Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FPA2021-00011 - FPA Reports - 4/26/2021 (2)
Geotechnical Report Logging Tru North Investments LLC XXX E State Route 106, Belfair Parcel No. 22212-52-06001, 22212-53-12005, 22212-53-07012, & 22212-52-01037 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 Project #21111 Prepared For: Tru North Investments LLC 10441 Case Road SW Olympia, WA 98382 Prepared By: Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Phone: 360-275-9374 MASON COUNTY Submittal Checklist COMMUNITY SERVICES IIwIAu,7 l'rnnnn,q I AvIrraurirnIAIl irnilh f ommimi1J II, Milt Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s) who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item is found not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Note: Unless specifically documented, this report does not provide compliance to the International Residential Code Sections R403.1.7 for foundations on or adjacent to slopes, Section R403.1.8 for expansive soils or section 1808.7.1 of the International Building Code Section for Foundations on or adjacent to slopes. Applicant/Owner Tru North Investments LLC Parcel # 22212-52-06001 et al. Site Address XXX E State Route 106 (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 5 (b) A discussion of specific soil types, Located on page(s) 6 (c) A discussion of ground water conditions, Located on page(s) 7 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology, Located on page(s) 3 (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, Located on page(s) 3 A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on page(s) 8 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Site Plan — Appendix A Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Site Plan and Soil Loos (Appendix B) (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Site Plan A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Soil Profile (Appendix B) (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1, and the quasi -static analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) 10 Page 1 of 35 (3) (5) (f) (7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, Located on page(s) 19 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields, Located on page(s) 20 (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings, Located on page(s) 17 (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) 19 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) 18 (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) 17 Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. (9) Located on page(s) 12 (10) An analysis of both on -site and off -site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 13 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 19 - 20 (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) 20 (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s) Site Plan I, Michael Staten, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Report, dated April 26, 2021 and entitled Logging for Tru North Investments LLC, meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Geologically Hazardous Areas Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. Page 2 of 2 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION AND SCOPE OF WORK 1 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 3 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY 3 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology 3 2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE 3 2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies 3 2.4 SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS 4 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 5 3.1 FIELD METHODS, SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING 5 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5 3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 9 3.3.1 Groundwater 10 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS 11 4.1 SLOPE STABILITY 11 4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis 12 4.2 EROSION 13 4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION 13 4.3.1 Liquefaction 13 4.4 LANDSLIDE, EROSION AND SEISMIC HAZARDS CONCLUSIONS 14 4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 14 4.6 ON -SITE AND OFF -SITE IMPACTS 14 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 15 5.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 15 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 15 5.2.1 Excavation 15 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill 15 5.3 BUILDING AND FOOTING SETBACKS 15 5.4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 15 5.5 VEGETATION BUFFER AND CONSIDERATIONS 16 5.6 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL 16 5.7 SEPTIC DRAINFIELDS 16 5.8 STRUCTURAL MITIGATION 16 5.9 TIMBER HARVESTING RECOMMENDATIONS 16 6.0 CLOSURE 18 Appendix A - Site Plan Appendix B - Soil Information Appendix C - Slope Stability 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for planned tree harvesting for several properties located along E State Route 106, bounded by corner parcel numbers 22212-52-06001, 22212-53-12005, 22212-53-07012, and 22212-52-01037 in Mason County, Washington. See the vicinity map on the following page for a general depiction of the site location. An initial geotechnical evaluation of the project was conducted by Envirotech on December 15, 2020. It was determined that slopes in excess of 40% with a vertical relief of at least 10 feet were present within 300 feet of the planned site alteration. Based on this site characteristic, the proposed development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO) 17.01.100. During the site visit by Envirotech, surface and subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable project research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report which, at a minimum, conforms to the applicable MCRO. As presented herein, this report includes information pertaining to the project in this Introduction Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section; field methods and soil descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; supporting documentation with relation to slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and lateral earth pressures in the Engineering Analyses and Conclusions Section; and, recommendations for foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, retaining walls, erosion control, drainage, and vegetation in the Engineering Recommendations Section. 