HomeMy WebLinkAbout721162006 GeotechCobalt Geosciences, LLC
P.O. Box 82243
Kenmore, Washington 98028
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
May 28, 2021
Kevin Ferguson
kevin@empireelectricinc.com
RE: Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Residence
Parcel No. 721162006
Port Ludlow, Washington
In accordance with your authorization, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC has prepared this letter to
discuss the results of our geotechnical evaluation at the referenced site.
The purpose of our evaluation was to provide recommendations for foundation design, grading,
and earthwork.
Site Description
The site is located along the east side of South Point Road in Port Ludlow, Washington. The site
consists of one irregularly shaped parcel (No. 721162006) with a total area of 0.68 acres.
The site is undeveloped and vegetated with ferns, ivy, grasses, blackberry vines, other herbs, along
with sparse to moderate stands of evergreen and deciduous trees.
The site slopes downward from west to east at magnitudes of 5 to 100 percent and total relief of
about 45 feet. There is a very steep road embankment near the west property line that has relief
of 8 to 12 feet and magnitudes of about 100 percent. This slope was likely created through fill
placement during road building.
Below this area, the property slopes gently downward to the east at magnitudes of 5 to 10 percent
and relief of about 3 feet. The eastern portion of the site slopes downward to the adjacent
waterway at magnitudes of 30 to 80 percent and relief of about 30 to 35 feet.
The site is bordered to the north and south by residential properties, to the west by South Point
Road, and to the east by an inlet of Puget Sound.
The proposed development includes a new residence in the central portion of the site. A driveway
will extend to the residence from the west. A septic system would be located west of the building.
Foundation loads will be light and site grading may include cuts of 10 feet or less if a basement is
proposed. We should be provided with the final plans to verify that our recommendations are
valid.
Area Geology
The site lies within the Puget Lowland. The lowland is part of a regional north-south trending
trough that extends from southwestern British Columbia to near Eugene, Oregon. North of
Olympia, Washington, this lowland is glacially carved, with a depositional and erosional history
including at least four separate glacial advances/retreats. The Puget Lowland is bounded to the
west by the Olympic Mountains and to the east by the Cascade Range. The lowland is filled with
glacial and non-glacial sediments consisting of interbedded gravel, sand, silt, till, and peat lenses.
May 28, 2021 Page 2 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
The Geologic Map of the Lofall Quadrangle indicates that the site is underlain by Glacial Drift.
In this area, glacial drift can include areas of sand along with layers and interbeds of silt with
sand. These materials generally become denser with depth.
Geologic maps indicate that the site and surrounding areas (extending 200 to 600 feet east-west
and about 5,000 to 6,000 feet north-south) are within an older landslide feature. LiDAR imagery
shows the very large feature. Discussion of the landslide feature is found in subsequent sections.
Soil & Groundwater Conditions
As part of our evaluation, we excavated two test pits within the property, where accessible.
Both test pits encountered approximately 12 inches of vegetation and topsoil underlain by about
1.5 to 2 feet of medium dense, partially cemented silty-sand with gravel (Glacial Drift). These
deposits were underlain by medium dense, fine to medium grained sand with silt (Glacial Drift),
which continued to the termination depths of the test pits.
Groundwater was encountered in TP-1 at 6 feet below grade. Groundwater was not encountered
in test pit TP-2. Light volumes of groundwater could be present at variable depths during the wet
season. In general, we anticipate that the water could be present between weathered and
unweathered drift and at depth within the sandy seams.
Water table elevations often fluctuate over time. The groundwater level will depend on a variety
of factors that may include seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, climatic conditions and
soil permeability. Water levels at the time of the field investigation may be different from those
encountered during the construction phase of the project.
Steep Slope Hazards
Most critical area ordinances designate slopes with magnitudes greater than about 40 percent and
vertical relief of at least 10 feet as potentially geologically hazardous (steep slope/landslide
hazards). This criteria can be expanded to include known landslide areas, areas underlain by clay
soils, and areas underlain by permeable soils and at depth by impermeable soils.
