HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP2005-00086 Sand Hill Parks Improvement - SEP Determinations - 8/3/2005 °N.STAT`c MASON COUNTY
o Py A o - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
s N Planning Division
N Y Q P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360)427-9670
1864
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2005-00086
Description of Proposal:
Proponent: MASON COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT
Site Address (If Assigned): 11 NE FERN WY BELFAIR
Directions to Site:
Parcel Number: 123301460000
Legal Description: N 3/4 OF NE EX
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverser impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED.
Please contact Charles Mead McCoy III at ext. 294 with any questions.
This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2), the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14
days from the date below. Comments must be submitted to Charles Mead McCoy III, C/O Mason
County DCD, Planning Division, PO Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 8/17/2005.
Authorize Loca Government Official Date
�i� IRA
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2005-00086
CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION
1) A Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) will be created and implemented prior to development,
clearing, grading, or construction of any portion of the proposed segregation.
X
2) Storm drainage facilities are required by the County for residential development projects.
Facilities shall include, but not be restricted to vegetated swales, retention ponds and use
of artificial or natural wetlands PROVIDED no adverse impacts to the receiving wetlands
would occur and are subject to Mason County
approval.X
3) Residential developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should
be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental
impacts.X
4) Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result
of this project. X
MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Sand Hill Park Improvements
2. Name of applicant: Mason County, Washington
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Doug Micheau, Director of Parks, Utilities and Waste Management
P.O. Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
4. Date checklist prepared: July 7th, 2005
5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County Community Development
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin
construction mid-August 2005; project completion April 1st, 2006.
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal: If yes, explain. No.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Geotechnical Report
Sand Hill Park Improvements
July 6, 2005
by HWA GeoSciences, Inc.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. No.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
Building Permit
Land Modification Permit
Plumbing and Mechanical Permit
Septic Permit Application
Road Access Permit
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 1 of 14
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description.)
Mason County owns and operates Sand Hill Park in Belfair, WA, which
currently consists of six baseball/softball fields that accommodate a variety
of club users and level of play. The existing facilities have evolved over
many years through a combination of County work force improvements
and the labor and materials donated by club users. The existing fields
occupy about two-thirds of the 30 acre site and are separated by two
roadways. Only three of the six fields meet recommended minimum size
requirements for fast-pitch softball and Little League play. The Parks,
Utilities and Waste Management Department identified the need for
improvements to the facility to accommodate growing demand for active
recreation facilities. Improvements are concentrated in the southwest area
of the park in and around existing parking and athletic fields. This project
will provide the following improvements:
• An existing bituminous surface treated parking lot will be paved and
striped to accommodate 116 cars including one van accessible stall
and four accessible stalls. Wheel stops rather than curbs will be
used to continue to allow runoff to sheet off the lot in its historical
drainage patterns. A new centrally located grass median and
infiltration zone will also be planted with a row of canopy shade
trees.
• Two undersized Little League/Softball fields will be relocated to
allow for the construction of regulation size outfields.
• One new 200' outfield Little League/Softball field will be added to the
complex in a flat gravelly area just west of Sand Hill Road.
• One existing 300' baseball/softball field will be improved including
the addition of bullpens and renovation of turf and infield.
• A plaza area with a small 900 SF restroom/concession building will
be built between the backstops of three of the fields. The plaza will
have shade trees, spectator seating and a flagpole.
• Accessible walkways will connect parking to all of the activities and
crushed rock service/emergency access roads will improve
maintenance efficiency and safety.
• A second smaller lot (15 cars including one van accessible stall) will
be constructed east of Sand Hill Road in a gravel area currently used
for informal parking and access to existing baseball/softball fields.
12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street
address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would
occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s).
Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if
reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency,
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 2 of 14
you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
• Street Address: 1000 NE Sand Hill Road, Belfair, WA 98528
• Legal Address: All of the north three quarters of the NE quarter of
Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. together with all
improvements, containing 30 acres, more or less, according to the
government survey.
• See attached topographic map of existing conditions, vicinity map, and
site plan of that portion of the property being improved.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. EARTH:
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other . The portion of the site where
improvements will be made consists of two flat areas separated by a 3:1
slope and bordered on one side by a 2:1 slope.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 50%
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify
them and note any prime farmland. Sand and gravel.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity:
If so, describe. No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill. The primary earthwork will involve regrading
of an existing embankment to make room for a regulation size
baseballlsoftball field. The excess cut will be used to shape the infields and
outfields of the two relocated fields and the new field.
berrew-will -adiacent-School-Bis#ri" -e
.ee�--
Approximately 17,000 CY of earth will be excavated.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally
describe. The Geotechnical Report describes the soils to be excavated as
stable at 2:1 slopes. No sign of erosion is evident. The steepest new slope
will not exceed 2:1 and all disturbed areas not scheduled for other
improvements will be hydroseeded.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Existing on site impervious (including BST parking) 70,645 SF
Impervious to be removed (18,040 SF)
New Impervious 44,533 SF
Total Impervious after Project Completion: 97,138 SF
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any: The site soils are well drained and stable. A temporary sedimentation
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 3 of 14
and erosion control plan has been designed by a civil engineer and
contains Best Management Practices for controlling erosion and
sedimentation including silt fencing, construction access road, catch basin
protection, and seeding of all disturbed areas not scheduled for other
improvements.
2. AIR:
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities,
if known. Some dust will be generated during earthwork and grading
operations, however, the soils are low in silts and clays. A small increase
in car traffic to the site after improvements will result in a small increase in
exhaust emissions.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe. No.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The Contract Documents require the Contractor to wet down the
construction site as necessary to control dust.
3 WATER:
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available
plans. NA.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the
area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
NA.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
NA.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note
location on the site plan. No.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume
of discharge. No.
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 14
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities, if known. Well water will be used for irrigation of
athletic field turf areas and to serve the proposed
restroom/concession building. Stormwater will be collected off
the concrete plaza area and piped to an infiltration system. A
septic system will be installed for the restroom/concession
building.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example; domestic sewage,
industrial, containing the following chemicals.... agricultural, etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or
humans the system(s) are expected to serve. A septic system with drain
field will serve the proposed restroom/concession building. The
system is pressure distribution system designed 2000 gal./day. The
area of both the primary and reserve drain fields is 6048 SF for a
total of 12,096 SF.
C. Water runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method
of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? If so, describe. The
permeable nature of on site soils results in little off site runoff. The
site has been graded to create several shallow infiltration basins that
will further reduce off site runoff. Water from the proposed building
roof and plaza area is all directed to stormwater infiltration pipes.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so,
generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A septic system is proposed
for the site which has been designed through the collaboration of
licensed geotechnical and structural engineers. There is little or no
risk of groundwater contamination and no risk of surface water
contamination.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any: On site infiltration of stormwater will control storm runoff.