1.1 Project Information Information pertaining to the planned project of the project was provided by the proponent of the property. The planned site modification includes harvesting several acres of land, and constructing drainage mitigation. Approximate site conditions are illustrated on the Site Map provided in Appendix A of this report. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope of Work The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to assess geological hazards, and evaluate the project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations that should be implemented during development. The investigation included characterizing the general project surface and subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site activities. In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program completed for the proposed improvements of the project include: • Review project information provided by the project owner and/ or owner's representative; • Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements of the project; • Define general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils within test pits Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 1 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 and/ or cut banks, review geological maps for the general area, research published references concerning slope stability, and review water well reports from existing wells near the project; • Collect bulk samples, as applicable, at various depths and locations; • Perform soils testing to determine selected index and/or engineering properties of the site soils; • Complete an engineering analysis supported by the planned site alterations, and the surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation, soil testing, and applicable project research; and, • Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for foundations, drainage, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements, and other considerations. Vicinity Map from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 2 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the project was gathered on December 15, 2020 by a representative with Envirotech. During the site visit, the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed, site features were documented that may influence construction, and site features were examined that may be influenced by construction. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and observed slope/ erosion conditions for the project and surrounding areas that may impact the project. 2.1 General Observations Currently, the property is vacant. Vegetation on and near the project consists primarily of secondary growth firs, maples, and other trees and shrubbery common to this area of the Pacific Northwest. An aerial photo of the project and immediate vicinity is provided on the following page. 2.2 Topography The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from a public lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements. Where necessary, slope verification included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site Plan in Appendix A in this report for an illustration of general topography with respect to the planned development. Critical descending slopes, with grades exceeding 40% appear to be within 300 feet of the planned development. The maximum critical slope is approximately 66% with a vertical relief of about 80 feet. Ascending grades are generally located to the south of the planned development. These slopes are relatively minor within 300 feet of the project, with no apparent slope grades of at least 15%. 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology The upland area of the property and beyond is generally situated on a hillside of glacial origin. 2.3 Surface Drainage Runoff originating upslope of the development is mostly diverted into ravines in which one ravine traverses the middle third of the project. Excessive scour and erosion were noted within and near the stream convergence. 2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies There are apparent water bodies and wetlands located upslope from the planned site alterations that would significantly influence the project. Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 3 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations The slope gradients near the project signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Some indicators that may suggest past slope movements include: • Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope, • Fissures, tension cracks, hummocky ground or stepped land masses on the face or top of the slope, and parallel to the slope, • Fine, saturated subsurface soils, • Old landslide debris, • Significant bowing or leaning trees, or, • Slope sloughing or calving. Shallow landslides have been observed and mapped within the side walls of the ravine running through the property. Aerial Photo from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 4 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the project was primarily gathered on December 15, 2020 by a representative with Envirotech. Applicable information on field methods, sampling, field testing, general geologic conditions, specific subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. Appendix B of this report includes pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the project, such as subsoil cross- section(s), test pit log(s), and applicable water well report(s). Water well reports were utilized to estimate ground water levels, and if sufficient, were used in identifying subsoil types. Applicable test pit locations are depicted on the Site Plan provided in the appendix of this report. 3.1 Field Methods, Sampling and Field Testing Information on subsurface conditions for the project was accomplished by examining soils within test pits and/ or nearby banks extending to depths of up to 5 feet below the natural ground surface. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing geological maps representing the general vicinity of the project, and water well reports originating from nearby properties. Soil samples were not obtained from this project. Envirotech measured the relative density of the near -surface in -situ soils by gauging the resistance of hand tools. Within testing locations, field testing results generally indicated loose to medium dense soils in the upper 48 inches, and very dense soils from 48 inches to the depth of terminus. 