’s site safety methods, techniques, sequences, or
procedures. The scope of our work also does not include the assessment of environmental
characteristics, particularly those involving potentially hazardous substances in soil or
groundwater.
All reports prepared by Aspect for the Client apply only to the services described in the
Agreement(s) with the Client. Any use or reuse by any party other than the Client is at the
sole risk of that party, and without liability to Aspect. Aspect’s original files/reports shall
govern in the event of any dispute regarding the content of electronic documents
furnished to others.
Please refer to Appendix C titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for
additional information governing the use of this report.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions,
please call Alison Dennison, project manager, at 206-780-7717.
i
FIGURES
^
Salish Sea
GIS
P
a
t
h
:
Q
:
\
_
G
e
o
T
e
c
h
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
R
i
d
g
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
\
2
0
2
1
-
0
8
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
G
I
S
\
0
1
S
i
t
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
|
|
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
:
N
A
D
1
9
8
3
S
t
a
t
e
P
l
a
n
e
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
F
I
P
S
4
6
0
1
F
e
e
t
|
|
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
8
/
2
/
2
0
2
1
|
|
U
s
e
r
:
s
c
u
d
d
|
|
P
r
i
n
t
D
a
t
e
:
8
/
2
/
2
0
2
1
Site Location MapGeotechnical ReportMadrona Ridge Residential DevelopmentRainier StreetPort Townsend, Washington
FIGURE NO.1AUG-2021
PROJECT NO.210338
BY:AJD / SCC
REVISED BY:- - -
0 2,000
Feet
!(
W A S H I N G T O N
Bellingham
Olympia
Port Angeles
Seattle Spokane
Tacoma Wenatchee
Yakima
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!(
Salish Sea
Blyn
Discovery Bay
Greenbank
Oak Harbor
Port Hadlock
Port Townsend
Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user communitySources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community
SITE LOCATION
SITELOCATION
SITELOCATION
SP
R
I
N
G
S
T
.
HO
O
D
S
T
.
BA
K
E
R
S
T
.
ST
.
RA
I
N
I
E
R
S
T
.
15TH ST.
SH
A
S
T
A
\
R
A
I
N
I
E
R
S
T
.
1234567891011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
4748495051525354555657
5859606162636465666768
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85 86 87 88
89
90
91
92
93 94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
TRACT BSTORM POND 2
TRACT OOPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
TRACT F
TRACT JOPEN SPACE TRACT KOPEN SPACE TRACT LOPEN SPACE TRACT MOPEN SPACE TRACT NOPEN SPACE
TRACT POPEN SPACE
TRACT IOPEN SPACE
170
TRACT ASTORM POND 1
TR
A
C
T
E
TRACT CSTORM POND 3
TRACT GPRIVATE ACCESS & UTILITIES
ATP-01
ATP-02
ATP-03ATP-04
ATP-05
ATP-06
ATP-07
ATP-08
ATP-15
ATP-09
ATP-11
ATP-12
ATP-13 ATP-14
ATP-10
290
290
2
9
0
28
0
294
29
0
28
6
2
8
4
282
27
6
278
280
284
28
6
28
8
276
270
CA
D
P
a
t
h
:
Q:\
_
G
e
o
T
e
c
h
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
R
i
d
g
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
\
2
0
2
1
-
0
8
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
1
7
x
1
1
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
|
|
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
A
u
g
0
2
,
2
0
2
1
3
:
2
5
p
m
|
|
U
s
e
r
:
sc
u
d
d
Geotechnical Report
Madrona Ridge Residential Development
Rainier Street
Port Townsend, Washington
2
BY:
AJD/SCC
Site Exploration Plan
Aug-2021
REVISED BY:
-
PROJECT NO.
210338
FIGURE NO.
Feet
0 120 240
Test Pit Location
Elevation Contour (2 Foot Interval)
Source: Base CAD files from "Madrona Ridge Pre-Plat P.U.D., Preliminary Lot
Layout", ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, Federal Way, Washington, 7/29/21.
Legend
278
i
APPENDIX A
Test Pit Logs
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 11, 2021 FINAL A-1
1
A. Field Exploration Program
A.1. Test Pits
Aspect observed the excavation of 15 test pits (ATP-01 through ATP-15) on July 8, 2021,
across the Site. Test pits were advanced using a mini-tracked excavator, John Deere 50G,
operated by Seton Construction, Inc., under direction of Aspect. The locations of the test
pits are shown on Figure 2. Copies of the test pit logs are included in this appendix.
Samples were obtained from select soil units to aid in the determination of engineering
properties of the subsurface materials. The relative density/consistency of the materials
was evaluated qualitatively by observation of digging difficulty and in the shallow depths
using a 0.5-inch-diameter, pointed steel T-probe at various depth intervals. The test pits
were backfilled with the excavated materials and compacted with the excavator bucket.
