Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2009-00282 Geotechnical Report . P v Sound Consulting Geotechnical Consulting • Wetlands • Natural Resource Management November 17,2009 ESC09-G037 OP / //°/\ ' Page No. 1 Mr.Rick Lander ---- ___ j Lander Custom Homes I"' UI I L P. 0.Box 98365 Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 Subject: ) EcEIVE —nA , � Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Hendrick Property NOV 1 8 2009 _,.,/ 644 Bywater Way Port Ludlow, Washington Tax Parcel#821-355-032 JEFFf 'F,0�' COUNTYlif°T. Or Cr , t t;piFL.Oi TENT Dear Mr. Lander: EnviroSound Consulting Inc. (ESC) has prepared this letter report to presentour findings and limited geotechnical recommendations for the proposed single family residence and infiltration property located at 644 Bywater Bay (Tax Parcel Identification Number 821-355-032 trenches forthe work was in response to a November 3,2009 letter from the Jefferson Coup Development and review of plans provided by Lander Custom H ) ofOur scope of County Department w rk nt.lu edmmuniw subsurface exploration with four test pit excavations, limited engineering Homes. Our work included shallow. letter report. g ng analyses and preparation of this Proposed Construction It is our understanding that the proposed construction consists of a single family daylight basement adjacent to (north o residence (SFR) with a 1 extensions of existing paved driveways, �existing to garage. The The planned construction also includes There were no final building elevations at the time of this report and building (east) and the installation of infiltration trenches. in nature• locations were preliminary Site Conditions The site is located at 644 Bywater Bay, in Port Ludlow, Washington (see Figure provided by a gravel driveway off of Bywater Bay. The approximate coordinates of the site are 4 g )• Access to the site is degrees North Latitude. and 122.644 degrees West Longitude. The majority of the lot is fore 7 877 young tree growth and scattered mature trees. A seed with garage with an upstairs living space and a gazebo are currently located on partially cleared areas on a relatively level plateau area of the parcel (west). It is understanding that the garage has been in place since 2004 and the existing septic system on the installed during 1995. Fissure cracks were observed in the soils of the proposed ) our site was The site is bounded by Bywater Bay. to the west, vacant forested building area for the SFR. with SFR's to the north and south. The eastern portion of the lot lopes down to the east, and feast(Figure properties 2) EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200• Sil toward the east 2}. Phone: (360) 698-5950• Fax: (360) 698_5929 ale, Washington 98383 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No.2 November 17,2009 Methodology Soil and slope conditions of the subject property were visually examined and evaluated using available soil exposures and road cuts in the site vicinity.This on-site information combined with various soil exposures around the site provided a basis for a general understanding of the local soil and geologic conditions as discussed below.Actual subsoil conditions and thickness may vary between observation locations or as exposed in excavations or slope exposures. In addition to the observation of available soil exposures and reconnaissance of the area,the readily available resources listed below were reviewed. Resources used: • "Washington State Coastal Zone Atlas",Washington State Department of Ecology and Jefferson County,Volume 11. • "Soil Survey of Jefferson County Washington",United States Department of Agriculture, 1975. • U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series topographic map,"Port Ludlow,Washington Quadrangle". • "Geologic Map of Washington-Northwest Quadrant",Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources(WDGER),2002. • Slope Stability of the Uncas-Port Ludlow Area,Jefferson County,by Katherine Hanson, dated 1976,(Open File 76-18). • Geologic Map of the Uncas-Port Ludlow Area,Jefferson County,by Katherine Hanson, dated 1976,(Open File 76-20) Geologic Setting The Geologic Map of Washington — Northwest Quadrant (Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources,GM-50,2002)indicates that the site is underlain by Glacial Till (Qgt) Glacial till, is a material of mixed gradation,which has the general appearance of lean concrete. Materials below the till layer are generally identified as Advance Outwash or other pre-glacial deposits. Zones of dense to very dense, somewhat cleaner materials, materials showing some degree of sorting or bedding, or materials of a mixed or