3.2 General Geologic Conditions In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster, 2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qg. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated deposits, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation." as revealed in the Geologic Map. Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers. During the Quaternary period, the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets, with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits. The "Interactive Geologic Map, 1:100,000 Quadrangle," as depicted by the Department of Natural Resources provides the following caption(s) for the project area: Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 5 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 Geologic Unit Symbol : Qp Geologic Unit Age : Holocene Geologic Unit Name : Peat Unit Description : Organic -matter -rich sediments deposited in dosed depressions; in addition to peat; may contain silt and clay; commonly clogged with aquatic plants, abundant tree snags, stumps, and other woody debris in and adjacent to shallow or seasonal sloughs and ponds. Age-Lithology : Quaternary bog, marsh, swamp, or lake deposits Geologic Unit Symbol : Qa Geologic Unit Age : Holocene Geologic Unit Name : Alluvium Unit Description : Silt, sand, and gravel deposited by streams: may include some lacustrine deposits and organic materials, such as peat. Age-Lithology : Quaternary alluvium Geologic Unit Symbol : Qis Geologic Unit Age : Holocene and Pleistocene Geologic Unit Name : Landslide deposits Unit Description : Generally loose, jumbled, tan to gray, silly sandy gravel with few to no discernible sedimentary structures; surfaces of landslides are generally undulatory; some occur as large deep-seated slides and others as shallow surface failures or block falls. Almost all occur in Vashon advance outwash (unit Qga) and pre-Vashon sediments, undifferentiated (unit Qpu). Age-Lithology : Quaternary mass -wasting deposits Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 6 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 Geologic Unit Symbol : Qgic Geologic Unit Age : Pleistocene Geologic Unit Name : Vashon Stade glacial ice -contact deposits Unit Description : Sand, gravel, lodgment till, and flow till; minor silt and clay beds; tan to gray; variably sorted; loose to compact; massive to well stratified; locally includes over -steepened beds that typically reflect sub -ice flow, but their dip may, along with small-scale shears, also have developed as collapse features or due to glaciotectonic and tectonic deformation; formed in the presence of meltwater alongside ice, generally toward the end of the glaciation, and is thus commonly accompanied by stagnant -ice features, such as kettles and Tess -orderly hummocky topography, eskers (also separately mapped as subunit Qge), and subglacial or subaerial outwash channels. Deposits and morphologies that support conceptual association with both ice and meltwater are common in the map area and suggest that where unit Qgic is mapped in the presence of fluted topography, it is commonly only a few feet thick and locally could have been mapped as undifferentiated drift (unit Qgd). Elsewhere, the unit may be over 100 ft thick. Unit Qgic also includes poorly consolidated till commonly accompanied by underlying, angular sand and noted as "sub -glacially reworked till" by Laprade (2003) (see Geologic Setting), especially in fluted areas that lack dead -ice features. See unit Qgo and Fig. 4 for discussion of similarities between units Qgic and Qgo (and its subunits Qgos, Qgof, and Qgol). A discrepancy between this map and the Vaughn quadrangle to the south resulted where Logan and Walsh (2007) mapped undifferentiated Quaternary deposits (unit Qu) because they lacked field exposures and geomorphic signs of the dead -ice deposits that are apparent north of the boundary. Dead -ice topography north of the boundary also reveals a sandy deposit mapped as unit Qgos by Logan and Walsh (2007) to be a facies within unit Qgic. Age-Lithology : Pleistocene continental glacial drift Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 7 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 Geologic Unit Symbol : Qgt Geologic Unit Age : Pleistocene Unit Description : Unsorted, unstratified (but locally banded) mix of clay, silt, sand, and gravel; typically supported by a sandy matrix; mostly gray but locally ranging to tan, light brown, or orange; typically unweathered; lodgment till compact, with well -developed facies resembling concrete, but near the surface commonly hackly and (or) looser and covered by 1 to 6 ft of loose ablation till; deposited directly by glacial ice and commonly includes clasts or clumps plucked from underlying units. Clasts are commonly striated and faceted, with angular or rounded edges. Boulders are generally sparse within the till but large (erratic) boulders of plutonic or metamorphic rock are common on till surfaces. Some exposures include interbands and lenses of sand and gravel, locally with shears and joints. Till forms a locally patchy and seemingly randomly distributed cover up to a several tens of feet thick, with a thickness of 5 to 20 ft most common. It typically dominates, but is also locally discontinuous on, fluted surfaces, with individual drumlins measuring 0.1 to 0.3 mi wide by 0.8 to 1.3 mi long and the long axis aligned with the direction of ice flow. Till typically is in sharp, unconformable contact with underlying units, most commonly advance outwash (unit Qga and subunit). Unit Qgt lies stratigraphically below unit Qgo. It may include unrecognized exposures of older till. A map boundary mismatch between unit Qgt on this map and unit Qgos on the Vaughn quadrangle to the south (Logan and Walsh, 2007) may have resulted from a map -production error in the northwest corner of the Vaughn map (Josh Logan, Wash. Divn. of Geology and Earth Resources, oral commun., 2009). Age-Lithology : Pleistocene continental glacial till Geologic Unit Symbol : Qpu Geologic Unit Age : Pleistocene Geologic Unit Name : Undifferentiated sediment older than Vashon Stade till Unit Description : Gravel, sand, fines, and diamicton older than Vashon till; compact; may include any pre-Vashon unit and units Qga and Qgas where those could not be differentiated from pre-Vashon outwash. A map boundary