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations, as
well as the depths where characteristics of the soils changed, are indicated on the test pit
logs. The depths indicated on the log where conditions changed may represent
gradational variations between soil types. Soils were classified in general accordance
with the ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils
(Visual and Manual Procedure). A key to the symbols and terms used on the logs is
provided on the first page of Appendix A.
AI
P
a
t
h
:
Q:\
_
A
C
A
D
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
\
F
I
E
L
D
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
\
M
A
S
T
E
R
S
\
E
x
p
l
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
L
o
g
K
e
y
-
2
0
1
8
.
a
i
/
/
u
s
e
r
:
j
i
n
m
a
n
/
/
l
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
:
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
8
“WITH SILT” or “WITH CLAY” means 5 to 15% silt and clay, denoted by a “-“ in the groupname; e.g., SP-SM ● “SILTY” or “CLAYEY” means >15% silt and clay ● “WITH SAND” or “WITHGRAVEL” means 15 to 30% sand and gravel. ● “SANDY” or “GRAVELLY” means >30% sand andgravel. ● “Well-graded” means approximately equal amounts of fine to coarse grain sizes ● “Poorlygraded” means unequal amounts of grain sizes ● Group names separated by “/” means soilcontains layers of the two soil types; e.g., SM/ML.
Soils were described and identified in the field in general accordance with the methods described inASTM D2488. Where indicated in the log, soils were classified using ASTM D2487 or otherlaboratory tests as appropriate. Refer to the report accompanying these exploration logs for details.
% by Weight
Density³SPT² Blows/Foot
Hi
g
h
l
y
Or
g
a
n
i
c
So
i
l
s
Fi
n
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d
S
o
i
l
s
-
5
0
%
1 o
r
M
o
r
e
P
a
s
s
e
s
N
o
.
2
0
0
S
i
e
v
e
Co
a
r
s
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d
S
o
i
l
s
-
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
1 R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
N
o
.
2
0
0
S
i
e
v
e
Gr
a
v
e
l
s
-
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
1 o
f
C
o
a
r
s
e
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
t
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
N
o
.
4
S
i
e
v
e
15
%
F
i
n
e
s
5%
F
i
n
e
s
Sa
n
d
s
-
5
0
%
1 o
r
M
o
r
e
o
f
C
o
a
r
s
e
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Pa
s
s
e
s
N
o
.
4
S
i
e
v
e
Si
l
t
s
a
n
d
C
l
a
y
s
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
Si
l
t
s
a
n
d
C
l
a
y
s
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
5
0
%
o
r
M
o
r
e
15
%
F
i
n
e
s
5%
F
i
n
e
s
Well-graded GRAVELWell-graded GRAVEL WITH SAND
Poorly-graded GRAVELPoorly-graded GRAVEL WITH SAND
SILTY GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND
CLAYEY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND
Well-graded SAND
Well-graded SAND WITH GRAVEL
Poorly-graded SANDPoorly-graded SAND WITH GRAVEL
SILTY SAND
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL
CLAYEY SANDCLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
SILTSANDY or GRAVELLY SILTSILT WITH SANDSILT WITH GRAVEL
LEAN CLAYSANDY or GRAVELLY LEAN CLAYLEAN CLAY WITH SANDLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL
ORGANIC SILT
SANDY or GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILTORGANIC SILT WITH SANDORGANIC SILT WITH GRAVEL
ELASTIC SILTSANDY or GRAVELLY ELASTIC SILT
ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND
ELASTIC SILT WITH GRAVEL
FAT CLAYSANDY or GRAVELLY FAT CLAYFAT CLAY WITH SANDFAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL
ORGANIC CLAYSANDY or GRAVELLY ORGANIC CLAYORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND
ORGANIC CLAY WITH GRAVEL
PEAT and other
mostly organic soils
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
Modifier
Organic Chemicals
BTEX =Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
TPH-Dx =Diesel and Oil-Range Petroleum HydrocarbonsTPH-G =Gasoline-Range Petroleum HydrocarbonsVOCs=Volatile Organic Compounds
SVOCs =Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundsPAHs=Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon CompoundsPCBs=Polychlorinated Biphenyls
GEOTECHNICAL LAB TESTSMC=Natural Moisture ContentPS=Particle Size DistributionFC=Fines Content (% < 0.075 mm)GH =Hydrometer TestAL=Atterberg LimitsC=Consolidation TestStr=Strength TestOC=Organic Content (% Loss by Ignition)Comp =Proctor TestK=Hydraulic Conductivity TestSG=Specific Gravity Test
RCRA8 =As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag, (d = dissolved, t = total)
MTCA5 =As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb (d = dissolved, t = total)PP-13 =Ag, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl, Zn (d=dissolved, t=total)
CHEMICAL LAB TESTS
PID =Photoionization Detector
Sheen =Oil Sheen TestSPT2=Standard Penetration TestNSPT=Non-Standard Penetration Test
DCPT =Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
<1 =Subtrace1 to <5 =Trace5 to 10 =Few
Dry =Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Slightly Moist =Perceptible moistureMoist=Damp but no visible waterVery Moist =Water visible but not free draining