indefinite origin incorporated into the till unit or near the contact between the till and underlying pre-glacial deposits are commonly referred to as ice contact deposits or glacial drift. The Geologic Map of the Uncas-Port Ludlow Area (1976) indicates the same geology. EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 • Silverdale, Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 • ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No. 3 November 17,2009 The Coastal Zone Atlas (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1979) indicates that the subject property is located near an area mapped as a contact between intermediate and unstable slopes. Intermediate slopes are generally steeper than 15 percent except where conditions such as weaker material and/or abundant groundwater exist. Unstable slopes are considered unstable because of geology, groundwater, slope and/or erosional factors. They include areas of landslides and talus too small or obscure to be individually mapped. The 1976 Slope Stability Map denotes the same type of slopes using Class 1 and Class 2 name types. Note that the mapping was performed in the 1970's, is not site specific and does not reflect more recent activity. There was no visible evidence of significant erosion or slides at the time of the site visit. Site Soil Conditions The 1975 edition of the Soil Conservation Service(SCS)soil survey for Jefferson County indicates that the following soil types are present on the site: • Cassolary-Everett(0-15%slopes)in the west portion of the property • Indianola loamy sand(0-15%slopes)in the north central portion of the property • Cassolary Sandy loam(15-30%slopes)in the central portion of the property • Kitsap silt loam(15-30%slopes)in the east portion of the property The soil survey description of this soil type is summarized in the following table. USDA Soil ChC-Cassolary InC-Indianola CfD-Cassolary sandy KtD-Kitsap silt loam Survey Name sandy loam loamy sand loam USDA 0-3 inches,Sandy 0-2 inches,Loamy 0-16 inches,Very gravelly 0-4 inches, Silt loam Textural loam sand sandy loam 4-32 inches,Silt loam Classification 3-23 inches, Sandy 2-28 inches, 16-26 inches,Very gravelly 32-60 inches, Stratified &USCS Soil loam Loamy sand sandy loam silt loam to silty clay Type 23-49 inches, 28-60 inches,Fine 26-60 inches,Very gravelly loam to gravelly silty Stratified sandy loam sand coarse sand clay loam to silty clay loam 49-60 inches, Sand Permeability Moderately slow Rapid Moderately slow Drainage Well drained Excessively Well drained Well drained drained Erosion Moderate Slight to moderate Moderate Moderate to severe Hazard Runoff Medium Slow Medium Medium to rapid Capability IVe-1 VIs-1 IVe-3 IVe-3 Class Based on the observed soils, it is our opinion that the site soils are generally consistent with those indicated on the geologic maps of the area Differences between the mapped and observed soil conditions EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200• Silverdale, Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No.4 November 17,2009 are generally minor and not unexpected,and appear primarily as a result of outcrop availability and mapping scale. Field Exploration and Subsurface Soils Four exploratory test pits were excavated by a trackhoe provided by Hemley's Excavation on November 10,2009. The test pits were excavated within and adjacent to the proposed building footprint(See Figure 2)and logged by a representative of ESC. Fill material was encountered in test pits TP-1,TP-2 and TP-3 to depths ranging from 2.0 to 4.5 feet. The deepest fill was in test pit TP-2 in the southwest corner of the building with tree debris and burnt debris associated with a burn pit area. The fill was underlain by a medium dense sandy SILT which in turn was underlain by a dense to very dense cemented silty SAND with scattered gravels and cobbles. For more complete information see the attached test pit logs and laboratory test data. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits. Water table elevations can fluctuate with time. Groundwater levels are typically influenced by seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. To the extent that we were able to access or view there were no springs within 1,000 feet of the proposed development. A seasonal stream is located approximately 140 feet to the east of the proposed development. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of this investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed SFR may be constructed on the site at the proposed location. The proposed SFR will need to be excavated to the dense cemented till encountered in all of the test pits. It is our opinion that a native vegetation buffer and building setback are not required for this site and that a residence may be constructed on the slope. We should be contacted to review the grading plan for the site when it is developed to confirm that the proposed grading plan conforms to the recommendations provided in this report and to modify the slope stability analysis to account for the proposed grading. The fissure cracks observed in the proposed SFR building location are due to the settlement of unsuitable fill and not due to slope movement. The unsuitable fill will be excavated as part of the grading for the proposed daylight basement. Slope Stability In general, slope angles in the area below the proposed development are estimated to be between 20 and 25 degrees (measured from the horizontal). The soils that comprise the slope at this site have been glacially consolidated, and except for the upper few feet, are generally very dense. Typically, the soil types present at this site, without the presence of groundwater seepage, are observed to be stable at slope angles up to about 34 degrees. The near surface soil is more weathered and thus relatively loose. Based on our experience with soil conditions in the vicinity,and observations made during our site visit, it is my opinion that the risk of deep-seated slope instability along the site is low. EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 • Silverdale,Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No. 5 November 17,2009 Creep of the surficial slope soils will occur along the steeper portion of the slope. This will cause the surficial slope soils to move slowly over a period of time. In order to minimize the potential for distress resulting from surficial slope movement, it is recommended that the proposed structures, i.e., building, decks, stairways, etc. be founded below the loose surficial soils and in the dense underlying soil layer. It is our opinion that the site is basically stable and suitable for the construction of the proposed single-family residence. In our professional opinion,the risk of damage to the proposed residence from soil instability will be minimal if the site is designed and constructed in a prudent manner. General, preliminary recommendations for development are presented below. It is further our opinion that construction of the proposed residence will not increase the potential for soil movement,nor increase the risk of instability during construction or for adjacent property if these recommendations are followed. However,as with any site located on a slope such as this one there is always a risk of instability that the present and future owners must be prepared to accept. The risk involves such things as water leaks,pipe breaks,improper drainage, lack of maintenance of drainage facilities or vegetative cover,unwise actions by adjacent property owners,or similar events or unknown conditions which may cause sliding. The placement of the infiltration trenches on the slope face as shown on Figure 3 should not impact the proposed SFR but may cause localized areas of instability. This can be minimized by plantings on the slope. Construction practice at the site should take into account that the property is sloping and contains silty soil,as well as loose,near surface sand and silt. Difficulties could be created if the site were developed imprudently,especially during wet weather. Foundations The proposed construction may be founded on a shallow foundation system bearing in the dense � I cemented till. Topsoil and soft or loose soil should be removed from foundation excavations. Continuous or isolated footings may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). An increase of 1/3 may be applied to the allowable bearing pressure value for short duration loads, such as those associated with wind and seismic conditions. As stated earlier in the report the daylight basement portion of the SFR will need to be excavated to the dense sand encountered approximately 7 feet below existing grade. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to verify that the foundations will bear on suitable material. If topsoil or loose native soils are observed within foundation excavations, these materials should be removed and/or re-compacted, depending on the depth and nature of the material. The extent of overexcavation and/or re-compaction should be based on the geotechnical engineer's representative's recommendations during construction monitoring. Footings should have adequate embedment for local frost penetration requirements. In the area of this project, the minimum depths are typically 18 inches for exterior footings and 12 inches for interior footings. We recommend that the footings be a minimum of 12 inches wide, regardless of the design foundation pressures. Footings should be located a minimum of 5 feet from any adjacent, descending slope.The distance is to be measured horizontally at the base of the footing. EnviroSound Consulting, inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 • Silverdale,Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No. 6 November 17,2009 Total foundation settlements should be less than 1 inch for footings that are constructed as recommended. Differential settlement across a distance of 20 feet should be less than 3/4 inch. The majority of the settlement is expected to occur at the time of construction or soon after. Greater than expected post- construction settlement can occur if foundation subgrade soils become saturated. Lateral footing displacement can be resisted by friction along the base of the foundation and passive pressure acting against the appropriate footing faces. We recommend an allowable friction factor of 0.40 and an allowable passive pressure of 300 psf. These values include a factor of safety of 1.5 for the allowable friction factor and 2.0 for the allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure. Note that the allowable passive pressure assumes that the foundations are located in the dense sand. Drainage Runoff from buildings and impervious surfaces should be directed into an appropriately designed stormwater disposal system. Two stormwater infiltration trenches are proposed(Figure 3). Based on the soils encountered in the test pits,we anticipate that infiltration may be used at the site in select locations. A soil sample from test pit TP-4 was collected for USDA Sieve Analysis. The sample was approximately 3.5 feet in depth. A perimeter footing drain should be installed around the SFR at a depth equal to the bottom of the footing. This drain should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated rigid pipe(with perforations placed down)with a minimum thickness of 6 inches of pea gravel around the pipe. The backfill soils within 1 foot of the foundation wall should consist of free-draining sand and gravel material. This drainage system should be designed to transport water away from the residence and discharge into an appropriate area. Lateral Earth Pressures We understand that shallow below grade walls may be included in the proposed construction. Lateral pressures will be exerted on below grade(basement)and retaining walls by backfill soils,surcharge loads, and hydrostatic pressures caused by groundwater. Lateral earth pressures on walls depend upon the type of wall, type of backfill material and allowable wall movements. For walls that are restrained at the top, lateral earth pressures should be estimated for an"at rest"condition. For walls that are free to rotate away from the retained soil, lateral earth pressures should be estimated for an"active"earth pressure. For walls that are compressing the retained soil, lateral earth pressures should be estimated for a "passive" earth pressure. Recommended lateral earth pressures coefficients are provided in the following tables along with equivalent fluid pressures. These pressures are calculated assuming a moist unit weight for the backfill soil of 131 pounds per cubic foot(pcf)and an angle of internal friction of 35 degrees,as would be typical for compacted sand backfill soil. Lateral Earth Pressures,no slope above or below the wall "Active"Condition "At Rest"Condition "Passive"Condition Equivalent Fluid Equivalent Fluid Equivalent Fluid Coefficient(Ka) Unit Weight(pcf) Coefficient(Ko) Unit Weight(pcf) Coefficient(Kp) Unit Weight(pcf) 0.27 35 0.43 56 1.85 242 EnviroSound Consulting. Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 • Silverdale, Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No. 7 November 17,2009 Lateral Earth Pressures,2H:1 V slope above or below the wall "Active"Condition "At Rest"Condition "Passive"Condition Equivalent Fluid Equivalent Fluid Equivalent Fluid Coefficient(Ka) Unit Weight(pcf) Coefficient(Ko) Unit Weight(pcf) Coefficient(Kp) Unit Weight(pcf) 0.39 51 0.62 81 0.72 94 The recommended equivalent fluid unit weights do not include hydrostatic pressure due to groundwater accumulated behind walls. The recommended fluid pressures in the first table assume a horizontal ground surface above and below the wall and do not include seismic loading, or any surcharge due to nearby loading from structures, equipment or traffic. The recommended fluid pressures in the second table assume a 2H:1 V slope above the wall for the active and at rest cases and a 2H:1 V slope below the wall for