The property is mapped as being within an older large rotational landslide that extends several
hundred feet east to west and several thousand feet north to south. The overall landslide areas
(large-scale areas) were likely created following deglaciation and rapid groundwater movements
that occurred about 11,000 years ago. The rapid de-watering of area hillsides resulted in large
rotational slides that created many of the current slopes along Puget Sound.
During our assessment we visually observed the site topography and adjacent areas to determine
what if any evidence is present of recent or historic slide activity. We did not observe evidence of
recent slides, spring activity, severe erosion or other signs of instability. The site and adjacent
areas are well vegetated with deciduous and evergreen trees. It is our opinion that the risk of
landslide activity is currently low.
We recommend maintaining vegetation over the site except for areas that require removal as part
of site development.
May 28, 2021 Page 3 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Erosion Hazard
The Natural Resources Conservation Service maps for Jefferson County indicate that the site is
underlain by Cassolary sandy loam (o to 15 percent slopes). These soils have a slight to moderate
erosion potential.
It is our opinion that soil erosion potential at this project site can be reduced through landscaping
and surface water runoff control. Typically, erosion of exposed soils will be most noticeable
during periods of rainfall and may be controlled by the use of normal temporary erosion control
measures, such as silt fences, hay bales, mulching, control ditches and diversion trenches. The
typical wet weather season, with regard to site grading, is from October 31st to April 1st. Erosion
control measures should be in place before the onset of wet weather.
Seismic Hazard
The overall subsurface profile corresponds to a Site Class D as defined by Table 1613.5.2 of the
International Building Code (IBC). A Site Class D applies to an overall profile consisting of
stiff/medium dense soils within the upper 100 feet.
We referenced the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program Website to
obtain values for SS, S1, Fa, and Fv. The USGS website includes the most updated published data
on seismic conditions. The following tables provide seismic parameters from the USGS web site
with referenced parameters from ASCE 7-10 and 7-16.
Seismic Design Parameters (ASCE 7-10)
Site
Class
Spectral
Acceleration
at 0.2 sec. (g)
Spectral
Acceleration
at 1.0 sec. (g)
Site
Coefficients
Design Spectral
Response Parameters
Design
PGA
Fa Fv SDS SD1
D 1.282 0.518 1.0 1.5 0.855 0.518 0.50
Seismic Design Parameters (ASCE 7-16)
Site
Class
Spectral
Acceleration
at 0.2 sec. (g)
Spectral
Acceleration
at 1.0 sec. (g)
Site
Coefficients
Design Spectral
Response Parameters
Design
PGA
Fa Fv SDS SD1
D 1.335 0.477 1.0 Null 1.068 Null 0.50
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
motions by soft/loose soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a
high groundwater table. The site has a low likelihood of liquefaction. For items listed as “Null”
see Section 11.4.8 of the ASCE.
May 28, 2021 Page 4 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Conclusions and Recommendations
General
It is our opinion that the site and adjacent areas are generally stable with no evidence of recent
landslide activity. The site is within a likely old landslide feature that probably occurred following
de-glaciation and rapid de-watering of Puget Sound bluffs. This occurred approximately 8,000 to
11,000 years ago.
The proposed residence may be supported on medium dense/stiff or firmer native soils. These
soils were encountered 2.5 to 3 feet below existing site elevations.
We recommend a minimum effective building setback of at least 15 feet from the top of the steep
slope. This could be achieved by deepening foundation elements closest to the slope in order to
achieve the setback or locating the residence at least 15 feet from the top of the slope. The
effective setback is measured horizontally from the face of the closest footings to the adjacent
slope face. Pin piles could also be utilized to increase the effective foundation depth. We can
provide additional information once site plans have been created.
Due to the steep topography and soil conditions, all stormwater runoff should be collected and
routed to City infrastructure or a level spreader near the beach (with rip rap). We can provide
additional recommendations once a civil plan has been prepared.
Site Preparation
Trees, shrubs and other vegetation should be removed prior to stripping of surficial organic-rich
soil and fill. Based on observations from the site investigation program, it is anticipated that the
stripping depth will be 6 to 12 inches. Deeper excavations will be necessary in areas of existing
foundation systems and in any areas underlain by undocumented fill.