Wet = Visible free water, usually from below water table
COMPONENT
DEFINITIONSDescriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number
Boulders = Larger than 12 inchesCobbles=3 inches to 12 inches
Coarse Gravel =3 inches to 3/4 inchesFine Gravel =3/4 inches to No. 4 (4.75 mm)Coarse Sand =No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm)
Medium Sand =No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm)
Fine Sand =No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)Silt and Clay =Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm)
Metals
ESTIMATED1
PERCENTAGE
MOISTURE
CONTENT
RELATIVE DENSITY
CONSISTENCY
GEOLOGIC CONTACTS
Very Loose =0 to 4 ≥2'Loose =5 to 10 1' to 2'Medium Dense =11 to 30 3" to 1'Dense =31 to 50 1" to 3"Very Dense => 50 < 1"
Consistency³
Very Soft =0 to 1 Penetrated >1" easily by thumb. Extrudes between thumb & fingers.Soft =2 to 4 Penetrated 1/4" to 1" easily by thumb. Easily molded.Medium Stiff =5 to 8 Penetrated >1/4" with effort by thumb. Molded with strong pressure.Stiff =9 to 15 Indented ~1/4" with effort by thumb.Very Stiff =16 to 30 Indented easily by thumbnail.Hard => 30 Indented with difficulty by thumbnail.
Non-Cohesive or Coarse-Grained Soils
SPT² Blows/Foot
Observed and Distinct Observed and Gradual Inferred
1.Estimated or measured percentage by dry weight2.(SPT) Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)3.Determined by SPT, DCPT (ASTM STP399) or other field methods. See report text for details.
% by Weight Modifier
15 to 25 =Little30 to 45 =Some>50 =Mostly
Penetration with 1/2" Diameter Rod
Manual Test
FIELD TESTS
Cohesive or Fine-Grained Soils
Exploration Log Key
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
Machine limited end ofexcavation.
S1
S
2
S
3
S4
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); loose, dry, brown; fine sand; some
roots, decomposed organic matter, and woody debris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense,slightly moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;rounded 3- to 5-inch diameter cobbles; few roots.
Becomes very dense, light gray; trace rounded 3-inch
diameter cobbles; massive structure with socketing; few
faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 9.5 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed.
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"
PS, MCFC=31.5%
PS, MCFC=32.2%
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-01Equipment
Legend
Contractor
267
266
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
254
ATP-01
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
268'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1103, -122.8061
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.Benched down to 2feet bgs.
Difficulty digging.
S1
S
2
S
3
S4
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); loose, dry, brown;
fine sand; fine to coarse, rounded gravel; trace 3- to 5-inchdiameter, rounded to subrounded cobbles; some roots,decomposed organic matter, and woody debris.
VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense todense, slightly moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fineto coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subroundedgravel; rounded 3- to 5-inch diameter cobbles; few roots.
Becomes very dense, light gray; trace rounded 3-inchdiameter cobbles; massive structure with socketing; few
faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 11.5 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed.
T-probe =3-4"
T-probe =< 1"PS, MCFC=20.2%
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-02Equipment
Legend
Contractor
267
266
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
254
ATP-02
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
268'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1107, -122.8061
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
S2
FILL SILTY SAND (SM); loose to medium dense, dry, brown;
fine sand; fine to coarse, rounded to angular gravel; fewbranches, decomposed organics, and woody debris; traceplastic coated wire and rusted fencing pieces.
VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); dense, slightly moistto moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; fewroots.
Becomes very dense, moist, light gray; trace rounded 3-to 5-inch diameter cobbles; massive structure with
socketing; few faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 11 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed.
T-probe =1"-2'
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"
PS, MC
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-03Equipment
Legend
Contractor
271
270
269
268
267
266
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
ATP-03
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
272'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1102, -122.8067
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
S1
S2
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); loose, dry, brown; fine sand; some
roots, decomposed organic matter, and woody debris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND (SM); dense, slightly moist, mottled orange,brown, and gray; fine to coarse sand; few fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; few roots.