Permeable surface soils will be used for outfield topsoil. Historic drainage
patterns will be maintained.
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 14
4. PLANTS:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
✓ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
✓ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
✓ shrubs
✓ grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
.51 AC of medium size mixed growth forest will be removed.
.68 AC of invasive Scotch Broom brush will be removed.
Two turf outfields will be removed and replaced with three new outfields.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NA,
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The sandy gravel surface soils will be
enhanced with organics and seeded. An ongoing program to reforest steep
slopes is proposed using native Fir seedlings.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: squirrel, raccoon.
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NA.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Reforestation of
steep slopes will improve wildlife habitat over time.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES:
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for cooking in the
concession building and for maintaining minimum building temperatures
during winter months.
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 6 of 14
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties: If so, generally describe. No.
C. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. A small structure
(restroom/concession building) is proposed which could require
emergency services.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire in the
proposed building; sports related injury on the athletic fields.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if
any: The proposed concession building will meet or exceed all
Health Department requirements.
b. Noise.
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project
(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There is minor traffic
noise from NE Sand Hill Road. The park is a active recreation facility
and is not adversely impacted.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come
from the site. Construction noise will be generated by construction
equipment from 7:00 AM — 6:00 PM. A minor increase in noise
associated with baseball and softball games will be created by the
addition of one field. Fields are used on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to
8:00 PM.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
No amplified sound is proposed.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? About nine acres of
the 30 AC total park is undeveloped mixed growth woodland. The
remainder of the park consists of existing athletic fields (6), parking, brush
covered embankments and open, sparsely vegetated (grasses and brush)
flat areas. The neighbor to the north is Sand Hill Elementary School; to the
east is church property; east and west are single-family residences. The
park is unusual in that NE Sand Hill Road and Fern Way divide the park into
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 7 of 14
three unequal pieces.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The site has been
logged several times. Portions of the existing forest appear to have been
replanted at different times.
C. Describe any structures on the site. A small doublewide caretaker's residence
is located in the NE corner of the park. Two small pump houses, several
small storage buildings, backstops and fences are also present.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Two existing backstops and
related fences.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RR5.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural.
g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the
site? NA.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?
If so, specify. The site has slopes over 40% with a vertical relief exceeding
ten feet which qualifies it as a landslide hazard area. A geotechnical report
indicates stable slopes at 50%.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
This is a public recreation facility with volunteers operating a small
concession during athletic events. An existing caretaker's residence will
continue to be occupied.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.. None.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any: As a public recreation facility in a
primarily residential area it is compatible with all existing and anticipated
future uses.
9. HOUSING:
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing. No new housing will be provided. An existing
small low-income caretaker's residence will be preserved.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing. None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NA.
10. AESTHETICS:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 23' high backstops;
split face CMU building exterior.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Additional
planting and irrigation will have a positive impact on the aesthetics of the
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 8 of 14
park.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur? The parking lot has existing lights. No additional lighting or
glare producing surfaces are proposed.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views? No.
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Planting
will reduce any glare which may be created by existing parking lot lights.
12. RECREATION:
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity? Sand Hill Park is the only recreational facility in the immediate
vicinity. The adjacent Sand Hill Elementary School has playfields and a
children's play area.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe. No.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Existing recreation facilities in the form of 3 ballfields will be improved and
a fourth will be added. Three other existing fields on site will benefit from
improved parking and access.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe. No.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A concrete
monument with a brass plaque which reads: "In memory of Jarod L. Ball,
Born October 6th, 1976, Died March 1oth 1984" will be preserved and
relocated.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: The monument noted
above appears to be associated with a concrete stairway and walkway
scheduled for demolition. It will be moved to a location near a new
accessible ramp.
14. TRANSPORTATION:
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 9 of 14
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. NE Sand Hill
Road runs through the park and provides primary access. Access to the
two parking lots will be close to the two existing access points.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. Yes.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate? 131 spaces will be provided which is an increase from
existing conditions.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private). No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe. No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project:
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. One additional field will
result from these improvements. Peak use on a Saturday during baseball
season will result in 24 cars per game x 5 games/day = 120 trips/day
additional.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No
impacts are expected. Overflow parking is accommodated on the adjacent
school site.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example:
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe: A new building is proposed and one new athletic field, both of
which could generate the need for an emergency response.
Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any:
The site will remain relatively open with good views into the developed
portions of the site from the caretaker's residence and proposed parking
areas. 12' wide service/emergency drives will provide access to athletic
fields and the building.
16. UTILITIES:
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water,
refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other:
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed. The new building will be served from an
existing electrical transformer on site. Potable water will be provided by the
Sand Hill Elementary School water system. Irrigation water will come from
on site Sand Hill Park well #AXA120. A new septic system will be installed
to accommodate the new restroom/concession building.
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 10 of 14
Signature:
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date submitted: July 13, 2005
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 11 of 14
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
Applicant Information: Project Information:
Name: Doug Micheau, Name: Sand Hill Park Renovation
Mason County Parks Director Location: 1000 NE Sand Hill Road,Belfair, WA
Phone: (360)427-5270 Description: General improvements and the
addition of one ballfield and one
restroom/concession building to a 30 acre existing
recreation facility.
This worksheet was designed to help project proponents,and government agencies, identify
when a project needs further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA(Endangered Species
Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon,trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes,
"ESA Listed Salmonids"is defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or being
considered for listing.
If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the water shed where your project will
be located,your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the
ESA. The questions in this section will help determine if the ESA listings will impact your
project.
The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife(DFW)regional office can provide
information for the following two questions.
1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be
located? YES ✓ NO Please describe. The project is located within the Hood
Canal Watershed and Hood Canal is home to Chinook Salmon and Summer Chum
Salmon.
2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YES ✓
NO Uncertain Please describe. See above.
If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions,you should complete the remainder
of this checklist.
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 12 of 14
April 2003
PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and
vicinity.
1. Name of watershed: Hood Canal Watershed
2. Name of nearest waterbody: Larsen Lake
1. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: t/4 mile.
Often a buffer between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish.
4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body
(parking lots,farmland,etc.)? Single-family residential and open space.
5. Is the project above a:
* natural permanent barrier(waterfall) YES NO ✓
* natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES NO ✓
* man-made barrier(culvert, dam) YES NO ✓ * other (explain):
6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage?
YES NO Don't know
7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement&roof area)?
7.43% impervious.
FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could
interfere with migration of adult and juvenile fish.
Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration.
1. Does the project require the withdrawal of:
a. Surface water? YES NO ✓
Amount
Name of surface water body
b. Ground water? YES ✓ NO
Amount Enough to serve a small restroom and irrigation.
From where Building: System #603815; Irrigation: Well#AXA120.
Depth of well Don't know.
2. Will any water be rerouted: YES NO ✓ If yes, will this require a channel
change?
3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES ✓ NO If yes, will this be an
infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a
surface water body? Small infiltration ponds and a piped infiltration storm system.
If to a surface water discharge, please give the name of the waterbody.
2. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES NO ✓
Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat.
5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES ✓ NO Two short culverts
will be lengthened for pedestrian access and one culvert will be relocated for a new
parking access.
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 13 of 14
6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows?
YES NO ✓ If yes, describe the changes.
7. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other
partial blockage of flows?
YES NO ✓
If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project?
WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this
project could Adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause
problems for listed species.
Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces,altering water
temperature,discharging contaminants,etc.
1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this
watershed? YES NO ✓ If yes, describe.
2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody?
YES NO ✓
Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or loats often results in a change in shade.
3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading
or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges, or runoff)to the waterbody?
YES NO ✓
4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of
the project? YES NO ✓ in-water or near water work will often increase turbidity.
5. Will your project require long term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting,
and chemical sprays for vegetation management, clearing of parking lots?
YES NO ✓ If yes,please describe.
VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect
riparian vegetation, thereby, adversely impacting salmon.
1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks:
YES NO ✓ If yes,please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and
type of vegetation to be removed.
2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant?
YES ✓ NO If yes, what types of plants will you use? Some clearing is
required on site to allow for grading and construction of a regulation size ballfield.
This clearing is not expected to impact any water bodies in the watershed.
Deciduous canopy trees will be planted in an existing parking lot, disturbed areas
will be hydroseeded with grasses, and an ongoing program will be started to reforest
existing on site steep slopes using Fir seedlings.
Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 14 of 14
4 ING
GEOTECHNICAL REPO
RT
Sandhill Park Improvements - Phase 1
[ Mason County, Washington
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
Prepared for
MacLeod-Reckord
1
July 6, 2005
I p
=A,
r_
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
• Geotechnical Engineering
• Hydrogeology
• Geoenvironmental Services
• Inspection & lesting
• '� s FCIENCES INC.
s#reering•Hydrogeology •'Geoenvironmental Services •Inspection 6- Testing
a -
F Protect No. 2005-060-21
VI cLeod-Reckord
231 Summit Avenue E
Seattle, WA 98102
Attention: Mr. Edward MacLeod, P.E.
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Report
Sandhill Park Improvements—Phase I
Mason County,Washington
Dear Sir:
As authorized, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA)has completed a geotechnical engineering
investigation for the planned Phase I improvements at Sandhill Park, in Mason County,
Washington. The attached report summarizes the results of our investigation and
provides recommendations for design and construction of the new improvements.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project.
Sincerely, -
HWA GEoSCIENCEs INC.
V�\
Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Enclosure: Geotechnical Report
IN
;:e r
r`' Y
i'
K s..
n
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................. ..............................................................:1
1.1 GENERAL..................................................................................:....................1
1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING............................................................................1
�.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................1
2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION..............................
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................2
l3.0 SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................2
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION..................:......................................................................2
3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY......................................................................................3
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................... ..............................3
4.0 REcommawATIONs........................:.....................................................:..................4
41 GENERAL......................................................................................... .4
4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS......................................................................4
4.3 FOUNDATIONS..............:................................................................................5
4.4 ExcAvATIoNs........................................................:......................................6
4.5 DEWATERING
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL.........................................................................................6
4.8 SLOPE STABILITY..........................................................................................7
- 4.9 SEPTIC SYsTEM.............................................................................................7
4.10 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS...........................:..................................:............7
5.0 CONDITIONS AND Ln1TITATIONs.................................................................................8
LIST OF FIGURES(FOLLOWING TEXT
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site and Exploration Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Exploration
Figure Al. Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs
Figures A2—A6. Logs of Test Pits TP-1 through TP-5
Figures A7—A9. Logs of Handholes HH-1 through HH-3
Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results
Figures B 1 —B8. Particle Size Analysis of Soils
�1
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
SANDHILL PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT-PHASE I
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL.
This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation undertaken
by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA)in support of design efforts related to the Sandhill
Park Improvements Project(Phase I) in Kittitas,Washington.
1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
-The project involves expansion of the outfield of an existing baseball field requiring
excavation into an existing slope, construction of a concession stand/restroom structure
- and associated sewage septic system. Project location and general layout are shown on
the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site and Exploration Plan.(Figure 2),respectively.
Authorization to proceed was provided by Mr. Ed MacLeod,P.E., of MacLeod Reckord
- in a Professional Services Agreement Contract dated May 26,2005. Our original scope
of work included two machine borings, a percolation test,laboratory testing, geotechnical
engineering analyses and preparation of a report summarizing the investigation results.
and our recommendations. However, subsequent to this Agreement, information was
obtained from Mason County regarding design requirements for the septic system, which
changed the soil investigation program. The proposed borings were eliminated and five
test pits were performed instead. This draft report summarizes the results of our
explorations and provides our recommendations for the proposed improvements.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Subsurface explorations consisted of five test pits, designated TP-1 through TP-5, and
were augmented by three shallow hand holes, designated HH-1 through HH-3. The test
pits were excavated in the vicinity of the proposed locations for the septic system and
near the approximate center of the new structure, as shown in Figure 2. Three shallow
hand holes were excavated along the existing slope north of Field 5, as shown in
Figure 2. The test pits were excavated by S&T Construction, under subcontract to HWA,
using a Case backhoe, and extended to between 5.5 and 9 feet below existing ground
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
surface. The hand holes were excavated to depths of approximately 2 feet, using a
shovel, in order to assess the soil conditions of the slope.
An HWA geotechnical engineer monitored the test pit excavation and performed the hand
hole explorations. Soil samples obtained from the explorations were classified in the
field and representative portions were placed in plastic bags and returned to our
Lynnwood, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing.
Based on our field observations and laboratory test results, detailed logs of the
explorations were developed and are presented in Appendix A. A Legend of Terms and
Symbols Used on Exploration Logs is presented in Figure A-1, Appendix A. Summary
soil exploration logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-9. It should be noted that
the stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual exploration logs represent the
approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The
soil and ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific date and locations
reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface explorations were returned to
the HWA laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory tests were
conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant engineering properties of the
on-site soils. Laboratory tests, as described below, were conducted:
Moisture Content of Soil: The moisture content of selected soil samples (percent by dry
-mass) was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the
sampled intervals on test pit logs in Appendix A.