The native soils consist of silty-sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel. Poorly graded sand was
observed at depth and in the road embankment. Most of the native soils may be used as
structural fill provided they achieve compaction requirements and are within 3 percent of the
optimum moisture. Some of these soils may only be suitable for use as fill during the summer
months, as they will be above the optimum moisture levels in their current state. These soils are
variably moisture sensitive and may degrade during periods of wet weather and under equipment
traffic.
Imported structural fill should consist of a sand and gravel mixture 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 maximum lift thicknesses of 12 inches and should be compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified proctor maximum dry density, as determined by the
ASTM D 1557 test method.
Temporary Excavations
Based on our understanding of the project, we anticipate that the grading could include local cuts
on the order of approximately 10 feet or less for foundation and utility placement. Temporary
excavations should be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) in loose native soils
and fill, 1H:1V in medium dense native soils and 3/4H:1V in dense to very dense native soils. If
an excavation is subject to heavy vibration or surcharge loads, we recommend that the
May 28, 2021 Page 5 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
excavations be sloped no steeper than 2H:1V, where room permits. If groundwater is present
during excavation, lower inclinations will be necessary.
Temporary cuts should be in accordance with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Part
N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring. Temporary slopes should be visually inspected daily by a
qualified person during construction activities and the inspections should be documented in daily
reports. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the stability of the temporary cut slopes
and reducing slope erosion during construction.
Temporary cut slopes should be covered with visqueen to help reduce erosion during wet weather,
and the slopes should be closely monitored until the permanent retaining systems or slope
configurations are complete. Materials should not be stored or equipment operated within 10 feet
of the top of any temporary cut slope.
Soil conditions may not be completely known from the geotechnical investigation. In the case of
temporary cuts, the existing soil conditions may not be completely revealed until the excavation
work exposes the soil. Typically, as excavation work progresses the maximum inclination of
temporary slopes will need to be re-evaluated by the geotechnical engineer so that supplemental
recommendations can be made. Soil and groundwater conditions can be highly variable.
Scheduling for soil work will need to be adjustable, to deal with unanticipated conditions, so that
the project can proceed and required deadlines can be met.
If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, we should be
notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. If room constraints or
groundwater conditions do not permit temporary slopes to be cut to the maximum angles allowed
by the WAC, temporary shoring systems may be required. The contractor should be responsible
for developing temporary shoring systems, if needed. We recommend that Cobalt Geosciences
and the project structural engineer review temporary shoring designs prior to installation, to
verify the suitability of the proposed systems.
Foundation Design
The proposed residence may be supported on a shallow spread footing foundation system bearing
on undisturbed dense or firmer native soils or on properly compacted structural fill placed on the
suitable native soils. Any undocumented fill and/or loose native soils should be removed and
replaced with structural fill below foundation elements. Structural fill below footings should
consist of clean angular rock 5/8 to 4 inches in size. We should verify soil conditions during
foundation excavation work.
We recommend a minimum effective building setback of at least 15 feet from the top of the steep
slope. This could be achieved by deepening foundation elements closest to the slope in order to
achieve the setback. The effective setback is measured horizontally from the face of the closest
footings to the adjacent slope face. If this is not possible/feasible, the residence and garage could
be supported on perimeter footings bearing on driven pipe piles. We can provide pile
recommendations once a site plan with elevations has been prepared.
For shallow foundation support, we recommend widths of at least 16 and 24 inches, respectively,
for continuous wall and isolated column footings supporting the proposed structure. Provided
that the footings are supported as recommended above, a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000
pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design.
May 28, 2021 Page 6 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
A 1/3 increase in the above value may be used for short duration loads, such as those imposed by
wind and seismic events. Structural fill placed on bearing, native subgrade should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Footing
excavations should be inspected to verify that the foundations will bear on suitable material.
Exterior footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or
adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. Interior footings should have a minimum depth of 12
inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower.
If constructed as recommended, the total foundation settlement is not expected to exceed 1 inch.