SILTY SAND (SM); very dense, slightly moist, light gray;fine to coarse sand; few fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; massive structure with socketing;
volcanic and granitic gravel; few faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 7.5 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-04Equipment
Legend
Contractor
292
291
290
289
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
ATP-04
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
293'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1102, -122.8100
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
S1
S
2
S3
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense, dry, brown; fine sand;
some roots, decomposed organic matter, charcoal, andwoody debris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND (SM); dense, slightly moist, mottled orange,brown, and gray; fine to coarse sand; few fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; few roots.
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); very dense, slightlymoist, light gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse,
rounded to angular gravel; trace rounded 3- to 5-inchdiameter cobbles; massive structure with socketing; few
faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 7.5 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =3-4"
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"PS, MCFC=33.8%
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-05Equipment
Legend
Contractor
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
266
265
264
263
ATP-05
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
277'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1124, -122.8074
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
S1
S
2
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); loose to medium dense, dry, brown;
fine sand; some roots, decomposed organic matter, andwoody debris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense todense, moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;rounded 3-inch to 4-inch diameter cobbles; few roots.
Becomes very dense, light gray; trace rounded 3-inch
diameter cobbles; massive structure with socketing; few
faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"PS, MCFC=33.8%
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-06Equipment
Legend
Contractor
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
266
265
264
263
ATP-06
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
277'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1121, -122.8073
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.S1
S2
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); loose, dry, brown; fine sand; some
roots, decomposed organic matter, and woody debris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense to very dense, slightlymoist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine to coarsesand; few fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;few roots; trace oxidized iron bearing minerals.
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); very dense, slightly
moist, light gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse,
rounded to subrounded gravel; trace rounded 3-inchdiameter cobbles; massive structure with socketing; few
faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe=0.5-4"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-07Equipment
Legend
Contractor
292
291
290
289
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
ATP-07
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
293'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1113, -122.8091
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
Difficulty digging.
S1
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); dense, slightly moist, brown; fine
sand; some roots, decomposed organic matter, and woodydebris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); dense to very dense,moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; fewroots.
Becomes very dense, moist, light gray; massive structure
with socketing; few faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =1"
T-probe=0.5-2"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-08Equipment
Legend
Contractor
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
276
275
ATP-08
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/8/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
289'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1106, -122.8090
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
Difficulty digging.
Difficulty digging.
S1
S2
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense, slightly moist, brown;
fine sand; fine to coarse, rounded gravel; some roots,decomposed organic matter, and woody debris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); dense to very dense,moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; tracerounded 3-inch diameter cobble; few roots.
Becomes very dense, light gray; massive structure withsocketing; few faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =6"
T-probe =1-3"
T-probe =< 1"
PS, MCFC=35.5%
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-09Equipment
Legend
Contractor
293
292
291
290
289
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
ATP-09
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/9/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
294'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1108, -122.8109
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
Difficulty digging.
S1
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense, dry, brown; fine sand;
some roots, decomposed organic matter, and woodydebris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); very dense, slightlymoist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; tracerounded 5-inch diameter cobbles; few roots.
Becomes light gray; massive structure with socketing;
few faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =6"
T-probe =< 1"PS, MCFC=34.4%
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-10Equipment
Legend
Contractor
292
291
290
289
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
ATP-10
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/9/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
293'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1109, -122.8112
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty diging.
S1
S2
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense, dry, brown; fine sand;
some roots, decomposed organic matter, and woodydebris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); dense to very dense,slightly moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;rounded 3-inch to 8-inch diameter cobbles; few 12-inch to14-inch boulders; few roots.
Becomes very dense, moist, light gray; massive structure
with socketing; few faceted gravel.
3-inch pocket of gray fine to medium sand
Bottom of exploration at 12 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed.
T-probe =3-4"
T-probe =1-2"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-11Equipment
Legend
Contractor
294
293
292
291
290
289
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
ATP-11
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/9/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
295'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1115, -122.8116
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
S1
FILL SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense, slightly moist, brown;
fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subroundedgravel; little to some tree branches, logs, roots,decomposed grass, wire fence pieces, plastic twine.
OLDER TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); loose, slightly moist, light brown; finesand; some roots, decomposed organic matter, and woodydebris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); very dense, slightly
moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; few
roots.
Becomes light gray; trace rounded 3- to 5-inch diameter
cobbles; massive structure with socketing; few faceted
gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =1-4"
T-probe =1"
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-12Equipment
Legend
Contractor
301
300
299
298
297
296
295
294
293
292
291
290
289
288
ATP-12
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/9/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
302'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1118, -122.8111
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
S1
S2
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense, slightly moist, light
brown; fine sand; some roots, decomposed organic matter,and woody debris.