Particle Size Analysis of Soils: Selected samples were tested to determine the particle
distribution of material in accordance with ASTM D422. The results are summarized on
Figures B-1 through B-8,Appendix B, which also provides information regarding the
classification of the samples and the moisture content at the time of testing.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located along the base of an apparent cut slope (Figure 2),just northeast of
Belfair,Washington. Based on the site topography, it seems likely that the area was
quarried for the native sand and gravel and was subsequently leveled to construct the
ballfields. We understand that the improvements to Field 5 include extending the
2005069Report.doc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
outfield,requiring further excavation into the toe of the slope bordering the site on the
northwest.
3.2 GENERAL.GEOLOGY
Geological information was obtained
gl aired from the published geological map, Geologic
Conditions Related to Waste-Disposal Planning in the Southern Hood Canal Area,
Washington (Carson, Smith and Foiworthy, 1975). This map describes the near surface
deposits in the vicinity of site as sand and gravel of variable thickness (generally more
(� than 5 feet) overlying glacial till;mostly on the uplands. The map characterizes the
deposits as having generally low slopes, good surface drainage and a generally high rate
_ of infiltration. The map also indicates the mater table is generally a few feet above the till
i contact. Additionally, the map describes the surficial deposits.as good for septic-tank
systems with near-surface sand and gravel generally permeable and thick enough for
good percolation,but glacial till below retards seepage to extensive,valuable, aquifers
beneath till. The comments also indicate that excessive waste liquids can accumulate on
top of the till and seep laterally to nearby streams, lake and wells.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
- The test pits excavated north of Field 6 (TP-3 and TP-4) encountered clean sand and
gravel, as indicated in the geologic map. However, in the area between Fields 5 and 6 the
explorations encountered up to 7.5 feet of variable fill with significant quantities of
organics and wood debris. Old concrete pipe, asphalt,wire and plastic debris were also
encountered in the fill. The fill typically graded from about one foot of well-compacted
sand and gravel, over several feet of well-compacted silty gravel to gravelly silt, over
loose silty sand with organics.. The one excavation that penetrated the fill (TP-5)
encountered native medium dense gravelly sand below.
_ The three shallow hand excavations in the slope to the north of Field 5 also encountered
native clean sand and gravel.
No ground water seepage was observed in any of the explorations at the time of
excavation. However, it should be noted that the seasonal ground water level in the
vicinity may fluctuate with rainfall and other factors.
2005069RePortdoc 3 HWA GEOSCIENcEs INC
l July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GENERAL
Our geotechnical investigation shows the soil profile between Fields 5 and 6 consists of
u to approximately 7.5 feet of fill containing i p pp y g significant quantities of silt and organic
debris and will not be suitable for septic system effluent percolation or structure
+ foundation support.
The area investigated north of Field 6 consists of clean sand and gravel to depths of at
least 6 feet. No ground water seepage was observed. This area should be suitable for
septic system development. The slope north,of Field 5 also consists of clean sand gravel,
which should be suitable for fill purposes, as required.
The following are the main geotechnical issues that will need to be addressed in
designing and constructing the new concession/restroom structure:
I `
• Foundation Support: The area below and influenced by the structure should
be over-excavated to remove the fill soil and replaced with properly
compacted structural fill. The new structure should be founded on spread
footings bearing in the structural fill. The foundations should be designed for
an allowable design bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot(psf).
More detailed recommendations are provided in the following sections.
4.2 SEISNIIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
According to seismic hazard maps produced by the United States Geological Survey
(Frankel, et al., 2002), the site is an area of moderate seismicity. The peak ground
- acceleration (PGA) associated with an event having a 10 percent probability of being
exceeded in a 50-year period(i.e., a 1:475-year event) is 0.33g.
We assume the proposed structures will be designed in accordance with the 2003
International Building Code (ICC, 2002). For seismic design in accordance with
Section 1615.1 of the IBC, the Seismic Site Class is required. The Seismic Site.Class is
determined based on the average properties in the upper 100 feet. Our test explorations
extended only to a maximum depth of 9 feet below ground surface. Where subsurface
properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the Seismic Site Class, IBC
requires that Site Class D be used. Accordingly, given the available subsurface
information, we recommend Site Class D be used. For the site location, the design
maximum considered spectral response acceleration at short periods, SS, is 1.25g. The
design maximum considered spectral response acceleration at 1-second period, S,, is
2005069Reportdoc 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
0.45g. For Site Class D, the corresponding Sms and SMt values are 1.25g and 0.70g,
respectively.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein loose, saturated,granular deposits temporarily
j lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to moderate to strong earthquake shaking.
Based on the results of our field exploration program and published information,the
medium dense, sandy, gravel and cobbles supporting the foundations is considered to
have,a low to negligible liquefaction potential under design earthquake conditions.
43 FourmATiom
The excavation near the center of the proposed structure(TP-5) encountered variable fill
to approximately 7.5 feet below ground surface. Below 4 feet,the fill contained
significant quantities of organic debris, including root balls and large logs. Because of
the abundant presence of organic debris, the fill soil is not suitable to provide adequate
long-term foundation support.
In view of of the small size of the building footprint and the abundance of high quality
sand and gravel available on site from excavation into the slope north of Field 5,we
recommend that the fill beneath the footprint of the structure be excavated and replaced
with properly compacted structural fill. The structural fill should consist of native, clean,
sand and gravel soils as described in Section 4.6 of this report.
The excavation should extend through all fill soils, terminating in the native clean sand
and gravel below. We recommend a geotechnical engineer or experienced field
technician monitor the excavation to determine when suitable bearing soils are reached.
The excavation should extend beyond the structure footprint at an inclination of 1 H:1 V .
(horizontal:vertical) from the underside of the footings to the base of the excavation. The
excavation should be provided with backslopes extending back to grade to avoid an
abrupt transition between new and old fill materials. Based on the available site plans
showing a building footprint of approximately 22 feet east-west by 42 feet north-south,
and assuming an excavation depth of 8 feet and excavation sidewalls sloped to 1%2H:1 V
(per Section 4.4), the top of the excavation will be on the order of 62 feet east-west by 82
feet north-south.
We recommend that the footings be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of
1,5 00 psf, which may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading conditions contributed by .
wind or seismic events, subject to a minimum footing width of 18 inches. The exterior
footings should bear a minimum depth of 18 inches below surface grade, for frost
protection considerations, and interior footings should bear not.less than 12 inches below
finished floor level.