mismatch with the Vaughn quadrangle to the south resulted where Logan and Walsh (2007) included narrow exposures of pre-Vashon deposits along steep valley walls with Vashon till (unit Qgt). Age-Lithology : Pleistocene glacial and nonglacial deposits Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 8 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 A I0.6km 0.4 mi 24k Surface Geology Geologic Units 24K Quaternary bog, marsh, swamp, or lake deposits Quaternary alluvium Quaternary mass -wasting deposits Pleistocene continental glacial drift Pleistocene continental glacial till Pleistocene glacial and nonglacial deposits Geological Map Department of Natural Resources Washington State 3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the project subgrade utilizing information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and investigated locations. Soils for this project were primarily described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) descriptions. The project is currently composed of native soils without indications of fill. Within test pit locations, soils within the upper 5 feet of natural ground were generally observed to be moist, brown silty sand with gravel (SM). Soils below the upper 5 feet layer were observed to be mostly grey, low moisture, silty sand with gravel (SM), locally known as hardpan. The hardpan may extend to depths greater than 50 feet. This is based on nearby well reports, site geology, and/ or knowledge of the general area. The relative densities of the soil within selected test pits are provided above in Section 3.1. Expanded and specific subsurface descriptions, other than what is provided in this section, are provided in the soil logs located in Appendix B of this report. Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 9 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 According to the "Soil Survey of Mason County," by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the site soils are described as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, Ab and Ac, with 8% - 30% slopes, and Bellingham silt loam, Bd, with 8% - 30% slopes. The soil designations are depicted in the aerial photograph below, and descriptions are provided in Appendix B of this report. Soil Survey From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 3.3.1 Groundwater From the water well report(s) and knowledge of the general area, permanent groundwater is at least 100 feet directly below the property at the building pad location. Surface seepage or perched groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on -site, nor indicated on the well reports. Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 10 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS The following section includes slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and impacts to both on -site and off -site properties. 4.1 Slope Stability Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. Geotechnical engineering cannot eliminate these risks for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly inducing strain on the sloping soil mass. Excessive wet weather and/ or earthquakes will exacerbate these strains. Geotechnical engineering considers excessive wet weather and `design' earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping terrain with relation to current engineering protocol. These factors of safeties are based on engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil, topography, water conditions, seismic acceleration and surcharges. Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep-seated structural capability of the slope. However, repeated surficial slope movements, if not repaired, may present a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. If any slope movement arises, the slope should be inspected by an engineer. Subsequently, maintenance may be required in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated slope movements that may be damaging to life and property. According to the Coastal Zone Atlas of Mason County, Washington, the project is within and near terrain labeled `Stable', `Intermediate', and `Unstable' regarding potential landslide activity. Descriptions of these mapping units may be found in the aforesaid Atlas. A Stability Map from the Coastal Zone Atlas for the general area of this project is provided below: 4111001.4r tj Ij Geologic Hazard Layers Slope Stability- DOE Coastal Zone Atlas II Unstable -recent slide I Unstable•old slide Unstable slope [_ i Stable slope III Modified Intermediate slope . Interior Map from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 11 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the project is not within terrain labeled `highly unstable' relating to soils. DNR labeled portions of this project as medium and high slope instability with relation to slopes. A Resource Map from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System is provided below: Soils - Hydric Soils soils - Highly Unstable Soils Soils - Highly Erodible Soils Westside Slope Stability Model (FP) Moderate Slope Instability OAmi � ,712 11` -{ 1 ® High Slope Instability Resource Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website 4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing `STABLE' software, was used to analyze the static stability of the site slopes. Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case scenario values from the static analysis, a quasi -static analysis coefficient of at least 0.15, and applying the applicable values to STABLE software. Various radii and center points of the circle were automatically selected, and produced factor of safeties in a graphical and tabular format. Worst case scenario values were used in the slope stability analysis in regard to topography, surcharges, water content, internal friction and cohesion of the site soils. STABLE software has been repeatedly checked with manual calculations, and consistently proved to be a very conservative program. The following soil properties were used in the analysis, and are based on observed conditions, known geology, and/or published parameters: Upper 5 feet soil depth Soil unit weight: Angle of internal friction: Cohesion: 132 pcf 30 degrees 200 psf Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 12 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 Soils below 5 feet in depth Soil unit weight: Angle of internal friction: Cohesion: 140 pcf 40 degrees 400 psf Based on the slope stability analysis, unacceptable factors of safety could be present on and near the critical slope, but do not reflect conditions where development is expected to occur. For this project, at the location of the proposed development, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic conditions were estimated to be at least 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. See the slope stability information in Appendix C for a depiction of minimum factors of safety away from the project. 