VASHON TILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); very dense, slightlymoist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; fewroots.
Becomes, light gray; trace rounded 3-inch diameter
cobbles; massive structure with socketing; few faceted
gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =3"
T-probe =< 1"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-13Equipment
Legend
Contractor
303
302
301
300
299
298
297
296
295
294
293
292
291
290
ATP-13
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/9/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
304'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1129, -122.8106
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
Difficulty digging.
S1
S2
FILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES (SM);
loose to medium dense, dry, light brown; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded gravel; 3-inch diameterrounded cobbles; little roots, woody debris, and alumium
bottle cap.
BURIED TOPSOIL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); loose, dry, brown;
fine to coarse sand; fine, rounded to subrounded gravel;some roots, decomposed organic matter, and woody
debris.
VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); dense to very dense,
slightly moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;
little to some rounded 5-inch diameter cobbles; few roots.
Becomes very dense, light gray; massive structure with
socketing; few faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 7.5 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe=1"-1.5'
T-probe=0.5-1"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-14Equipment
Legend
Contractor
305
304
303
302
301
300
299
298
297
296
295
294
293
292
ATP-14
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/9/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
306'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1130, -122.8099
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled withexcavated material.
S1
S2
TOPSOIL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense,
slightly moist, dark brown; fine to medium sand; fine tocoarse, rounded to subangular gravel; rounded 3- to 5-inchdiameter cobbles; some roots, decomposed organic
matter, and woody debris.
VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense to
very dense, moist, mottled orange, brown, and gray; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;
rounded 3-inch to 4-inch diameter cobbles; one 12-inchdiameter boulder; few roots.
Becomes very dense, moist, light gray; massive structurewith socketing; few faceted gravel.
Bottom of exploration at 6 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving observed. Practical refusal ondense soils.
T-probe =3-4"
T-probe=0.5-3"
T-probe =< 1"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/footWater Content (%)
ATP-15Equipment
Legend
Contractor
301
300
299
298
297
296
295
294
293
292
291
290
289
288
ATP-15
Tests
John Deere 50G MiniExcavator
Excavator
Seton Construction, Inc.
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanationof symbols
SampleType/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
Madrona Ridge Development - 210338
Depth(feet)MaterialType
Kyle
Sa
m
p
l
e
Ty
p
e
Elev.(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1601 Rainier Street, Port Townsend, Washington, See Figure 2
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Sheet 1 of 1
Depth(ft)
Sampling Method
NE
W
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
P
:
\
G
I
N
T
W
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
1
0
3
3
8
M
A
D
R
O
N
A
R
I
D
G
E
.
G
P
J
A
u
g
u
s
t
5
,
2
0
2
1
Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7/9/2021
Project Address & Site Specific Location
302'
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
48.1122, -122.8094
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes andCompletion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CALApproved by: AJD 8/3/2021
10 20 30 400 50
1
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing Results
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 210338 AUGUST 6, 2021 B-1
1
B. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples collected during
the field exploration program. The tests performed, and the procedures followed are
outlined below. The laboratory tests were conducted by Phoenix Soil Research in general
accordance with appropriate ASTM International (ASTM) test methods.
B.1. Particle-Size Analyses, PS
A particle-size analysis was performed on six selected soil samples in general accordance
with ASTM D6913. This test method allows for the laboratory determination of the
percent of the size fractions (by weight) of coarse-grained soil and the percent of fines in
a soil sample. The result of the test is presented in this appendix as curves depicting the
percent finer by weight versus grain size.
B.2. Moisture Content Determination, MC
All six of the selected soil samples previously mentioned plus one additional sample were
submitted for analysis of water content by the ASTM D2216 test method. This test
method allows for the laboratory determination of the moisture (water) content of a soil
sample by measuring and recording the mass of a sample before and then after drying.
Test results are illustrated graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A and tabulated in
this appendix.
FINAL
Project:Q.C. - Madrona Ridge Client:Project #:21B077-17
Date Received:July 15, 2021 Sampled by:
Date Tested:July 16, 2021 Tested by:
Sample #Location Tare Wet + Tare Dry + Tare Wgt. Of Moisture Wgt. Of Soil % Moisture
B21-1074 ATP-01, S-3 @ 6.0 ft 414.2 1372.6 1319.8 52.8 905.6 5.8%0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!B21-1075 ATP-01, S-4 @ 9.5 ft 394.8 1078.1 1043.8 34.3 649.0 5.3%
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!B21-1076 ATP-02, S-2 @ 2.0 ft 379.6 1140.5 1095.8 44.7 716.2 6.2%0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
B21-1077 ATP-03, S-2 @ 7.0 ft 394.2 1203.0 1154.2 48.8 760.0 6.4%0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!B21-1078 ATP-05 + 06, S-2/S-1 @ 4.0 ft 379.8 907.5 857.2 50.3 477.4 10.5%
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!B21-1079 ATP-09, S-2 @ 6.0 ft 420.8 846.8 824.5 22.3 403.7 5.5%0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!B21-1080 ATP-10, S-1 @ 2.0 ft 419.3 643.3 624.9 18.4 205.6 8.9%0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
Moisture Content - ASTM C566, ASTM D2216
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is
reserved pending our written approval.