2005069Report.doc 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
l July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
_ We estimate that total settlement of the foundations will be less than 1-inch and will
l occur rapidly as the structure load is applied; however, this value will depend on the
l quality of structural fill placement and compaction, which should be monitored on a full-
time basis during construction.
i
4.4 EXCAVATIONS
jWe anticipate that excavations onsite can be accomplished with,conventional equipment
such as backhoes and trackhoes. The maximum depth of excavation to replace the fill
beneath the structure is anticipated to be about 8 feet. Excavation must be performed in a
manner that will not adversely impact any adjacent structures or utilities. If any existing
utility lines or structures are present, temporary support and protection must be provided
and maintained during construction.
Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the
responsibility of the Contractor. All temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet in depth
must be sloped in accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code)
296-155, or be shored. The material encountered onsite generally classifies as Type C
soil, for which WAC requires that unsupported excavation must be inclined no steeper
than 1.5H:IV.
4.5 DEWATERING
No ground water was encountered in the test pits at the time of excavation. We do not
anticipate ground water during construction, however, the Contractor should be
responsible for control of ground and surface water and provide all measures as necessary
to allow safe construction.
4.6 STRUCTURAL.FILL
For purposes of this report,material used as backfill directly under structures, pavement,
sidewalks, or used as backfill behind below grade structures such as catch basins or pipes,
is classified as structural fill. Structural fill should consist of clean, non-plastic, sand and
gravel free from organic matter or other deleterious materials. Such materials should
contain particles of less than 4 inches maximum dimension, with less than 7 % fines
(based on the 3/-inch fraction)as described in Section 9-03.14(l) Gravel Borrow of the
2004 WSDOT Standard Specifications. The native soils excavated from the slope north
of Field 5 and the soils excavated for the septic system north of Field 6 should be suitable
for reuse as structural fill. Oversized material should, however,be removed prior to use
as structural fill. Additionally,the upper approximately 1 foot of fill between Fields 5
and 6 consists of clean sand and gravel and may be reused as structural fill.
2005069Report.doc 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
Structural fill should be placed in loose,horizontal, lifts of.not more than 8 inches
thickness and compacted to at least 95 %of the maximum dry density, as determined
using test method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). At the time of placement, the
moisture content of structural fill should be at or near optimum. The procedure required
to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size and type of
compaction equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted,
and the soil moisture-density properties.
11
4.8 SLOPE STABILITY
Based on rough field measurements and the site drawings, the existing slope stands at a
maximum inclination of about 2H:1 V(25 degrees). No signs of deep-seated instability or
�? surficial sliding/sloughing were observed. Additionally,no ground water seepage was
observed from the slope.
Given that the slope is stable in its present configuration.we recommend that the future
slope be cut back to a maximum inclination of 2H:1 V and be suitably vegetated after
- grading.
4.9 SEPTIC SYSTEM
Two areas were investigated for septic system design. The first area is just north of the
new structure and was investigated by excavating test pits TP-1 and TP-2. The second
area is north of Field 6 and was investigated by excavating test pits TP-3 and TP-4.
Amanda Reynolds of Mason County inspected each test pit subsequent to excavation.
The subsurface conditions identified in the first area, north-of the proposed structure,
consist of silty gravel to gravelly silt with organics and other debris (fill). This area is
unsuitable for septic system design.
- The subsurface conditions encountered in the area investigated north of Field 6 consist of
clean sand and gravel and will be suitable for septic system design. Grain-size analyses
of the samples obtained from the test pits are presented in Appendix B.for reference
purposes.
4.10 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS
Soil erosion can be minimized by careful grading practices, the appropriate use of silt
fences and/or straw bails. Surface runoff control during construction should be the
responsibility of the Contractor. Water should not be allowed to pond immediately
adjacent to foundations or paved areas. Grading measures, slope protection, ditching,
2005069Report.doc 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
1 July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper
hcompletion of the work.
5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for MacCleod Reckord and Mason County for use in design
and construction of this project. This report should be provided in-its entirety to
prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions
and interpretations presented herein should not be construed as our warranty of the actual
F, subsurface conditions. Experience shows that soil and ground water conditions can vary
significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions may occur between
explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site
;... operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those
described herein, HWA should be notified to review the recommendations made in this
r' report, and revise, if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission
of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction or
r, other nearby operations, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the
applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions
} . and time lapse.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or
the owners' representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations are
-' brought to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into
the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the
Contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
We recommend HWA be retained to monitor construction, evaluate soil and ground
water conditions as they are exposed, and verify that subgrade preparation,backfilling,
an and compaction are accomplished in accordance with the specifications.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these
services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the
fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was
prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not
include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of
wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at
this site.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct
the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other
2005069Report.doc 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
1 : July 6,2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the
contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions
' presented herein are considered unsafe.
�1 O•O
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service, and if further assistance is
required,please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
ITH
m
Old ,gyp
EXPIRES 03118/.01
Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E. Lome Balanko,P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer
2005069RVort.aoc 9 HWA GEoSmNcEs INC
rJuly 6, 2005
r
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
r REFERENCES
Carson, Smith and Foxworthy, 1975, Geologic Conditions Related to Waste-Disposal
Planning in the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington,US Geological Survey
r' Miscellaneous Investigation Series, Map I-853-D.
Frankel, A. et.Al., 1996,National Seismic Hazard Maps:Documentation June 1996, US
Geological Survey Open File Report No. 96-532.
Frankel,A. et.Al.,2002,Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic
Hazard Maps, US Geological Survey Open File Report No. 02-420.
CWSDOT,2004,Standard Specifications for Road,Bridge and Municipal Construction,
Washington State Department of Transportation.
t :
D1
C.
L.
2005069RVort.doc 10 HWA GEoSCIENCES INC
B,g .,�53.
t"
w.
I J -PRO)EC
y
i �"
z
i
..tom '�i�y� �• �� .-...+�� $ � bi3.'
___ __ _ .max - - 5``.�-•�-`. �� :. -'`�-^.3� �k _
�F
¢ 4
€A
z
a
RE
vgz
-._ 3- '-' �- �. �:- s*•_� �.'�` c3-.;"Y' �� .:..xn _ �''�.����f � �� 'jai -"`'
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP DRAWN BY KS FIGURE NO.
����TT�� INCSAND HILL PARK CHECKED BY eH 1
11�1111 US IN IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 1 DATE PROJECT NO.