Differential settlement, along a 25-foot exterior wall footing, or between adjoining column
footings, should be less than ½ inch. This translates to an angular distortion of 0.002. Most
settlement is expected to occur during construction, as the loads are applied. However, additional
post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. All
footing excavations should be observed by a qualified geotechnical consultant.
Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be determined using an allowable friction factor of
0.30 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrades. Lateral resistance for
footings can also be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 225 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces (neglect the upper 12
inches below grade in exterior areas). The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be
combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.
Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction.
Any extremely wet or dry materials, or any loose or disturbed materials at the bottom of the
footing excavations, should be removed prior to placing concrete. The potential for wetting or
drying of the bearing materials can be reduced by pouring concrete as soon as possible after
completing the footing excavation and evaluating the bearing surface by the geotechnical engineer
or his representative.
Concrete Retaining Walls
The following table, titled Wall Design Criteria, presents the recommended soil related design
parameters for retaining walls with a level backslope. Contact Cobalt if an alternate retaining wall
system is used. This has been included for new cast in place walls.
Wall Design Criteria
“At-rest” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure – EFD+) 55 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density)
“Active” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure – EFD+) 35 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density)
Seismic Increase for “At-rest” Conditions
(Lateral Earth Pressure)
18H* (Uniform Distribution) 1 in 2,500 year
event
Seismic Increase for “At-rest” Conditions
(Lateral Earth Pressure)
12H* (Uniform Distribution) 1 in 500 year event
Seismic Increase for “Active” Conditions
(Lateral Earth Pressure)
6H* (Uniform Distribution)
Passive Earth Pressure on Low Side of Wall Neglect upper 2 feet, then 250 pcf EFD+
May 28, 2021 Page 7 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
(Allowable, includes F.S. = 1.5)
Soil-Footing Coefficient of Sliding Friction (Allowable;
includes F.S. = 1.5)
0.30
*H is the height of the wall; Increase based on one in 500 year seismic event (10 percent probability of being exceeded in
50 years),
+EFD – Equivalent Fluid Density
The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressure generated by
water accumulation behind the retaining walls. Uniform horizontal lateral active and at-rest
pressures on the retaining walls from vertical surcharges behind the wall may be calculated using
active and at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficients of 0.3 and 0.5, respectively. A soil unit weight
of 125 pcf may be used to calculate vertical earth surcharges.
To reduce the potential for the buildup of water pressure against the walls, continuous footing
drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the bases of the walls. The footing drains should
consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed
down and enveloped by a minimum 6 inches of pea gravel in all directions.
The backfill adjacent to and extending a lateral distance behind the walls at least 2 feet should
consist of free-draining granular material. All free draining backfill should contain less than 3
percent fines (passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) based upon the fraction passing the U.S.
Standard No. 4 Sieve with at least 30 percent of the material being retained on the U.S. Standard
No. 4 Sieve. The primary purpose of the free-draining material is the reduction of hydrostatic
pressure. Some potential for the moisture to contact the back face of the wall may exist, even with
treatment, which may require that more extensive waterproofing be specified for walls, which
require interior moisture sensitive finishes.
We recommend that the backfill be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density
based on ASTM Test Method D1557. In place density tests should be performed to verify
adequate compaction. Soil compactors place transient surcharges on the backfill. Consequently,
only light hand operated equipment is recommended within 3 feet of walls so that excessive stress
is not imposed on the walls.
Stormwater Management Feasibility
The shallow soils consist of very fine grained silts with sand, cemented till-like soils, and at depth
by poorly graded sand. These soils were mottled at shallow depths and it appears likely that
groundwater will be present during the wet season within 3 feet of the ground surface.
If possible, direct connection to stormwater infrastructure is preferred; however, we did not
observe systems near the property. It may be feasible to utilize dispersion systems if the
flowpaths end at least 20 feet from the top of the steep slope. Infiltration is not recommended
near steep slope areas. If these options are not feasible, an HDPE tightline may be required to
extend downslope to a T spreader on the beach. We can provide hill holder details and rip rap
information if this option is utilized.