Aspect Consulting
Client
C.Kriss
Environmental ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Special Inspection ● Non-Destructive Testing ● Materials TestingBurlington | Olympia | Bellingham | Silverdale | Tukwila360.755.1990
www.mtc-inc.net
Project:Date Received:15-Jul-21
Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:16-Jul-21Source:Tested By:C. KrissSample#:B21-1074
D(5) =0.012 mm % Gravel =0.0%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =0.77SpecificationsD(10) =0.024 mm % Sand =68.5%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =11.66 No Specs D(15) =0.036 mm % Silt & Clay =31.5%Fineness Modulus =1.35
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.071 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/aD(50) =0.195 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =5.8%D(60) =0.278 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =1.751 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =32/79 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual InterpolatedCumulativeCumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs SpecsUSMetricPassingPassingMaxMin12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0%1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%5/8"16.00 100%100.0%0.0%1/2"12.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/8"9.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 100%100.0%0.0%#4 4.75 100%100%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 93%100.0%0.0%#10 2.00 92%92%100.0%0.0%#16 1.18 85%100.0%0.0%#20 0.850 82%100.0%0.0%#30 0.600 79%100.0%0.0%#40 0.425 78%78%100.0%0.0%#50 0.300 63%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 57%100.0%0.0%#80 0.180 48%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 45%45%100.0%0.0%#140 0.106 37%100.0%0.0%#170 0.090 34%100.0%0.0%#200 0.075 31.5%31.5%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
Sieve Report
ASTM C136, ASTM D6913, ASTM C117
21B077-17Aspect Consulting
Q.C. - Madrona Ridge Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM-2487
ATP-01, S-3 @ 6.0 ft
ASTM D2216, ASTM D2419, ASTM D4318, ASTM D5281
SM, Silty Sand
grayish-brown Sample Color:
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"#4 #8#1
0
#1
6
#20 #3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#20
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results
Environmental ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Special Inspection ● Non-Destructive Testing ● Materials Testing
Burlington | Olympia | Bellingham | Silverdale | Tukwila360.755.1990www.mtc-inc.net
Project:Date Received:15-Jul-21
Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:16-Jul-21Source:Tested By:C. KrissSample#:B21-1075
D(5) =0.012 mm % Gravel =0.0%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =0.76SpecificationsD(10) =0.023 mm % Sand =67.8%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =11.84 No Specs D(15) =0.035 mm % Silt & Clay =32.2%Fineness Modulus =1.37
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.070 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/aD(50) =0.185 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =5.3%D(60) =0.276 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =1.878 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =8/19 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual InterpolatedCumulativeCumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs SpecsUSMetricPassingPassingMaxMin12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0%1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%5/8"16.00 100%100.0%0.0%1/2"12.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/8"9.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 100%100.0%0.0%#4 4.75 100%100%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 92%100.0%0.0%#10 2.00 91%91%100.0%0.0%#16 1.18 83%100.0%0.0%#20 0.850 80%100.0%0.0%#30 0.600 78%100.0%0.0%#40 0.425 76%76%100.0%0.0%#50 0.300 63%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 57%100.0%0.0%#80 0.180 49%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 46%46%100.0%0.0%#140 0.106 38%100.0%0.0%#170 0.090 35%100.0%0.0%#200 0.075 32.2%32.2%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
Sieve Report
ASTM C136, ASTM D6913, ASTM C117
21B077-17Aspect Consulting
Q.C. - Madrona Ridge Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM-2487
ATP-01, S-4 @ 9.5 ft
ASTM D2216, ASTM D2419, ASTM D4318, ASTM D5281
SM, Silty Sand
grayish-brown Sample Color:
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"#4 #8#1
0
#1
6
#20 #3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#20
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results
Environmental ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Special Inspection ● Non-Destructive Testing ● Materials Testing
Burlington | Olympia | Bellingham | Silverdale | Tukwila360.755.1990www.mtc-inc.net
Project:Date Received:15-Jul-21
Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:16-Jul-21Source:Tested By:C. KrissSample#:B21-1076
D(5) =0.019 mm % Gravel =0.0%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =1.19SpecificationsD(10) =0.037 mm % Sand =79.8%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =12.70 No Specs D(15) =0.056 mm % Silt & Clay =20.2%Fineness Modulus =2.06