4.2 Erosion Based on the USCS description of the project soils, the surface soils are considered moderately erodible. According to the Resource Map from the Washington State DNR, as provided above, the project is not within terrain labeled `highly erodible.' This project is within an erosion hazard area as defined by the MCRO. Erosion hazard areas are those with USDA SCS designations of River Wash (Ra), Coastal Beaches (Cg), Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Ac and Ad), Cloquallum Silt Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Cd), Harstine Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Hb), and Kitsap Silt Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Kc). The Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Section (Section 5.6) of this report consist of specific erosion controls to be implemented. Additional erosion control information and specifications may be found in the latest addition of the "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 4.3 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction There are no known faults beneath this project. The nearest Class 'A' or Class 'B' fault to this property is the Tacoma Fault Zone, which is approximately 0.1 miles to the north of this project. This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Potential landslides due to seismic hazards have been considered, and are addressed in the Slope Stability Analysis Section provided earlier in this report. 4.3.1 Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction is believed to be low for this project. This is based, in part, on the subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems caused from liquefaction include submerged, confined, poorly -graded granular soils (i.e. gravel, sand, silt). Although gravel- and silt -sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoil for this project. Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 13 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 4.4 Landslide, Erosion and Seismic Hazards Conclusions DNR indicated historic landslide activity near the project. Mapped slope conditions, as delineated by the Departments of Ecology and/ or Natural Resources, were considered in our slope stability assessment. Based on the proximity and severity of mapped delineations with respect to the proposed development, results of the aforesaid slope stability analysis, observed surface conditions, and other pertinent information, it is our opinion that the proposed land modification may occur in accordance with the recommendations in this geotechnical report. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining walls are not expected to be utilized for this project. 4.6 On -Site and Off -Site Impacts From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the subject property and adjacent properties to the proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all recommendations in this report are followed. This opinion is based on the expected site development, existing topography, existing nearby development, land cover, and adhering to the recommendations presented in this report. Future development or land disturbing activities on neighboring properties or properties beyond adjacent parcels that are upslope and/or downslope from the subject property could cause problems to the subject property. For this reason, future development or land disturbance near the subject property should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 14 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present engineering recommendations for the proposed project. These recommendations have been made available based on the planned modifications as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations including drainage and topography as recapitulated in the Surface Conditions Section; soil/ geologic conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in the Subsurface Investigation Section; and, project research, analyses and conclusions as determined in the Engineering Analysis and Conclusions Section. Recommendations for the project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for building foundations, earthwork construction, building and/ or footing setbacks, drainage, vegetation considerations, and erosion control. 5.1 Building Foundation Reconunendations Buildings are not anticipated at this time on any of the properties. Future land development will require additional geotechnical studies. 5.2 Earthwork Construction Recommendations Earthwork may be needed for logging roads and landings. The following recommendations include parameters for earth cuts and fills. 5.2.1 Excavation Excavation may be required for road cuts, and it is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious material, if present, near the ground surface. Permanent excavations should be limited to a slope of 2:1. 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath road foundations, the fill should be compacted to a firm, unyielding condition. Fill heights should be limited to 4 feet, and fill slopes should be not steeper than 2:1. Temporary earth cuts and temporary fill slopes exceeding 4 feet in height should be limited to a slope of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Utility trenches or other confined excavations exceeding 4 feet should conform to OSHA safety regulations. 5.3 Building and Footing Setbacks Since permanent structures are not an element of this project, setbacks for buildings or other structures do not apply. 5.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Sormwater management plans are required to be engineered for this project, and will be prepared by Envirotech under a different cover. For this project, we recommend that infiltration is avoided Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 15 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 within the buffers in order to maintain slope stability, and sheet flow or dispersion is acceptable within buffers. 