We can provide additional recommendations upon request and once site plans have been created.
We should be provided with final plans for review to determine if the intent of our
recommendations has been incorporated or if additional modifications are needed.
May 28, 2021 Page 8 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Slab-on-Grade
We recommend that the upper 18 inches of the native soils within slab areas be re-compacted to
at least 95 percent of the modified proctor (ASTM D1557 Test Method).
Often, a vapor barrier is considered below concrete slab areas. However, the usage of a vapor
barrier could result in curling of the concrete slab at joints. Floor covers sensitive to moisture
typically requires the usage of a vapor barrier. A materials or structural engineer should be
consulted regarding the detailing of the vapor barrier below concrete slabs. Exterior slabs
typically do not utilize vapor barriers.
The American Concrete Institutes ACI 360R-06 Design of Slabs on Grade and ACI 302.1R-04
Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction are recommended references for vapor barrier
selection and floor slab detailing.
Slabs on grade may be designed using a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 210 pounds per cubic
inch (pci) assuming the slab-on-grade base course is underlain by structural fill placed and
compacted as outlined in Section 8.1. A 4- to 6-inch-thick capillary break layer should be placed
over the prepared subgrade. This material should consist of pea gravel or 5/8 inch clean angular
rock.
A perimeter drainage system is recommended unless interior slab areas are elevated a minimum
of 12 inches above adjacent exterior grades. If installed, a perimeter drainage system should
consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated drain pipe surrounded by a minimum 6 inches of drain
rock wrapped in a non-woven geosynthetic filter fabric to reduce migration of soil particles into
the drainage system. The perimeter drainage system should discharge by gravity flow to a
suitable stormwater system.
Exterior grades surrounding buildings should be sloped at a minimum of one percent to facilitate
surface water flow away from the building and preferably with a relatively impermeable surface
cover immediately adjacent to the building.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to reduce the transportation of eroded sediment to
wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment
control measures should be implemented, and these measures should be in general accordance
with local regulations. At a minimum, the following basic recommendations should be
incorporated into the design of the erosion and sediment control features for the site:
Schedule the soil, foundation, utility, and other work requiring excavation or the disturbance
of the site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September).
However, provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMP’s), grading
activities can be completed during the wet season (generally October through April).
All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible.
Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the
possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt
fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration
systems.
May 28, 2021 Page 9 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a
sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited other filtration methods will need
to be incorporated.
Groundwater Influence on Construction
Groundwater was encountered at 6 feet below grade in TP-1. Groundwater was not present in TP-
2.
We do not anticipate that significant volumes of groundwater will be encountered in shallow
excavations during the dry season.
If groundwater is encountered, we anticipate that sump excavations and small diameter pumps
systems will adequately de-water short-term excavations, if required. Any system should be
designed by the contractor. We can provide additional recommendations upon request.
Utilities
Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards, by a contractor experienced in such
work. The contractor is responsible for the safety of open trenches. Traffic and vibration adjacent
to trench walls should be reduced; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be
avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into
open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of
precipitation.
In general, silty soils were encountered at shallow depths in the explorations at this site. These
soils have low cohesion and density and will have a tendency to cave or slough in excavations.
Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls is required within these soils in excavations greater than
4 feet deep.
All utility trench backfill should consist of imported structural fill or suitable on site soils. Utility
trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The upper 5
feet of utility trench backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent
of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Below 5 feet, utility trench
backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with the pipe
manufacturer's recommendations.
The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trenches regardless of
the backfill location and compaction requirements. Depending on the depth and location of the
proposed utilities, we anticipate the need to re-compact existing fill soils below the utility
structures and pipes. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid
damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction procedures.
CONSTRUCTION FIELD REVIEWS
Cobalt Geosciences should be retained to provide part time field review during construction in
order to verify that the soil conditions encountered are consistent with our design assumptions
and that the intent of our recommendations is being met. This will require field and engineering
review to:
Monitor and test structural fill placement and soil compaction
May 28, 2021 Page 10 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Observe bearing capacity at foundation locations
Observe slab-on-grade preparation
Monitor foundation drainage placement
Observe excavation stability
Geotechnical design services should also be anticipated during the subsequent final design phase
to support the structural design and address specific issues arising during this phase. Field and
engineering review services will also be required during the construction phase in order to
provide a Final Letter for the project.
