HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2024-00030 BLD2024-00327 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 2/19/2024 t �60 a2� - o o�
{ � PLANNING
RECEIVED
MAR 1 1 2024
515 W. Alder Street
Geotechnical Report
Mosby Single Family Residence
41
A NE Daybreak Drive, Belfair
Parcel No. 12332-52-00001
Mason County, Washington
February 19, 2024
Project #24031
Prepared For:
Bob Mosby
2399 Cooperleaf Road
Richland, WA 99354
Prepared By:
Envirotech Engineering
PO Box 984
Belfair, Washington 98528
Phone: 360-275-9374
� CLl"IMF
S
f
43045 �
k461STFR�`
/0�.\l
2/19/2024
� f
( 7
MASON COUNTY
COMMUNITY SERVICES Geotechnical Report
I .. 1 ,, 1,
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 Bob Mosby Parcel# 12332-52-00001
Site Address 51 NE Daybreak Drive
(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
(f) 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
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan and Soil Logs (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
(5) 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) 9 Page 1 of 37
l , S
f T
(7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features,
Located on page(s) 17
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields,
Located on page(s) 18
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings,
Located on page(s) 15
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) 17
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) 16
(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
(9) 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.
Located on page(s) 10
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) 12
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management,drainage,erosion control, and
buffer widths.
Located on page(s) 17- 18
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
Located on page(s) 18
(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
\�V CL)DF S Report, dated February 19,2024 and entitled Mosby Single
Family Residence, meets all the requirements of the Mason
County Resource Ordinance, Geologically Hazardous Areas
Section, is complete and true,that the assessment
43045 demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide
K'
f s�if \ ` hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical
design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in
Disclaimer:Mason County does not such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public
certify the quality of the work done in health and safety.
this Geotechnical Report.
Page 2 of 2
( 1
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
2A 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.................................................................................................7
3.3.1 Groundwater............................................................................................................................... 7
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................... 8
4.1 SLOPE STABILITY............................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis.............................................................................................................. 9
4.2 EROSION.............................................................................................................................................9
4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACrION..............................................................................10
4.3.1 Liquefaction..............................................................................................................................10
4.4 LANDSLIDE,EROSION AND SEISMIC HAZARDS CONCLUSIONS........................................................10
4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES...........................................................................................................11
4.6 ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................11
5.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................12
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity.......................................................................................................................12
5.1.2 Settlement..................................................................................................................................13
5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade..........................................................................................................13
5.2 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................13
5.2.1 Excavation.................................................................................................................................13
5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill...........................................14
5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backfill.............................................................................................................15
5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations....................................................................................................15
5.2.5 Building Pads............................................................................................................................15
5.3 BUILDING AND FOOTING SETBACKS.................................................................................................15
5.4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................16
5.5 VEGETATION BUFFER AND CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................16
5.6 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL.......................................................................17
5.7 SEPTIC DRAINFIELDs........................................................................................................................17
5.8 STRUCTURAL MITIGATION...............................................................................................................17
6.0 CLOSURE.............................................................................................................................................18
Appendix A-Site Plan
Appendix B-Soil Information
Appendix C-Slope Stability
Appendix D—Erosion Control
Appendix E—Drainage Details
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a planned
single family residence located at 51 NE Daybreak Drive, identified as parcel number 12332-52-
00001, 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 February 9,
2024. 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 development. 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 development of the project was provided by the proponent
of the property. The planned development consists of a 1- or 2-story single family residence,new
on-site septic system, and other ancillary features typical of this type of development.
Approximate building footprint and other proposed features with relation to existing 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 Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 1 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
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.
a
Z
T4p
%n
j i cV
iE Se , elfair ..
r { -
1mi
Vicinity Map from Mason County Website
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 2 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
i a
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the project was gathered on February
9, 2024 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 with an existing driveway. The property is mostly cleared of
forest. Vegetation on and near the project consists primarily of secondary growth firs, madronas,
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 60% with a vertical relief of
about 60 feet.
Ascending grades are generally located to the east 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 crest of glacial
origin.