5.5 Vegetation Buffer and Considerations For this project, we believe that a detailed clearing and grading plan is warranted, and is provided under a separate cover. Vegetation Buffer — Vegetation shall not be removed from the face of the critical slope (40% or greater) or within a distance of 50 feet beyond the top of the slope. However, any tree deemed hazardous to life or property shall be removed. If tree removal is necessary, then stumps and roots shall remain in place, and the underbrush and soil shall remain undisturbed as much as possible. Any disturbed soil shall be graded and re -compacted in order to restore the terrain similar to preexisting conditions and drainage patterns. See the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report for a depiction of the vegetation buffer. 5.6 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls. Although other controls may be used, if adequate, silt fencing is presented in this report as the first choice for temporary erosion control. Any erosion control should be located down -slope and beyond the limits of construction and clearing of vegetation where surface water is expected to flow. If the loss of sediments appears to be greater than expected, or erosion control measures are not functioning as needed, additional measures must be implemented immediately. Permanent erosion control is necessary if substantial vegetation has not been established within disturbed areas upon completion of the project. Temporary erosion control should remain in place until permanent erosion control has been established. Permanent erosion control may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching, seeding or an equivalent measure. Additional erosion control measures that should be performed include routine maintenance and replacement, when necessary, of permanent erosion control, vegetation, drainage structures and/or features. 5.7 Septic Drainfields Septic drainfields will not be constructed at this time, and therefore not an element of this project. 5.8 Structural Mitigation With respect to landslide alleviation or slope improvements, structural mitigation is not necessary for this project. This determination is based on the anticipated improvements of the project, engineering conclusions, and compliance with all recommendations provided in this report. 5.9 Timber Harvesting Recommendations It is understood that timber harvesting shall be completed prior to any other site development activities will not be completed at this time. The Site Plan in Appendix A indicates a 50-foot Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 16 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 vegetation buffer from the critical sloe exceeding 40%. Vegetation should remain on the slope and within this buffer. Envirotech also recommends drainage accommodations due to the planned logging and is provided under a separate cover. Conventional equipment such as skidders and crawlers may be used for this project. Logs should be elevated on one end when dragging across the site, although dragging should be minimized as much as possible. Recommendations in this report are provided as a cost efficient way to alleviate erosion problems that may arise from this disturbance. Permanent erosion control is required for all denuded areas per Section 5.6 of this report. Young trees that are planted or existing should be monitored and protected from competing vegetation. Permanent erosion control, drainage facilities and slopes shall be immediately maintained, if necessary. Some conditions that may need immediate attention includes excessive erosion, scour, sloughing, significant changes to drainage patterns, new springs, new seepages or isolated areas of ground saturation. Maintenance may include curtain drains, swales, other drainage facilities, or slope remediation such as reinforcement, retaining structures or surface protection. Envirotech should be notified if unforeseen conditions arise. Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 17 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 6.0 CLOSURE Based on the project information provided by the owner, the proposed development, and site conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's opinion that additional geotechnical studies are not required to further evaluate this project. Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during construction are different than those described in this report. It is not recommended that a qualified engineer performs a site inspection during earthwork construction unless fill soils will influence the impending foundation. However, if native, undisturbed subsurface conditions found on -site are not as presented in this report, then a geotechnical engineer should be consulted. This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner, or owners' representative, and location of project described herein. This report should not be used to dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility. Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid in conjunction with the compliance of all recommendations provided in this report. Semantics throughout this report such as `shall,' `should' and `recommended' imply that the correlating design and/or specifications must be adhered to in order to potentially protect life and/ or property. Semantics such as `suggested' or `optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed, but is provided for optimal performance. The recommendations provided in this report are valid for the proposed development at the issuance date of this report. Changes to the site other than the expected development, changes to neighboring properties, changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the long-term conclusions and recommendations of this report. The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate education and experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards, earthquake hazards, and general soil mechanics. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering Jessica Smith, M.S. Michael Staten, P.E. Staff Geologist Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Ph. 360-275-9374 page 18 Geotechnical Report Parcel 22212-52-06001 et al. Mason County, Washington April 26, 2021 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN 0 0 Z X r UQ, ao - a FW Z W O N U W a Zo 0w U De 02- w ,\ j( \ p \ \ } w w v co 0R� 082 092 46, 022 002 \ 0 0 0 N N N Cu J a U > f U ao o0- 1- 0 W o WL. _J Fi a 0 La 41 L.4a L.o w 0 W 1:a 0 W 0 fZ 0 41 0_X QW APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION EXISTING STREAM SECTION A -A PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIONt SOIL PROFILE Map Unit Description: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes --Mason County, Washington Mason County, Washington Ac—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t627 Elevation: 0 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 160 to 240 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions. and transects of the mapunit. Description of Alderwood Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, nose slope, taif Down -slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Convex Parent material: Glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw1 - 7 to 21 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bw2 - 21 to 30 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bg - 30 to 35 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cd1 - 35 to 43 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cd2 - 43 to 59 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Moderately wet drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/10/2018 "il Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes --Mason County, Washington Forage suitability group: Limited Depth Soils (G002XS301 WA), Limited Depth Soils (G002XF303WA), Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Everett Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Kames, eskers, moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: No Indianola Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Eskers, kames, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Shalcar Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Norma Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions, drainageways Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down -slope shape: Concave, linear Across -slope shape: Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 10. 2018 USDA Natural Resources Web Sol Survey 12/10/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description: Bellingham silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes —Mason County, Washington Mason County, Washington Bd—Bellingham silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hjj Elevation: 0 to 490 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Bellingham and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Bellingham Setting Landform: Depressions Parent material Alluvium, lacustrine deposits and loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Very high (about 12.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: CID Forage suitability group: Wet Soils (G002XN 102WA) Other vegetative classification: Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 16, Jun 4, 2020 LSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4r252021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1 D paaVelar) al IiteiFY' 'UM Inet-3Xausit dti)9 WA f W RP' T'' ks(ton ouns Hal STATO (9!r WAR1)d ill 'w' w:ur Right Pormll No (1) OWNER: Nome Han1L0'Sllllivan Addroee t••Cedar_40 Ba1 fat r WA 98598 (2) LOC1 • coentr Mason __L+ [ soy 12 T 22 N n 1W w.M. (2a BEET ADDDRESS o ' OF V n ore oddresa).�,CO c. CD IVK 8 eal5i•r 2_l,(Y4 djg2•� (3) PROPOSED U romoslic ❑ Irrigotion Industrial 0 Municipal 0 0 DeWsler Test Well 0 Other 0 (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION Formation. Describe by color, character, site of malarial end elruclure. And ahow thickness o1 aqulfara end Iho kind end nolore of Iha malarial Inn oh stridem penetrated, with at lout one onlry for each cheeps of information. (4) TYPE OF WORK: Owner'onumber of wall (il more than ono) Abandoned ❑ Newwoll I 1 Method: Dug 0 Borod 0 Dooponod 0 Cable:0 Driven ❑ Reconditioned ❑ Rotary ❑ Jelled ❑ MATEetAL room TO Brown conglomorate 0 I 10 (5) DIMENSIONS: Diemelor at well 6 inches Drilled 38 foot. Depth ol completed well 38 N Sand 8Lwater 10 I 38 (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: Casing Installed: 6 • • 01.m.Irani 0 ft to 28 n Welded ® ' Diem. from n. In 1t Liner Metalled Cl Thrnndod ❑ • Diem. from fr. to n Porloratione: Vaa❑ No ❑v Typo of perforator used SIZE of perlorellona in by In - perlomtione from tt to (1 perforation, from 11 to ft from ft to ft I ',perforations Screens: Yes L�l NoCi Manufacturer's Nemo_lohnsOn Typo CYAiT11PRR Model No I qq.t 10 from 28 n to 38 It Diem .?_Slot she Diem. Slot also from 11 to r. �1 Gravel packed: YoeLI Nob Sine of cravat Gravel placed from ft to h. If•N::Tf El To whet depth? 18 Surface seal: Yon(No . Material In RpYnni tP ueod sent Did any strata contain unusable water? Yes❑ No© Type o1 water? Doplh of abate Method of aonann strata on (7) PUMP: Monulacturor'e Nemo Grl)ndfD Typo. alb. H P 2 (8) WATER LEVELS: Land•oudacoelpvnllon above mean sell loyal It Static hovel_7II bolo+ top of woll Dero Artesian prmauro Iba. por square Inch Dale Anoelon walor is controlled by (Cep. valve. well !Ol WFLL TFCTC• n.,.,,.,1..W., �. ......._.__._.,_.._„_•___._ __. (Qlk slaved 91_,19. Completed 1111Y 19_9] Woe a pump loos mode? Veep NOU if yea. by whom? Weld: pal rmin with (1 drawdawn alter Ars 60. Racovory dein (limo token as aoro when pump turned el) (wafer level measured Item well top to wamr love') (Imo Water Level Tim Mlle, Level "(Imo water Levo) Oslo or teat Snider lost 4 pat /min with .2 It. dmwdoym alter hrs. Airlssl nal tmin wont atom eat at _.. 11.10( hra artoaienliow v p m Onto r- Temporataroolwnter_ Wes n chemical analysts mndo7 YOSLJ N0E1 'c:Y01a.).1a (10+A1) •1310. ..flea WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION: I constructed and/or accept responsibility for construction of this well. and its compliance with all Weshinglon well construction standards. Materials used and the inlormatlon reported above pro True to my best knowledge and belief. NAME Daviq DriTlip (PERSON. FIRM. on COAPO1IATION) (TYPE On PAINT) Address '^ Belfair WA 98528 (Signed) L' �`C/`t_WAD—, en ,sse No 0797 Conlgrocto�ppr''s NoQIIITMDT 1100A DAte_July 19_91 (WELL OAiLLER) (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) toll WATER WELL REPORT eioiocY oaltlAe)lerr .cepy•E;ahrkt, :wetrfj1),4wiiiY: Tmy. drink Const.ruet(ott/Drtcommissian f .Y.irtl de) Construction Decommission ORIGINAL INSTALLATION Z] Notice of Intent Number PROPOS€D USE: El Domcnie 0 !Minnie) ❑Munieipat 0 DeW.ter 0 Irrigation 0 Ten Well ❑ Other TYPE OF WORN: Owner's number of well (ifrmne than oar') ❑ NeW well [] Rrcondiuoned Method: 0 Duµ ❑Dortd 0 Driven ❑ Deepened 0 Cable ❑Rotary 0 /eeed DIMENSIONS:Dinmeterofwell 6 inches, finned 130 n (both of • naltled well 130 n CEWEVIDDL-71.M T FATFMA cut% NI MaSY4 L a l.axa.Emr. -,L,_ AR, _ s, Iteeella Li LietrUart:.r) a rltats Sys A. a*----... ?k CNN tNr'K?a td 13 TzperalNattoalO R2Z4negnk,..... /r.ty taa� aspioolgnz N, JTem . a`4 • $. �� � fl tL E µ:,,viva F`Ai 4rtEiA¢ 3o.Ret+s SV M &iesee ,d Tfp. at&31.011 :41y4�,01-44 Mai I 1Lrei, i3SY: I'M ::,Ah I3'a t1. )' etc.o......a, 21d::t4i few _ kin �,...