the passive case. Therefore, for a wall with a 2H:1 V slope below it, the active or at-rest pressures from the first table should be used with the passive pressures from the second table. In both tables the passive pressures have been reduced by a factor of 2 to limit wall translation. The potential seismic force on the wall can be modeled as a uniform pressure(in pounds per square feet- psf)on the back of the wall equal to 7 times the height of the wall(in feet) if there is no slope above the wall. For a wall with a 2H:1V slope above,the potential seismic force should be increased to 14 times the height of the wall. The units for this pressure are pounds per square feet. Continuous drains with cleanouts should be installed at the base of retaining walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the structure. These drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated rigid pipe(with perforations placed down)with a minimum thickness of 6 inches of pea gravel around the pipe. The backfill soils within 1 foot of the walls should consist of free-draining sand and gravel material. This drainage system should be designed to transport water away from the structure and discharge into an appropriate area. Infiltration A grain size distribution test was performed on one sample from test pit TP-4 to estimate the USDA Textural Classification of the soils encountered. The result of the test is attached to this report. The test result indicates that the site soils at approximately 3.5 feet in depth are primarily"Loamy Sand"under the USDA textural classification system. Two proposed infiltration trenches are shown on Figure 3. Based on the results of the test pit and laboratory testing, it appears that the infiltration rates for"Loamy Sand" are likely to be the most appropriate for design. The short term infiltration rate given for Loamy Sand in the SWMM is 2 inches per hour. Erosion Control The soils on the slope may erode in the disturbed state or under conditions of channelized water flow. Therefore, best management practices for erosion control including silt fences, hay bales, etc. should be used to prevent sediment from leaving the site and entering storm water sewer systems or surface waters. Water should not be allowed to flow over the slope in a concentrated manner. Stripping of vegetation on the steep slopes should be limited to the extent possible for the proposed construction. We further recommend that vegetation be replanted on the slopes as soon as practical following completion of grading. EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 • Silverdale, Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No. 8 November 17,2009 The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has three publications, which may be helpful in developing long-term slope vegetation maintenance/protection and landscape plans: • "Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation: A Manual of Practice for Coastal Property Owners",May 1993,Publication 93-30. • "Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners", May 1993, Publication 93-31. • "Surface Water and Ground Water on Coastal Bluffs: A Guide for Puget Sound Property Owners",June 1995,Publication 95-107. Although the slope on the property is not a"bluff'the preceding publications have a great deal of general information regarding plants, steep slopes and the use of vegetation to stabilize soil. Temporary Slopes It is our opinion that the soils encountered in the test pits (except for the upper 3 feet) are a Type B material as defined by the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act's (WISHA) regulations on excavation,trenching and shoring. Temporary slopes excavated in Type B material should be inclined no steeper than 1H:1 V(horizontal: vertical). A representative of our firm should evaluate temporary slopes to verify that they are appropriate for the soils encountered during construction. In areas where it is not possible to maintain the recommended slopes due to space constraints, temporary shoring may be required. Shoring would need to be properly designed by an engineer. The Contractor should be familiar with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current WISHA regulations on excavation,trenching and shoring. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations. ESC is providing this information only as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided above be interpreted to mean that ESC is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. The soils to be penetrated by any proposed excavations may be variable. ESC's preliminary classifications are based on the materials encountered in the test pits. The Contractor should continually classify the soils that are encountered as excavation work progresses with respect to the WISHA system. Structural Fill The majority of the on site soils will likely be suitable for use as structural fill with the exception of the previously placed unsuitable fill. If the earthwork is to take place during the normally wet period of the year, excavations in the sands should not be left open for any significant length of time. Imported structural fill should consist of well-graded gravel and/or sand with a maximum grain size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent fines(material passing the U.S. Standard No.200 Sieve). Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts no more than 12 inches thick, moisture conditioned as necessary (moisture content of soil should be within 2 percent of optimum moisture) and the material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 • Silverdale, Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No.9 November 17,2009 Method D-1557. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. Note that,although in place density testing of fill is frequently used as the primary criterion for acceptance of fill, it should not be the only criterion. If, in the judgment of the geotechnical engineer or his representative, placed fill is not suitable it should be rejected regardless of in place density test results. As an example, fill that is compacted wet of the optimum moisture content may exhibit "pumping" behavior even if in place density test results indicate greater than 95 percent compaction has been achieved. In such a situation, the fill should be removed and replaced with drier material. EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200• Silverdale, Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950• Fax: (360) 698-5929 4 ESC09-G037 644 Bywater Bay Page No. 10 November 17,2009 Limitations We have prepared this letter based on standard practices, currently used in this area at the time of preparation. The conclusions are based on the observations made during the site visit. A limited subsurface exploration program was performed. The information presented in this letter was collected and interpreted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions. No other warranty, expressed or implied, including (but not limited to) any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular use has been made. Should you have any questions or concerns, which have not been addressed, or if we may be of additional assistance,please call our office at(360)698-5950. Sincerely, Shawn E.Williams, LEG. - Michael J.Wolczko,P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Senior Geotechnical Engineer 7 of Was /`: 00.N „,„ __Ai " �6Tn7f-VC. ncer'n3 Geologist `V \i N C213 3t� VI ' Shawn E. Williams pt AR t 7All /(-- 1 7---- r Attachments: Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2—Site Plan Appendix A—Test Pit Logs Appendix B—Laboratory Data EnviroSound Consulting, Inc. • 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 • Silverdale,Washington 98383 Phone: (360) 698-5950 • Fax: (360) 698-5929 9 r ��j s ,ram _ 7. 1 ,;` tI's, . ', .. a ".. e r .,,,- �,° ,. yank '" x - - ��i7, u .8;1 .: 8213a502J' % t.pg,+� . i. ...y ;� „$` 6II F ?A 3 R." .-a- k 3 4'`"$ °R E8 y 1 .41 .a y i ,,,,:: 'i �'21ass,rs8 r: 4,77441614 . 8-• ' _f se = #. "#"� ,' Y • -, C3 -_..t..t. � y '�LIYti J r9 „st� p air yr A ] 41. . , $4 .- 441."'.r"�. t p t` the , ',, ` 44 L 4 41, '821_'�,503�t et. 16,E 1` .1 t4:,., `- ,, -,* 5 � .' ' '' "s,,%<''''' 41- 444 , *Pt,',P.— ', '‘` * 0, ,,,w41,4, 0 A:442:14.: ',,„:ly, 11. ; a. 7i i .ae •� ae �ti,� ;- �1k e � r y►Nt - � ,l . ( a • � r �x tel 4 zP^« ss;.i i � ni; u a1 �e: ., Ett* i t .7V,.. ,(- s r ��� t_',� 1 ' r ' 4GM t;� - r s 1i $f yr♦e{ e''7f44 ' y 7 :. a 4i 2 !o t* � j.. ' e s a �f ' d . u�} a' � $2' 4�` 5/ w" t� yyn ., ` .,aM 9:.>. a � . a.. -;A, �� *�4 Or?x .,: .A ; ` x `t ' , µe 1 , ,, ,*, t t4 ems � €� 'r _ . �y 1 ,� _, ' � � 1'a; � q.�Y ?. 3��€ <r� . �t �. � - � � Ti a e rit, ilk '0. ,a COA 4 * -4a 7 t:•a t,• ' -z" . � i �'"`4 i t�- l.. h as 41 p.. . 1'sk A , 4,04 ""`; , y , ' , ��� r � ��',"�i,.+:y � >R��1 f'�y°{ 4 'w n i "F� 5,.._i t� ,S� ! ,' X � 's*� �" .� w 4 - .:.+»`.» �,,� ,,ire ' ,_ �'`R% r t h, ,.1 °a 7,r9?;S'4 .'I` 4.,#;a t. ' .- .. F s 4 M1 e ',4 ,", t,. G rM.;,% r !" 9f ,k...'' as 3�'4.. .+ "' (,Je'l,)i' , .:.,, , ?`� `, 7 A 'ax T ` �' "} Y r 'at, y 1`"'�,y ' i " i �t. 't-,e'l '.a,�'4' § 4:'',. °' r"R ` 4N.,:& n i8t a,_, 1 „t M u e;y ,i --.. ,. '+k.'a'm,.xa: ae y � - ,.,.e C 3r ^_ " ' • �':'.+�b*s ,*••-n..�*�..pi<aa-+ ss� poi. S9- . r� i i q sa% ' '3�rte ., ., ::,. `x.