2.3 Surface Drainage
Runoff originating upslope of the development is mostly diverted away from the property by
accommodating topography. Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past drainage
problems were not observed within the immediate vicinity of the planned development.
2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies
There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned
development that would significantly influence the project.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 3 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
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.
These slope instability indicators or other significant mass wasting on the property or within the
general vicinity of the project were not observed or discovered during research. Indications of
past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems, or surficial slope failures
were not observed during the site visit.
r.
OA
1.•�t.�I `���/1
�► J \ �v
_
r • _l �r f J of • L
too
1
top, 44t
ouft
�'' _ �.. tip► i r.. ✓ )�
Aerial Photo from Mason County Website
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 4 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the project was primarily gathered on
February 9, 2024 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 2 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 "Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap and Pierce Counties,
Washington' by Michael Polenz, Katelin Alldritt, Nicholas J. Heheman, Isablle Y. Sarikhan, and
Robert L. Logan,July 2009,provides the following caption(s)for the project area:
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 5 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
Vashon till Unsorted,unstratitied(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 facics resembling concrete,
but near the surface commonly hackly and(or)looser and covered by I 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
arc generally sparse within the till but large(erratic)boulders of plutonic
or metamorphic rock are common on till surfaces.Some exposures include
intcrbands 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,unconformablc contact with underlying units,most commonly
advance outwash(unit Qga and subunit). Unit Qgt tics 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).
— • , : �. �
N
A
� f om
ra.
QQt
owe
�>l
t-
tin
Project � °p' �`
� ^W�FJ2
Ow
CW
Qfid
GO Cot
ago
do ,) ; •i �. r l � •' -���
1
-a
OW /1-)
" ) � QPC
ua J/
11��'•r ,, r'` �wm �
G!
Geological Map Department of Natural Resources Washington State
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 6 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
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 significant fill. Within
test pit locations, soils within the upper 2 feet of natural ground were generally observed to be
moist, brown silty sand with gravel (SM). Soils below the upper 2 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.
According to the "Soil Survey of Mason County," by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the site soils are described as Everett Very Gravelly
Sandy Loam, Ek, with 15% - 30% slopes. The soil designations are depicted in the aerial
photograph below, and descriptions are provided in Appendix B of this report.
4
F
0 Y m 7®
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 Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 7 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,.Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
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 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:
N
Belt4l."!J
tc+
�r
Project Elf]
2 }
Soils-Hydric Soils
Soils-Highly Unstable Soils
3
Soils-Highly Erodible Soils
1 Westside Slope Stability Model (FP)
t if Moderate Slope Instability
0 0.4mi 3M High Slope Instability
6.
r
Resource Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 8 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
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 2 feet soil depth
Soil unit weight: 132 pcf
Angle of internal friction: 30 degrees
Cohesion: 200 psf
Soils below 2 feet in depth
Soil unit weight: 140 pcf
Angle of internal friction: 40 degrees
Cohesion: 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 not 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).
It is our opinion that minor erosion control recommendations provided in this report is sufficient
for the development of this project, and additional engineered erosion control plans are not
required. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures are required for site development.
Extents of temporary erosion control will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction,
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 9 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
moisture content of the soil, and amount of rainfall during construction. Soil erosion typical to the
existing site conditions and planned disturbance of the project include wind-borne silts during dry
weather, and sediment transport during prolonged wet weather. Sediment transport could be from
stormwater runoff or tracking off-site with construction equipment.
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 1 mile to the south 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.
Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this project are generally Type D,
corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. According to the IBC, the
regional seismic zone is 3 for this project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from
0.50g to 0.60g. This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey(USGS)National
Seismic Hazard project in which there is an estimated 2% probability of exceedance within the
next 50 years.
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.
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 development may
occur in accordance with the recommendations in this geotechnical report.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 10 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures
Retaining walls may be utilized for this project. The lateral earth pressures exerted through the
backfill of a retaining wall are dependent upon several factors including height of retained soil
behind the wall, type of soil that is retained, degree of backfill compaction, slope of backfill,
surcharges,hydrostatic pressures,earthquake pressures, and the direction and distance that the top
of the wall moves. A structural or geotechnical professional should design retaining walls based
on specific conditions.