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 7.05.05 2005-069
RN M KI S 1�/1RY
'� ✓/�� f
�./
007/1
pggg
No
oo
IE ITi i
a SCALE, 11-601 ® ���1
..0
� •i oa
• HILL PARK -71
SITE AND
[+IWJA EXPLORATION
r.• «i « IMPROVEMENTS
r
r
I APPENDIX A
r FIELD EXPLORATION
L
C
RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE TEST SYMBOLS
COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS %F Percent Fines
Approximate Approximate AL Atterberg Limits: PL=Plastic Limit
Density N(blowsfft) Consistency N(blows/t) Undrained Shear ILL=Liquid Limit
Relative Density(%) Strength g (psf) CBR California Bearing Ratio
Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 CN Consolidation
Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 DID Dry Density(pcf)
Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 DS Direct Shear
Dense 30 to 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 GS Grain Size Distribution
( Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 K Permeability
Hard over 30 >4000 MD Moisture/Density Relationship(Proctor)
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MR Resilient Modulus
PID Photoionization Device Reading
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS PP Pocket Penetrometer
Approx.Compressive Strength(tsf)
Gravel and GW Well-graded GRAVEL SG Specific Gravity Coarse Gravel
Soils dean Gravel TC Triaxial Compression
Grained (little or no fines) 3777
Sods o GP Poody-graded GRAVEL TV Torvane
More than Approx.Shear Strength(tsf)
50%of Coarse w ttr o GM Silty GRAVEL- UC Unconfined Compression
Fraction Retained Fines(appreciable
on No.4Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL _ SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS
Sand and SW Well-graded SAND ® 2.0'OD Split Spoon on SPT)
Clean Sand P (
Clean
Sandy Soils little or no fines (140 lb.hammer with 30 in.drop)
More than ( ) P)
50%Retained SP Pooriy-graded SAND Shelby Tube
_ 50%or More
on No. Sand with
200 Sieve of Coarse SM Silty SAND �. 3-1/4'OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings
Fraction Passing Fines(appreciable
`^ Size amount of fines) SC Cla O
No.4 Sieve reyD Small Bag Sample
i
ML SILT
Fine Siff � Large Bag(Bulk)Sample
Grained" and Liquid Limit
Soils Clay Less than 50% CL Lean CLAY Core Run
— CL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Non-standard Penetration Test
(3.0'OD spirt spoon)
_ MH Elastic SILT
50%a More Silt
and �o'd Limit GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS
Passing fflA . dOH
Fat CLAY
No.200 Sieve
Clay 50%or More
Size Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Groundwater Level(measured at
time of drilling)
Highly Organic Soils ' PT PEAT 1 Groundwater Level(measured in well or
open hole after water level stabilized)
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS
COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS
Boulders Larger than 12 in
- Cobbles 3 in to 12 in
<5% Clean
Gravel 3 in to No 4(4.5mm)Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in 5-12% Slightly(Clayey,Silty,Sandy)
--
Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4(4.5mm)
Sand No.4(4.5 ram)to No.200(0.074 ram) 12-30% Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly
Coarse sand No.4(4.5 mm)to No.10(2.0 mm)
Medium sand No.10(2.0 mm)to No.40(0.42 mm) 30-50% Very(Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly)
Fine sand No.40(0.42 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm)
Silt and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities.
NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation.
Soil descriptions are presented In the following general order. MOISTURE CONTENT
Density/consistency,color,modifier(f any)GROUP NAME,additions to group name(if any),moisture DRY Absence of moisture,dusty,
content Proportion,gradation,and angularity of constituents,additional comments. dry to the touch.
(GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) MOIST Damp but no visible water.
Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more WET Visible free water,usually
complete description of subsurface conditions. soil is below water table.
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LEGEND OF TERMS AND
SYMBOLS USED ON
�•� A I Phase I
fMGEOSGENCES INC Mason County, Washington EXPLORATION LOGS
LEGEND 2005069.GPJ 7/6/05 PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: A-1
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction
.
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe LOCATION: See Figure 2
DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet
LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
co of
g w m y w
n. F
m o -J -J - W Z SKETCH OF East SIDE OF PIT
a a _
y HORIZONTAL DISTANCE feet
'� DESCRIPTION ai 0OU O c�a 0 3 6 ( ) w
0 g 12 15 0
GP Medium dense,light brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse S-1 3 GS 0
° GRAVEL,moist. Some cobbles.
•..................................[FILLI................. ... ... ..
SM Very dense,dark brown,silty,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse S-2 9 GS
ML '�AND,.molst..Somewhat cefnenked,.. ... . ;.... ...
Very stiff,mottled tan and light gray,fine...sandy. . SILT,moist. Wood
S-3 21 GS .. ... ... .....;....
3 SM •.An0,grganicdebri$•noted..,Pockets/lenses•gfclean sand noted., .•,
Loose to medium dense,brown and dark yellowish brown,silty,fine S-`t 16 GS 3
to medium SAND,moist. Trace fine to coarse gravel noted. Wood
......;..... .....• ...... ......•...... .................. ......;....
and roots noted. Pockets of mottled tan and red brown silt noted. "' " '
6
6
Total depth=6 feet.
No ground water seepage observed during excavation. ......% ••<••••• ......:•••,••:•••.•. ......;.... ... ... .. ..
No sloughing or caving of test pit sidewalls observed,
9
9
12
12
15
15
i Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
P TP- 1
Phase I
HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
TPIT15 2005069.GPJ 7/R/0S
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: A-2
-771
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction
LOCATION: See Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe
DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: ;I: Feet
LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
vi
o:
m
ui U) w
F
w
uJ
m LLJ
o -J -J F Z SKETCH OF East SIDE OF PIT w
a a =
w :2 :2 �L W O HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
DESCRIPTION ai ai o 0 3 6 9 12 15 0
SP Medium dense,dark yellowish brown,fine to coarse gravelly,Tine to S-1 4 GS 0
coarse SAND,moist.
[FILL] .. ;. .. ... .............. ..
....
..........
...... ............:...... .
SM Medium dense,dark brown and dark gray,fine to coarse gravelly,
.....:
5-2 17 GS
' silty,SAND,moist. •'
3 ML Asphalt_dabrfsand.0AIIsobservgd.at,28.lncheg:............
Very stiff,dark brown and dark gray,fine to coarse gravelly,sandy S-3 20 GS 3
SM
Medium dense,mottled dark brown and gray,silty,fine to coarse S-4 14 GS '""'
gravelly,SAND,moist.
Large to at 5 feet. ... ............ ...6-Total depth=5.5 feet. 6
No ground water seepage observed during excavation.
No caving/sloughing of test pit sidewalls observed. :•• ..:...... ......'.......;...... ......;....
9
9
............. ................... ...... ............ ;.:...:..
12
12
.. .. .. .. .. ...