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.145 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/aD(50) =0.335 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =6.2%D(60) =0.472 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =3.186 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =16/47 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual InterpolatedCumulativeCumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs SpecsUSMetricPassingPassingMaxMin12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0%1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%5/8"16.00 100%100.0%0.0%1/2"12.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/8"9.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 100%100.0%0.0%#4 4.75 100%100%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 85%100.0%0.0%#10 2.00 82%82%100.0%0.0%#16 1.18 70%100.0%0.0%#20 0.850 66%100.0%0.0%#30 0.600 62%100.0%0.0%#40 0.425 59%59%100.0%0.0%#50 0.300 46%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 41%100.0%0.0%#80 0.180 34%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 31%31%100.0%0.0%#140 0.106 25%100.0%0.0%#170 0.090 22%100.0%0.0%#200 0.075 20.2%20.2%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
Sieve Report
ASTM C136, ASTM D6913, ASTM C117
21B077-17Aspect Consulting
Q.C. - Madrona Ridge Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM-2487
ATP-02, S-2 @ 2.0 ft
ASTM D2216, ASTM D2419, ASTM D4318, ASTM D5281
SM, Silty Sand
brown Sample Color:
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"#4 #8#1
0
#1
6
#20 #3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#20
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results
Environmental ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Special Inspection ● Non-Destructive Testing ● Materials Testing
Burlington | Olympia | Bellingham | Silverdale | Tukwila360.755.1990www.mtc-inc.net
Project:Date Received:15-Jul-21
Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:16-Jul-21Source:Tested By:C. KrissSample#:B21-1078
D(5) =0.011 mm % Gravel =8.3%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =0.73SpecificationsD(10) =0.022 mm % Sand =57.9%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =12.26 No Specs D(15) =0.033 mm % Silt & Clay =33.8%Fineness Modulus =1.55
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.067 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/aD(50) =0.171 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =10.5%D(60) =0.272 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =3.418 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =9/20 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual InterpolatedCumulativeCumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs SpecsUSMetricPassingPassingMaxMin12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0%1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%5/8"16.00 99%100.0%0.0%1/2"12.50 97%97%100.0%0.0%3/8"9.50 96%96%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 93%100.0%0.0%#4 4.75 92%92%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 89%100.0%0.0%#10 2.00 88%88%100.0%0.0%#16 1.18 81%100.0%0.0%#20 0.850 79%100.0%0.0%#30 0.600 76%100.0%0.0%#40 0.425 75%75%100.0%0.0%#50 0.300 63%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 58%100.0%0.0%#80 0.180 51%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 48%48%100.0%0.0%#140 0.106 40%100.0%0.0%#170 0.090 37%100.0%0.0%#200 0.075 33.8%33.8%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
Sieve Report
ASTM C136, ASTM D6913, ASTM C117
21B077-17Aspect Consulting
Q.C. - Madrona Ridge Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM-2487
ATP-05+06, S-2/S-1 @ 4.0 ft
ASTM D2216, ASTM D2419, ASTM D4318, ASTM D5281
SM, Silty Sand
brownSample Color:
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"#4 #8#1
0
#1
6
#20 #3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#20
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results
Environmental ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Special Inspection ● Non-Destructive Testing ● Materials Testing
Burlington | Olympia | Bellingham | Silverdale | Tukwila360.755.1990www.mtc-inc.net
Project:Date Received:15-Jul-21
Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:16-Jul-21Source:Tested By:C. KrissSample#:B21-1079
D(5) =0.011 mm % Gravel =11.5%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =0.79SpecificationsD(10) =0.021 mm % Sand =53.0%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =11.40 No Specs D(15) =0.032 mm % Silt & Clay =35.5%Fineness Modulus =1.56
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.063 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/aD(50) =0.145 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =5.5%D(60) =0.241 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =10.494 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =5/11 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual InterpolatedCumulativeCumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs SpecsUSMetricPassingPassingMaxMin12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0%1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%5/8"16.00 96%100.0%0.0%1/2"12.50 90%90%100.0%0.0%3/8"9.50 90%90%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 89%100.0%0.0%#4 4.75 89%89%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 87%100.0%0.0%#10 2.00 87%87%100.0%0.0%#16 1.18 82%100.0%0.0%#20 0.850 80%100.0%0.0%#30 0.600 79%100.0%0.0%#40 0.425 78%78%100.0%0.0%#50 0.300 66%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 61%100.0%0.0%#80 0.180 54%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 51%51%100.0%0.0%#140 0.106 42%100.0%0.0%#170 0.090 39%100.0%0.0%#200 0.075 35.5%35.5%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
Sieve Report
ASTM C136, ASTM D6913, ASTM C117
21B077-17Aspect Consulting
Q.C. - Madrona Ridge Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM-2487
ATP-09, S-2 @ 6.0 ft
ASTM D2216, ASTM D2419, ASTM D4318, ASTM D5281
SM, Silty Sand
graySample Color:
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"#4 #8#1
0
#1
6
#20 #3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#20
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results
Environmental ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Special Inspection ● Non-Destructive Testing ● Materials Testing
Burlington | Olympia | Bellingham | Silverdale | Tukwila360.755.1990www.mtc-inc.net