- -, ,x$ 4 _ .tom �e�.�. w ,"t,E e: u' , _ .. e._.;a ' �_`. 1� ,�# tit, alyfe {4 a al a.,�.a+,� �t E,.a yJ r'""^�'�^�' to < �'.... . .. e -..rt � o Note: Map adapted from Jefferson County Aerial Map. FIGURE 1 -n SITE VICINITY MAP ENVIROSOUND CONSULTING, INC. Job name: Hendrick SFR 3388 Byron Street NW Ste 200 Location: Port Ludlow,Washington Silverdale,WA 98383 Job No. : FSC09 G037 360-698-5950 Client: Lander Custom Home Date: Nov/09 v) i o , E 0 ;- , E ,....- .., ,-- , = --7.---• c ....-------_--- .,--X cv a ..., —____ --_,...,-....r.j..r........e.—.•—_-_____________zz____________._:____ . „ "I:). cm -A_ — -----;-, .......„,,...___ - ...,.......-- _--- •rt- --,-...\ .sz z ... = ..-- __ -- 7 -- __.._.-- _---- ........- --.--- __ -18 5 .2 •N. g ...---- , ---- — ... -- -----_,__,„___ _ ,-,:i --- * -- iv) -- ..„---. ,---::--•.- - _ -_ N., I 77- ----- al 0 i-, .. 2._„:„._ ....,,, ................_...._ ----. \ _.,..- ..............___ ----,„, -- _,- \,.. ...------,---------- __--- _,..---- ....„ -----._ -----, "\\\ ,: , __________-- .................... ) t 1 - *'''',,-......-,- ,„ y •••„.. . lam 0 L- CD ci; 71 @ ..--1 n3 W CO > - . : E" //- .4,7,, .....," ..., , cl 44, --j - ,/ ..--.,,,,,•,..,-;;.„--,....-,_ N.„,.._::,...041 ....--- ....---,,--- --„."-----__.. , - , -----___ ---------___ , 4 / • / / d ..-., y ti i- 0 — .c c \ \ - re--.. == Nu.0 --- •-• m o / , //,:i... • 1 giii,... al lik PM .111 i------- .* ..„,i.,* 4,...1.,, i c , ,,---,....,,, ..,,,; '......4,,F v.: #2..., i. —rill ri.- IS) 1 III I :I. ,. 411411Q1kma. 11111"ftir,410. 1'.44.1'))4••-• / \ .." I l 4 1.:;'&;..,. V :. / 1 I 4 0 \\\ \ — - -••.., \ 0) / I ky s4- -: ---------- takillW '., \\ E \\ \ \ -• i I :f.• .... -,,.-,'••.. •----- ..... \ 2 / / ' C. • ( 1 I \ , \ .4.95 -•„,„...:',..y.:‘,. ,, /IV ( 1 \\\\\ \ / RI/1, r,•,,,, ''i.-‘.4.,1‘. asumillim ,:tlzill,. "11111M1111111115, ',) \ ') Cb TO I / h ' -,., -,.. L--k"07-1:___S-t.. - ,11,...„..... a ,e • , I , . . , ---"'"‘`.-..--- _./.81/6.DQ -\ .., \,,\i) \I ' 51.1. = 0 c) > e, liso +., '. '1 . ... / 4kk • ..,yi4. \.. \\ \ C9 I i reff OAUISSel \ t. 1 1--' cn ..5 • c Y 43 •• - ., s, c -'—.. .i J C-7.!.- 1 4ki•( •1 , , . .' ,i" • C) .. 2t,u,s, , \-- •1 o c a. 16 c/9 -. 1, . ,t*:' .'':'• ...-- ) ,- , -- - — IF ' '..' • I'l-------TF,FzcfERsy Lime - c ) \_ \ _ N - - [ P".....". i ow- mr,1 0 'CI 0 col 0 ,-, I) cn ...i•••' ,.0 Z C o 5 Q pl. .. 0 71 a.) 1.., ti- ;-, a., E-. ,.... 0 -2 CO c--- CL P ..:r-.. E a s ce) o Z -a o 0) -.-.„., c ...... „, -0 0 = W — = lom cal I-- ii VJ C s, I , i 04 t 0 .8 777---,---- / / t \ 1 D (1) .-rTi o t iii /7"-----;:;.- --,I ,5^..,i- s•..•••••••77 it , :•;* '%5rt:itY i (.9 .6" () -6.0 -.- / ,,, / • --_. -1, ..":` ‘47.141.-41147" 1.1- ril* \ — as .1. ....OA, -1?.7 \ \ ''''D.OM,..., ,g 4,12,,a,;4 r! ,c1, a V. ''''''''' ' '''Y'' 11;11 A I 1 i ' - Fiftri;Viitifi '110111804 1 p if I r:)...4N,,,,lil ,jillifl.s.::`• ' .: V 01111 ltill i i!itt 1,4 4' :r. 4* - '\-- 1 \\ itd4e°41•5.11.41 t 541 i ill eh"! 1 . :41?'**': I X\\ / / IiIllt itatiii 1.iktti; i 41it 4 ""-0146,' . ,, ,, 4ipall 5. ItUi ,4 .tv,,,,,,tt.k.41.7---,,T74.,„, .'" ,t, li,''.7,,,,,,''''''...,U.Ati: \.•\ • e „, . '71574%16.•i I) ;Or, X, "1:1A,Pat?'},4'. ,44,4i'lf'it rifT'.43.L.Aj4;tet 0 1 i / . .,'V4•Li. , iip-....r- , ,,,:t....1_ i5.?1, ni 4,, .,,r.fgr.1.4,-,:waig,..:„.17ITI,,.. . i ..-z., .•,..., .,,... ....4.4,„ ,,,,.ra,,,,,_.,.vir-ci?c, ii/I17;i111:: Ity.'" ' 1 illirit \\ /,,.,..,.^r,i•,,.." 1.4%-• .5:7,4;•••‘••••''!'•• *" ''.` 14..1' 11 4. A ,I. Iiirrikl, '.'oo .i-,1 -,tTa • \ / 41 .'',Aif '4"4?'":7-...:-..'r...... .4. • ; 410044it1.--.lit. 41t1 i \ • ',,•• :;:•4,v.:.k.f...;..-ta - ,.1-'iv• .“A, l'hi. .,,,tkvit. /' i w.-1.-..,•:::,,,,i, •'-. • -- ' `.`41,t5P.Pri,,,:if!, 24-fI'll'i i •?? .4,....% . -'. '•"'s ' ;*:::',Ts14,-,..'t'..4.- ,.4?./ft.'", . .4..&4%,tkiAni 0'41'4 R.111( 7 i &•...o.e*- "...4,'"tei,riie.\ ''',NttVErtaqjtg §6'' 1 i i •:,,.. • 2,,It*,.. "---------"*"---', . / a -.,..7;.* 4... .ti rt . w:•;:t ;"••Za:f17 -,, \-,,,, ',\ ,, ' : .. • \\ ' — = \/ -4-+ c.,.-+i,,•:A 1, (i) vra 0 $... cu 2 ort . .;....., .- 7: •. 4; •-•, e..) \\. ' • k • •:i...1 \:" : I a) cr:. '',,. . • 1 / Z . .4 t5 v. . • %' o I 9/.."-:c- Z \..,:: .• 1 I •-:Isl, X:. '.', '', ag, 5 't s ':,,-,•k-- j CL ••• = ua I _ •,..„. •r......',.. "CI '!,‘"•",.,e.,;,,k.,I "0 - c , 0 ,,, lb CO° 0 ‘1" ....*'*w•I'' - W APPENDIX A ESC Test Pit Logs • • TEST PIT TP- 1 Project Name: Hendrick SFR Test Pit Elevation: 192' Client: Lander Custom Homes Test Pit Location:Northwest corner of building Project Number: ESC09-G037 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered o Z E-N H. LABORATORY VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION TESTING x RESULTS W cn W FOR SAMPLE U rrD ri Cn Tnpcnil,rnntletc ML Dark brown.sandy SILT S-1 Grab 1.5 M.C.