15
115
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP- 2
HMUEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
TPIT15 2005069.GPJ 7/6/05
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069. FIGURE: A-3
EXCAVATION COMPANY. S&T Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe DATE COMPLETED:Figure
SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
vi
Lu m to
-' a
o N W z ui
SKETCH OF East SIDE OF PIT
m a s y W D
w W 2 O HORIZONTAL DISTANCE feet
o DESCRIPTION y V O 0 0 3 6 ( , 0
0 g 12 15 0
GP Medium dense,strong brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse S-1 3 GS 0
° GRAVEL,moist. Occasional cobbles to 6 Inches in size. 0
p ......�.....t...... ..
.............................................................. ...... ... .. ...
GW Medium dense/dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse 4
3 •
GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles noted to 6 Inches in size. ......
:............ • ..... ; r ; ....%....•. ......;.....%......
�, O S-2 2 GS 3
... .. .. ...
................................................. :.....:......
GP Medium dense/dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse . O S-3 2 GS ' ' "' "'
6 ° GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles noted to 6 Inches in size.
6
Total depth=6 feet
No ground water seepage observed during excavation. < .•••••i••• •i•••••• .. .. .. ...
No caving/sloughing of test pit sidewalls observed.
9
9
... .. ............ .. ... .. ... .. .. ;. ...
12
12
15 -
15
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP- 3
HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 uRE: A-4
TPIT15 2(1050a9 r;P,l 7la/DS _. _ -
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6121/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
U)
w o
J } ^ <
Lu
I- uJ �Z SKETCH OF West SIDE OF PIT
Li
w co
a M 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
o to D DESCRIPTION N Cn M 0 O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 Lu
0
0 GP Medium dense/dense,dark grayish brown,fine to coarse sandy, 0
° fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles noted to approximately 6
.....;.....;...... ...... .....;...... ......;. ...:...... .............:...... ..oO inches in size. S-1 3 GS
oQ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ...
3 �.
SP Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND, S-2 2 GS - 3
moist
6 6
Total depth=6 feet.
No ground water seepage observed during excavation. """..••'•'.••"" ••••• % •• ••• •
No caving/sloughing of test pit sidewalls observed.
9
9
12
12
15I L-15
� Sandhill Park Improvements Project
LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP- 4
HMULOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of
TPIT15 2005069 GPJ 7/6/05 PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: A-5
.
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
S W
ULu In
J 3 °e co
m e W Z a v SKETCH OF West SIDE OF PIT
aLU
co O HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
o DESCRIPTION h 2 U O 0 0 3 8 9 12 15 0
SP Medium dense,light brown,slightly silty,fine gravelly,fine to coarse S-1 3 GS 0
SM SAND,moist Some cobbles.
SM '•.......... ...........e . FII,LI S 3
S 2 8 GS
;.
[. 17 GS ;..
Dense/verystiff,strop brown,fine to coarse gravelly,very silty ;
SAND to sandy SILT,moist Cobbles noted. Wood and organics r •••%•••••• ••••• ••••. ..... ......:..... ......
noted. Lenses/pockets of stiff silt noted.
3
S-4 18 GS 3
.....;...... ......;.....;...... .
GP g Loose to medium dense,dark brown to black,sli hl sil fine to. S-5 12 GS '• ......"'""'
° coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist. Abundant roots and
0 organics noted. Large root balls and logs to several feet in size ••••••i ••• •• .. .. ...
observed.
6 °� 6
... .. .. ..
SP Medium dense,light brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse
SAND,moist ......;.....:......
0
9 9
Total depth=9 feet
No ground water seepage observed during excavation.. �...... ......% <...... ...... .....:...... ......
Some caving observed In organic layer below.4 feet
12 12.
15
15
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP- 5
HN%GEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of ,
TPIT15 2005089.GPJ 7/8/O5 PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: A-6
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoSciences SURFACE ELEVATION: t feet DATE STARTED: 6/21/2005
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Excavation DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/2005
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab Samples LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
LOCATION: See Figure 2
of
LLJ In a ¢ F H
f_ J � Z � CW
W W W ~ U - !
J
F-- Co to CL it w W Z 2
EL W
DESCRIPTION aO 0o a W
03 vi 0
0 SP Loose/medium dense,grayish brown,fine to coarse S-1 GS 0
gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,moist Cobbles noted to 6
inches in size.
1 1
2 r' 2
fTotal depth=2 feet.
L No ground water seepage observed.
� i
3 3
q 4
5 5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content(90)
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
HAND HOLE:
Sandhill Park Improvements Project HH- 1
Phase I
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: , of ,
PROJECT NO.: 20055-069 FIGURE A-7
HANDHOL 2005069.GPJ 7/6/05
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA G.Sciences SURFACE ELEVATION: i feet DATE STARTED: 6/21/2005
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Excavation DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/2005
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab Samples LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
LOCATION: See Figure 2
in Lu
W 0 w
UW Q o F--
o to
u J JO } Z N O
11 Co
U UJ
0. a. ; W � iE
o � D DESCRIPTION in ai a O a p
0 GP Loose/medium dense,dark yelbwish brown,fine to coarse S-1 Gs 0
°o sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist
°O a
0
0
_, oa
0
�a
_ o
2 2
Total depth=2 feet
No ground water seepage observed.
3 3
4 4
5
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content(%)
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
HAND HOLE:
Sandhill Park Improvements Project HH- 2
Phase I
fMOEOSCIENM INC Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of ,
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: A-8
HANDHOL 2005069.GPJ 71W5
0 � A
c DEPTH(feet) D
tjy FL
$ SYMBOL Z G)
CA
con USCS SOIL CLASS V.
,3 -01
rc D O Z
[� o. ul� fD` roFL
fD 3 Cr y
�•=h 3 �.
naN s3
� CL V.
C/) �. to o
N oa m
g 3�
y a " 4. y
0 -0 � Xt O C
�.
C u 3 S m
C E3
W — CD
n
=r (D Cr.o
o
tp a n 9 SAMPLE TYPE
0 -0 d ti SAMPLE NUMBER µ
M
CD
T PEN.RESISTANCE
2 (blows/6 inches)
m
z m OTHER TESTS
O
GROUNDWATER O D D
O
� mr�r
o
1p IF 0 �
_ 3 ...............................................:.................................................................................................. = o ..
D
g
- m = O
n ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
9. w0 ................................................................................................................................................................
m ...........................................................................................................................................................
3
D g r
Cb A w N DEPTH(feet)
� APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
l :
l
I .
1 .