CLOSURE
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Kevin Ferguson and his appointed consultants.
Any use of this report or the material contained herein by third parties, or for other than the
intended purpose, should first be approved in writing by Cobalt Geosciences, LLC.
The recommendations contained in this report are based on assumed continuity of soils with
those of our test holes and assumed structural loads. Cobalt Geosciences should be provided with
final architectural and civil drawings when they become available in order that we may review our
design recommendations and advise of any revisions, if necessary.
Use of this report is subject to the Statement of General Conditions provided in Appendix A. It is
the responsibility of Kevin Ferguson who is identified as “the Client” within the Statement of
General Conditions, and its agents to review the conditions and to notify Cobalt Geosciences
should any of these not be satisfied.
Sincerely,
Cobalt Geosciences, LLC
5/28/2021
Phil Haberman, PE, LG, LEG
Principal
May 28, 2021 Page 11 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Statement of General Conditions
USE OF THIS REPORT: This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the Client or its
agent and may not be used by any third party without the express written consent of Cobalt
Geosciences and the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this report is the responsibility
of such third party.
BASIS OF THE REPORT: The information, opinions, and/or recommendations made in this
report are in accordance with Cobalt Geosciences present understanding of the site specific
project as described by the Client. The applicability of these is restricted to the site conditions
encountered at the time of the investigation or study. If the proposed site specific project differs
or is modified from what is described in this report or if the site conditions are altered, this report
is no longer valid unless Cobalt Geosciences is requested by the Client to review and revise the
report to reflect the differing or modified project specifics and/or the altered site conditions.
STANDARD OF CARE: Preparation of this report, and all associated work, was carried out in
accordance with the normally accepted standard of care in the state of execution for the specific
professional service provided to the Client. No other warranty is made.
INTERPRETATION OF SITE CONDITIONS: Soil, rock, or other material descriptions, and
statements regarding their condition, made in this report are based on site conditions
encountered by Cobalt Geosciences at the time of the work and at the specific testing and/or
sampling locations. Classifications and statements of condition have been made in accordance
with normally accepted practices which are judgmental in nature; no specific description should
be considered exact, but rather reflective of the anticipated material behavior. Extrapolation of in
situ conditions can only be made to some limited extent beyond the sampling or test points. The
extent depends on variability of the soil, rock and groundwater conditions as influenced by
geological processes, construction activity, and site use.
VARYING OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS: Should any site or subsurface conditions be
encountered that are different from those described in this report or encountered at the test
locations, Cobalt Geosciences must be notified immediately to assess if the varying or unexpected
conditions are substantial and if reassessments of the report conclusions or recommendations are
required. Cobalt Geosciences will not be responsible to any party for damages incurred as a result
of failing to notify Cobalt Geosciences that differing site or sub-surface conditions are present
upon becoming aware of such conditions.
PLANNING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION: Development or design plans and
specifications should be reviewed by Cobalt Geosciences, sufficiently ahead of initiating the next
project stage (property acquisition, tender, construction, etc), to confirm that this report
completely addresses the elaborated project specifics and that the contents of this report have
been properly interpreted. Specialty quality assurance services (field observations and testing)
during construction are a necessary part of the evaluation of sub-subsurface conditions and site
preparation works. Site work relating to the recommendations included in this report should only
be carried out in the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer; Cobalt Geosciences cannot be
responsible for site work carried out without being present.