Project:Date Received:15-Jul-21
Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:16-Jul-21Source:Tested By:C. KrissSample#:B21-1080
D(5) =0.011 mm % Gravel =6.5%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =0.69SpecificationsD(10) =0.022 mm % Sand =59.1%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =13.13 No Specs D(15) =0.033 mm % Silt & Clay =34.4%Fineness Modulus =1.57
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.065 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/aD(50) =0.170 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =8.9%D(60) =0.286 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =2.951 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =11/23 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual InterpolatedCumulativeCumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs SpecsUSMetricPassingPassingMaxMin12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0%1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%5/8"16.00 100%100.0%0.0%1/2"12.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%3/8"9.50 98%98%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 95%100.0%0.0%#4 4.75 94%94%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 89%100.0%0.0%#10 2.00 88%88%100.0%0.0%#16 1.18 80%100.0%0.0%#20 0.850 76%100.0%0.0%#30 0.600 74%100.0%0.0%#40 0.425 72%72%100.0%0.0%#50 0.300 61%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 57%100.0%0.0%#80 0.180 51%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 48%48%100.0%0.0%#140 0.106 40%100.0%0.0%#170 0.090 37%100.0%0.0%#200 0.075 34.4%34.4%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
Sieve Report
ASTM C136, ASTM D6913, ASTM C117
21B077-17Aspect Consulting
Q.C. - Madrona Ridge Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM-2487
ATP-10, S-1 @ 2.0 ft
ASTM D2216, ASTM D2419, ASTM D4318, ASTM D5281
SM, Silty Sand
reddish-brownSample Color:
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"#4 #8#1
0
#1
6
#20 #3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#20
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
% P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results
Environmental ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Special Inspection ● Non-Destructive Testing ● Materials Testing
Burlington | Olympia | Bellingham | Silverdale | Tukwila360.755.1990www.mtc-inc.net
APPENDIX C
Report Limitations and Guidelines
for Use
ASPECT CONSULTING
1
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR
USE
Geoscience is Not Exact
The geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology, and environmental science)
are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. It is important to
recognize this limitation in evaluating the content of the report. If you are unclear how
these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or property, you
should contact Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect).
This Report and Project-Specific Factors
Aspect’s services are designed to meet the specific needs of our clients. Aspect has
performed the services in general accordance with our agreement (the Agreement) with
the Client (defined under the Limitations section of this project’s work product). This
report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. This report should not be
applied for any purpose or project except the purpose described in the Agreement.
Aspect considered many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the Scope of
Work for this project and report. You should not rely on this report if it was:
• Not prepared for you;
• Not prepared for the specific purpose identified in the Agreement;
• Not prepared for the specific subject property assessed; or
• Completed before important changes occurred concerning the subject property,
project, or governmental regulatory actions.
If changes are made to the project or subject property after the date of this report, Aspect
should be retained to assess the impact of the changes with respect to the conclusions
contained in the report.
Reliance Conditions for Third Parties
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. No other party may rely on
the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is
to provide our firm with reasonable protection against liability claims by third parties
with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limitations. Within the limitations of
scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our
Agreement with the Client and recognized geoscience practices in the same locality and
involving similar conditions at the time this report was prepared.
Property Conditions Change Over Time
This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The
findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by events
such as a change in property use or occupancy, or by natural events, such as floods,
ASPECT CONSULTING
earthquakes, slope instability, or groundwater fluctuations. If any of the described events
may have occurred following the issuance of the report, you should contact Aspect so
that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or
applicability of our conclusions and recommendations.
Geotechnical, Geologic, and Environmental Reports Are
Not Interchangeable
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geotechnical or geologic
study differ significantly from those used to perform an environmental study and vice
versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually
address any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations (e.g., about the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants).
Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic
concerns regarding the subject property.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions,
please contact the Aspect Project Manager for this project.