L
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I
90 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
80
~ I I I I I
= I II
I I I I 1
70
W I II I
I I I I I 1 I I I I
m 60 I I I I I 1 I I I I
_Z 50 I I I I I I I I
LL"
I— 40 I I I I I
ui I I I I I I I I I
U 30 I I I I I I I I I
n- I I I 1 I I I I I I
20
I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I 1
10
I I I I I i i I
I I I I I
OL"
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol °/°S mbol and Name MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
• HH-1 S-1 0.0-2.0 (SP)Grayish Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 4 24.2 74.8 1.0
■ HH-2 S-1 0.0-2.0 (GP)Dark Yellowish Brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 3 72.0 27.0 1.0
A HH-3 S-1 0.0-2.0 (SP)Grayish Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 4 32.1 67.1 0.7
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
W%"ArOQ7 PROJECTNO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-1
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I
90
I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
80
_ •I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
70
W I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
� 60 i i i I I 1 f I I I
I I I
Z 50 I I I I I I
ILL
I I
H 40 I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I
30
20
I 1 1 I I I I I I
10
l
I I I I I I I L I
I 1 1 I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Y °/°Symbol and Name MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
0 0 °
• TP-1 S-1 0.0-1.3 (GP)Light Brown,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 3 49.5 47.2 3.3
■ TP-1 S-2 1.3-2.0 (SM)Dark Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 9 28.6 54.9 16.5
TP-1 S-3 2.0-3.0 (ML)Strong Brown,Sandy Silt 21 0.1 33.2 66.7
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE f.�-2
HWAGRSZ 2005088.GPJ 7/8/05 .�
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse I Fine-—] Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I
so
i i t I I I I I
1
I 11 I I I I I I
80
= I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
CD 70
Lu I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I f I
�} 60 I I I I I I I I
W 50
Z I I I I I
LL I I I I I I I I I I
F— 40 I I I I I I I I I 1
Z I I I I I I I I I
ItC) I I I I I I I I I I
30
W
20
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I
10
I
I I I I I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravelo Sand Fines
• TP-1 S-4 3.0-5.0 (SM)Dark Yellowish Brown,Silty Sand 18 3.7 58.8 37.5
■ TP-2 S-1 0.0-1.8 (SP)Yellowish Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 4 44.4 51.7 4.0
TP-2 S-2 2.0-3.0 (SM)Dark Olive Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 17 15.3 36.4 48.4
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington
METHOD ASTM D422
Nwnrac7 ')nntnao r_o i vialnt
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-3
GRAVEL SAND
ECoarse I Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 100 #200
,
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I
eo
I I I I I I I i
= I II I
I i i I I i I I I
70
W
> so
W 50 I I
Z I I I I I I I I I
1-- 40 I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I
C) 30UJ
I I l I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
10
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0,0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) . CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
• TP-2 S-3 3.0-4.0 (ML)Dark Brown,Sandy Silt with Gravel 20 % %
20.0 2 5
■ TP-2 S-4 4.0-5.0 (SM)Dark Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 14 32.9 40.2 26.9
TP-3 S-1 0.0-1.5 1 (GP)Strong Brown,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 1 3 1 55.5 40.7 3.8
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE SOILSNALYSIS
Phase I OF METHOD ASTM D422
HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington
uwenocv I--no i -rrc Ana
PROJECTNO.: 2005-069 FIGURP R-4
___ _
t } . .:.J —�3 717
_.1 _
J
GRAVEL SAND
ECoarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I i I I
90 I I I I 1 I I I I
i
I i t I I I I I I I
80
i I I I I 70 I I I I
�
w I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
m 60 I I I I I F I I I
Z 50LL
I I I I I I I I I
I— 40 I I I I I I I I I i
I II I
U 30
w I 11 I I I 1 I I I
20
I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I
10
I I I I
I I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0,005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
• TP-3 S-2 3.0-4.0 (GW)Gray,Well Graded Gravel with Sand 2 62.8 36.2 0.9
■ TP-3 S-3 5.0-6.0 (GP)Gray,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 2 66.7 32.5 0.8
TP-4 S-1 1.0-3.0 (GP)Dark Grayish Brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 3 54.3 42.8 2.9
Sandhili Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-Jr
- ,--i r—i i--I —, 7-7
. 77
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I t I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I I
II I i I I I I
I I I F I I I I I I
80
= II
I I I I I I 1
70
w
� so I I I I I I I 1 I
W 50 I I I I I ( I
Z I I I I I I I I I I
LL I I I I I I I I I
F- 40 I I I I I I I I I I
Z
W
U 30
W I I I I 1 I I I I I
a I I I I I I I I I I
20
I I I I 1 I I I
I i t I I I I I I
10
I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I IMT IT[
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYME30L SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL pL pl Gravel Sand Fianes
• TP-4 S-2 3.0-6.0 (SP)Gray, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 2 39.2 60.1 0.7
■ TP-5 S-1 0.0-0.5 (SP-SM)Light Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Slit and Gravel 3 24.5 69.9 5.6
TP-5 S-2 0.5-1.0 (SP-SM)Strong Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel 8 41.9 51.9 6.3
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
OF SOILS
Phase I HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-S
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
314" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-112" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
I ,
100
I I I I I I I I I
90
i I i I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
80
I I I I I I I I I
70
W I I I i I
I I 1 I I I I I
m 60 I ! I I I I I I I I c I I
Z 50 I I I I I I I
LLJIF— 40 I ! I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I
30 I I I I I I I I I
LU
W
20
1
I I I I i I I I I
I i t I I I I I I I
10
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
0— Eli
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC L.L. PL. PI Gravel Sand Fines
• TP-5 S-3 1.0-3.0 (SM)Strong Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 17 22.6 38.9 38.5
■ TP-5 S-4 3.0-4.0 (SM)Dark Olive Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 18 15.2 40.2 44.6
♦ TP-5 S-5 4.0-7.0 (GP)Very.Dark Brown,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 12 65.0 32.2 2.8
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington
METHOD ASTM D422
Hwnr.R.1;7 gnn5nao ra.i nanc
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-7
�
;.I J I r ^
—�
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
80
= t I I I r I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
70
I r l r I I I t I t
I I I I I I I I I I
m 60 I I I
W 50 I I
Z I I I I I
ILL I I I I I I I I I I
F- 40 I I I I I I I I I
Z I I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I 1 I I I
U 30
a I I I I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I I I I I
10
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol mbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
o o a
• TP-5 S-6 8.0-9.0 (SP)Light Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 8 24.5 71.2 4.3
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-8
30'-0" 10'-0"
I WOMEN'S CHASE MEN'S
00� \ I 002 003 CONCESSION
004
o '
o
i I
O
1�
Q
L _ J
SAND HILL PARK RESTROOM/CONCESSION BUILDING