�&TA. IA, 42Nekt{Skitir. p _an% L AYi ire nil ace N'.` iA.,dl' ,,s4 . . dli,;-,G o.,. P re. ht. SarfelOSaal 3 Yes ❑ WO Tovlut$r,h7 35 D. .IiiMtel Oslo scat NEkbttik. tTid an-yrdrda hxmaln mmmttawOnt?' fpYro ei Hit Dv* ofatrae5 • •Tearfw3r:r7 Piltsle,..YiaFflveta, % .f�....!h'l.R - ntv. d' ' .feu., 3i4,. •• WRTHI4R✓111- ES;O.1,zarnCandela eys'inomene.m)M9n $tad: level PO 'abelow Ion of weli ' fate Amgen 'tonsure Ibs. per wprac Inch Oath Artesian water is comrnlie 1 by (cap, valve, sly.) WELL TESTS: D,.wdnwn if atn,emt Wan Iixt it hnee,td helew cadre level Was a punn,4tsr made? (_ Yes (xi No leycs, by whom, Yids µ.Elmo,, w,lh Ile d,$wdown .flan hn. _ 'field a µalfmin.wgh R. rhawdnwn after Ms ____• Yield. µ.limin.wiII ' fl, drawl -liven afq hit Reoorerydntupuoetakenas zero when pump fornedoln (eager trvtl mtnnned from will eeplawahykrYD 71n.: Wean Level Tune Warm Leval Time Warr teal .:Maw fft9.d'rh;ff 16 Fi+*i*.R3Wl e.reentkentt3ar l 41L , finavrnwso7r„rae,_,_ ,,__,_ rre+ittine alm21; 0p 4 ri Tr' P.I Ma 'CURRENT Notice of Intent No, W 2$OJ,00 lJuI ot- Ecology Well 11)1.4 No. ADP 992 Water Right Permit No. Property Owner Name Jack Johnson Well Street Address E 20 Katydid Ct. City RNafair County Mason Location SR— I/4-1/4SNr 1/4 Sec 12 Trw122 R 2 .WM ❑ Check Or (s, t, r Still REQUIRED) w,w,M El One Qti$tidtiitls pest .Yi L Dta5 1.cta3MAW Tom. Ca a X*. (t):.+~ .Ito d t 3•ti240'017 FassnCrg4 "rc_bs:,o afIVo vr3xaa.;-;t3'ae.tadfEed maul, 1Z Ste k`L'elad r .-vmfAt nrtAtki bt aus ISrtatl'1,krakY,AJe vF4S slkad'aim mog Ear div rboxeN afirftsvauata, (bJt ,kr-AmT".,..tr.nr. ravxxcts +Uv.) Tit. r fix el y+ ergs-pre4 .._ _ 0 - 4-4 vagh Tweet bet illpscbgt `149 riztt m Anna lift 59 92 92 Sandtk Rama Wit¢! 92 la0 RE. FEB n zuf1 F,sark,'-:�aiiii...__._ _:FZ- ecd Mini/21M mat, iw''�1(°aa. t't d 1T6'ILLeNiG •I eCkites&'U7rism!"ktar,62etieuuttytir3T3Fr ter iewrcrititalrelt,5ikl berantgiI ft3'+WrA&iIiiilriikii art ra:iAttaislate)tea.2dmcteielatRVOS .t45Atiii9Sttv,' 7ee,3*sia2 savvtwotosnyeast•Amrwlrz ¢ tan e'Witt E.JDrllterOEngineer°Trainer Name No) Ma y lknningscn Drilling Company' Davis Drilling Driller/Engineer/Trainee Signature Diiller or trainee License No. 307 Address 340 NE Davis Pane Rd. City, Stare, Zip Del fair WA 98528 $' ti:*a*3.I 3rA =NMI8IR3.t� na LW+XII Wa,fSEg1+JtAtilxS�tt7, t dw9 4 kriAftairif etmeaIVAUPLIAlfti tierast> :7nt aB FlsaalracOPstri peaf4st.t#it-444k4E S'_ Persons'tvthcad twit 711 err ttrnr1argfon itelur .'n'twiee. ter eNtaw74rrr r/+tear riisethiti y can loft 024334141, 11 Miessrrtmanttof realo4Pnd First c.,py with . WATER WELL REPORT Second Copy— Owner's Copy Third Copy-- Draper's Copy us= Ol? i>skb"'#f1$Y}!,Y • Application No Prate; Ng, ,, trvi onit",33'8¢ld t atrial Or WA' ... $gin _,�." _ �__ .. _ a .�t. � ,.1. Redrtna end distance From section or bubdlviblon corner (3) PROPOSED USE: Domestic gl industrial 0 Munlelpal0 (10) WELL LOG: IrNaation ❑ Teat Well 0 Other 0 Formation: Describe by color, character, afire of rnatertut and structure, and ohms thickness of coal/ere and the kind and nature of the material in each atratpm penetrated, with at laud ono antra for each chawpe of funnotton. (4) win or wpm owner's number of well Ill molva,'them aosl.,,......,....._.,,d,._.,,. knew veal Si Maihad: Inn 3 Do1a0 el d moto ,e4 it cable tr Drivae Q ,..:. .Fe OVfll_.,C.ls'7. ,.. W Dtcmiethttonnd d Kdaly £i alattell a GCAS'SSIZE'. PROM a`O +. ssm7rtf.sle rA x aR :_ g Swaim u ,.._txii u 3 uwx7sax) tt :J w, s�ll�l; I ra'tidledt utoo, t .A- tt, In tY� Waidsd me afam, tman.Sic Perforations; Yee ❑ Na 11 Type of perforator used SIZE of perforatiotu In. by .....,.._.,.._.__..,_.... Je. ......... ... perforatlars from ft. tie . ri Screens: sea tj No ❑ Manufacturer's Name ..,, Qtlf9Qn .. snipes them, _. . SW Frei 17rmat h� ti, sa i e;!i: txv:e, ,.. _.._ mane nine Ilaae .2!2 it.1ia'.1 %nom): pathed.. tat$ rl ws i4 mtv. aFJ II _ _-�_ (hurl ;ems»a bins, Stttftfh! '+%nit 4ti;y ' trs2 ,y'1_ r Ate,: li's:uie: kesii b+lti r :we95f+ ft-Abg,N LwThme Tina Ftard pan _ 3e ,Sand SwigWitteiz, 1! n (�)Mfflth Shun, s//ota "-ax^,<<%ilF'V ,g ...... Tyre, ....um... .. ._ _ .. _ -. 'A7s.___....1....:;.._... (8) WATER LEVELS: Land -surface eletauon above mean sea eveL ....._.... ... _.....fR Static level ...... 163 ... below top of well Dete y....a.1.,, Artesian pressure ... ...._._._....lb. per square Inch Date .............._._,....... Atts ao water f, TomlraUed LY.,.....-.,".dip. '�l?Ep, ati. •..•.,••• ($) WELL TESTS: Drawsbewn Is omows% water lave) i lswerad below motto lave) Was a mange tact made) Tea C) Ns 6 is WA. by wlaamt.........:.�...._.,. Yield: gal/men. with ft. drawdown after bre- Recovery dato lime taken sa zero when pump turned oft iwater level meawred from well top to water level) . - Time Water Level I Time Water Level I Time Water Lauel tJat9 Vt Z� L +I elor beer ?? nal,rsct3a. •ertth....�. ,.,�dt, nowise's N1ton..,.1.,_,......tilw. .Artesian rate tare rpm-, e, dtus9 et water-- .... grim a vt-omteut awrattla legal Yes Q lbw EC, OSPI :O WorkOftnete- Cie.:2 19_t%.�t.. •7"t- ly— WELL DRILLER'S STATEMENT This well was drilled under fray Jurisdiction and this report is tine to the best of my knowledge end belief. NAME 'Tyre Well Drilling Co 'Inc (Person. then. or rorporaUon)' hype or print) Address F• 0. 80,. 30 } r)[i524 181 4od)u t A .L. ." _y_ L§:• 4 �s.� •' .... (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS D' NECESSARY) APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY Prc.j. ct DataZi- Trti North Dler mic= Analy�i� Analysis Bish._xr, mal w....«x.. a... x. x... I 1.00 .1 - 10 1 . ^ 0 1 . 3 0 1 . 4 0 1 . 5 0 1 . E 0 1 . 7 0 1 . 8 0 1 . 90 . 0 0 1 00 1 . 1 O 1 ..^:.O L . 3 0 1 . 4 0 1 . 5 0 1.60 1 . '7 0 L . 8 0 1 . 9 0 _.00 Pr.=•j =-r•t Trta Is7 re DnLafi1c ZC tLic Ara a117 is Arxa1 et: 1. Bishop