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
SITE
MAP
FIGURE 1
N
TP-1
Subject Property
Bluff and Landslide Area
Current Top of Bluff
Northern Limitof Dispersion
Trenches
Note: Flowpaths Should
Extend to South-Southwest
Section for Analysis
B-1
Proposed Residence
South Point Road
Port Ludlow, Washington
TP-1
TP-2
TP-1
TP-2
N
Cobalt Geosciences, LLC
P.O. Box 82243
Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
SITE
PLAN
FIGURE 2
Proposed Residence
South Point Road
Port Ludlow, Washington
PT
Well-graded gravels, gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
(more than 50%
retained on
No. 200 sieve)
Primarily organic matter, dark in color,
and organic odor Peat, humus, swamp soils with high organic content (ASTM D4427)HIGHLY ORGANIC
SOILS
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
(50% or more
passes the
No. 200 sieve)
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Gravels
(more than 50%
of coarse fraction
retained on No. 4
sieve)
Sands
(50% or more
of coarse fraction
passes the No. 4
sieve)
Silts and Clays(liquid limit lessthan 50)
Silts and Clays
(liquid limit 50 or
more)
Organic
Inorganic
Organic
Inorganic
Sands with
Fines(more than 12%fines)
Clean Sands
(less than 5%fines)
Gravels with
Fines
(more than 12%
fines)
Clean Gravels
(less than 5%
fines)
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Poorly graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Inorganic silts of low to medium plasticity, sandy silts, gravelly silts,
or clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silty soils,
elastic silt
Inorganic clays of medium to high plasticity, sandy fat clay,
or gravelly fat clay
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts
Moisture Content Definitions
Grain Size Definitions
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible free water, from below water table
Grain Size Definitions
Description Sieve Number and/or Size
Fines <#200 (0.08 mm)
Sand
-Fine
-Medium
-Coarse
Gravel
-Fine
-Coarse
Cobbles
Boulders
#200 to #40 (0.08 to 0.4 mm)
#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm)
#10 to #4 (2 to 5 mm)
#4 to 3/4 inch (5 to 19 mm)
3/4 to 3 inches (19 to 76 mm)
3 to 12 inches (75 to 305 mm)
>12 inches (305 mm)
Classification of Soil Constituents
MAJOR constituents compose more than 50 percent,
by weight, of the soil. Major constituents are capitalized
(i.e., SAND).
Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent of the soil
and precede the major constituents (i.e., silty SAND).
Minor constituents preceded by “slightly” compose
5 to 12 percent of the soil (i.e., slightly silty SAND).
Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of the soil(i.e., slightly silty SAND, trace gravel).
Relative Density Consistency
(Coarse Grained Soils) (Fine Grained Soils)
N, SPT, Relative
Blows/FT Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium dense
30 - 50 Dense
Over 50 Very dense
N, SPT, Relative
Blows/FT Consistency
Under 2 Very soft
2 - 4 Soft4 - 8 Medium stiff8 - 15 Stiff15 - 30 Very stiff
Over 30 Hard
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243Kenmore, WA 98028(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
Soil Classification Chart Figure C1
Test Pit
Logs
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
Test Pit TP-1
Date: May 21, 2021
Contractor: Client provided
Depth: 8’
Elevation: Logged By: PH Checked By: SC
Groundwater: 6’
Material Description
Moisture Content (%)PlasticLimit Liquid
Limit
10 20 30 400 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
DCP Equivalent N-Value
7
8
9
10
Loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel,
yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist. Partially cemented
(Drift?)
SM
End of Test Pit 8’
Topsoil/Grass
Proposed Residence
South Point Road
Port Ludlow, Washington
Medium dense, fine to medium grained sand trace gravel,
olive gray to grayish brown, moist to wet.
(Drift?)
SP
Test Pit
Logs
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
Test Pit TP-2
Date: May 21, 2021
Contractor: Client provided
Depth: 8’
Elevation: Logged By: PH Checked By: SC
Groundwater: None
Material Description
Moisture Content (%)PlasticLimit Liquid
Limit
10 20 30 400 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
DCP Equivalent N-Value
7
8
9
10
Loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel,
yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist. Partially cemented
(Drift?)
SM
End of Test Pit 8’
Topsoil/Grass
Proposed Residence
South Point Road
Port Ludlow, Washington
Medium dense, fine to medium grained sand trace gravel,
olive gray to grayish brown, moist to wet.
(Drift?)
SP