=14% SM Mottled tan and gray,silty SAND,(Fill)loose to medium dense S-2 Grab 3.0 M.C.=11% SM Gray,cemented silty(SAND)(Glacial Till),scattered gravel and cobbles,dense to very dense,moist 5 BOE 6.5' No sloughing. 10 No water seepage. 15 Excavation Contractor: Hemley's Excavation Date: 11/10/09 Excavation ESC Representative: SEW Equipment: Track-hoe Page 1 of 1 Operator: Cole TEST PIT TP-2 Project Name: Hendrick SFR Test Pit Elevation: 190' Client: Lander Custom Homes Test Pit Location: Southwest corner of building Project Number: ESC09-G037 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered 0 Z LABORATORY ` VISUAL PHYSICAL DE RIP F' � SC TION w w w TESTING H v, RESULTS w FOR SAMPLE Q � U rn crD vsQ 0 SM& Dark gray,mixed sandy Silt and silty SAND(Fill)moist,scattered ML tree debris,bum pit area,Loose to medium dense,moist ML Original Topsoil,tan sandy SILT,moist 5 ML Mottled tan and gray,sandy SILT,stiff,moist Gray cemented silty(SAND)(Glacial Till),dense,scattered gravels SM and cobbles 10 BOE 9.0' • No sloughing. No water seepage. 15 Excavation Contractor: Hemley's Excavation Date: 11/10/09 Excavation ESC Representative: SEW Equipment: Track-hoe Page 1 of 1 Operator: Cole • TEST PIT TP-3 Project Name: Hendrick SFR Test Pit Elevation: 185' Client: Lander Custom Homes Test Pit Location: Southwest corner of building Project Number: ESC09-G037 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered W � E; LABORATORY VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w TESTING l a ax ., RESULTS w zU„ w FOR SAMPLE CI) 0 SM& Tan silty SAND,and sandy SILT,(Fill),loose to medium dense, ML moist,scattered,tree limbs Original Topsoil S-1 Grab 3.5 M.C.=17% ML Mottled tan and gray,sandy SILT,medium dense,moist Gray cemented silty(SAND)(Glacial Till),dense to very dense, 5 SM moist,scattered gravels and cobbles. BOE 6.5' No sloughing. 10 No water seepage. 15 Excavation Contractor: Hemley's Excavation Date: 11/10/09 Excavation ESC Representative: SEW Equipment: Track-hoe Page 1 of 1 Operator: Cole TEST PIT TP-4 Project Name: Hendrick SFR Test Pit Elevation: 185' Client: Lander Custom Homes Test Pit Location: Northwest corner of building Project Number: ESC09-G037 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered W d LABORATORY VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION a a a TESTING H RESULTS W FOR SAMPLE Q Q U &D rrQ 0 01, Topsoil ML Mottled tan and gray,sandy SILT,medium dense,moist S-1 Grab 3.5 M.C.=20% SP Gray cemented silty(SAND)(Glacial Till),scattered gravels and cobbles,dense to very dense,moist, 5 BOE 4.5' No sloughing No groundwater seepage 10 15 II Excavation Contractor: Hemley's Excavation Date: 11/10/09 Excavation ESC Representative: SEW Equipment: Track-hoe Page 1 of 1 Operator: Cole APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Reports EnviroSound Consulting Hendrick Slope ESC09-G031 Moisture Contents ASTM D-2216 Table 1 Exploration Number Sample Number Depth(ft) Moisture Content% TP-1 S-1 1.5 14 TP-2 S-2 3.0 11 TP-3 S-1 3.5 17 TP-4 S-1 3.5 20 Phoenix Soil Research PSR09-9-1105 Page 1 Particle Size Distribution Report c ,ca',� cf'c c'„ �p 0 w • l7 N — w :� # # 100 I ] • I I I I I • •I I I 90 J 1 I I l I I I 80 I I I I I I ( I I I I I I 70 1 1 I • I I I I I I I I z 60 1 I I t I I I I I I 1 I I L w 50 I I I I I U Ow.. 40 1 1 l I I I 30 I I I I I I • 20 t t I I I j 10 I I I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. +3" %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL 0 0.0 4.6 72.0 23.4 SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description Inches O number 0 size size .375 100.0 #4 98.0 #10 95.4 #18 93.2 #35 89.1 #60 70.3 #140 36.8 #270 23.4 GRAIN SIZE REMARKS: D60 0.1939 0 D30 0.0800 D10 COEFFICIENTS Cc Cu 0 Depth:3.5 Sample Number:TP4 SI Phoenix Soil Research Client: Envirosound Consulting Project: Hendrick Slope ESC09-G03I Kingston, WA Project No.: PSR09-9-1105 Figure 1 • USDA Soil Classification A 88 h� �I��o WAN V1�� 80 W e c. VA P YAW A 0�u0 TAT �� ........._ ho •, N �.._.._ O ATA T k illy./ s. �/ cla '� %ar,4L�1T1►1 T A7 ,,, A , ►Ii"►�. v` Avar J}WA ly rc,t clay I.� _. 7�'��"r' ....._ ......_ zap Ti►TA�► _ T __A,����� aprAw♦1TAm, I rank YAVA \ '• 1► T:1TTA so`em ♦� i and laa� , 11 ....... r �! loamy / �. T saidAhHi � -� 00 O O 0 OO 0 PO • 0 1, O Percent Sand SOIL DATA Source Sample Depth Percentages From Material Passing a#10 Sieve No. Sand Silt Clay Classification • TP4 S1 3.5 75.5 23.5 1.0 Loamy sand Phoenix Soil Research Client: Envirosound Consulting Project: Hendrick Slope ESC09-G03 1 Kingston, WA Project No.: PSR09-9-1 105 Figure 2 I