Soil parameters for the structural design of retaining walls may be estimated as 134 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) and 118 pcf for engineered fill and native soils, respectively. The angle of
internal friction may be estimated as 36 degrees and 32 degrees for engineered fill and native
soils, respectively. These soil parameters are based on soil type and placement conforming to the
Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section in this report.
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 Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 11 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements of
the project. These recommendations have been made available based on the planned
improvements 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 Recommendations
Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one- or
two-story, single family residential structure. The recommended allowable bearing capacities and
settlements as presented below, consider the probable type of construction as well as the field
investigation results by implementing practical engineering judgment within published
engineering standards. Evaluations include classifying site soils based on observed field
conditions and soil testing for this project. After deriving conservative relative densities, unit
weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils, the Terzhagi ultimate bearing capacity
equation was utilized for determining foundation width and depth. Foundation parameters
provided herein account for typical structural pressures due to the planned type of development.
A structural analysis is beyond the scope of a geotechnical report, and a structural engineer may
be required to design specific foundations and other structural elements based on the soil
investigation. Stepped foundations are acceptable, if warranted for this project. Continuous,
isolated, or stepped foundations shall be horizontally level between the bottom of the foundation
and the top of the bearing strata.The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12
inches below the ground surface for this project under normal circumstances and anticipated
design features.
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity
Existing in-situ soils for this project indicates that the structure can be established on
shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively
undisturbed native soil that is competent and unyielding. Alternatively, foundations may
be constructed on selective re-compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as
described in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report.
For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 1500 psf, a minimum continuous
footing width of 15 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 12 inches below the existing
ground surface atop unyielding soils. Additional foundation depth is required if needed to
encroach geotechnical setbacks as described in Section 5.3 of this report. For a columnar
load of no more than 3 tons, a circular or square isolated foundation diameter or width
shall be at least 24 inches. Foundation recommendations are made available based on
adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. Alterations
Envirotech Engineering Geoeechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 12 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
to the aforementioned foundation recommendations may be completed upon a site
inspection by a geotechnical engineer after the foundation excavation is completed.
5.1.2 Settlement
Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the
subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the
structure, reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances, the infiltration of free
moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, anticipated development, and
construction abides by the recommendations in this report, the assumed foundation
system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum differential
settlement of 0.75 inch.
5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of compacted
coarse, granular material (Retained on U.S. Sieve #10 or greater) that is placed over
undisturbed, competent native subgrade or engineered fill per the Earthwork
Recommendations Section below.
The recommendations for interior concrete slabs-on-grade as presented herein are only
relevant for the geotechnical application of this project. Although beyond the scope of
this report, concrete slabs should also be designed for structural integrity and
environmental reliability. This includes vapor barriers or moisture control for mitigating
excessive moisture in the building.
5.2 Earthwork Construction Recommendations
Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed native soils to the
specified foundation depths. Compacted engineered fill, or selective re-compacted native soils
may be used to the extents provided in this Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section.
The following recommendations include excavations, subgrade preparation, type of fill, and
placement of fill for building foundations.
5.2.1 Excavation
Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious
material, if present, beneath foundations and to achieve appropriate foundation depth.
Additional sub-excavation will be required for this project if the soils below the required
foundation depth are loose, saturated, not as described in this report, or otherwise
incompetent due to inappropriate land disturbing, or excessive water trapped within
foundation excavations prior to foundation construction. All soils below the bottom of the
excavation shall be competent, and relatively undisturbed or properly compacted fill. If
these soils are disturbed or deemed incompetent, re-compaction of these soils below the
anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered,
compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or
structural concrete.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 13 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill
For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly
beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is required prior to
foundation construction. The following placement and compaction requirements are
necessary.
For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath foundations, limits of compacted or
re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of
one horizontal foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill depth beneath the
foundation. See the illustration below.
FO❑TING
COMPACTED
NATIVE SOILS
OR ENGINEERED 1
FILL
t
II UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and
other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Because of
moisture sensitivity, importing and compacting engineered fill may be more economical
than compacting disturbed native soils. Engineered fill shall include having the soils
retained on the No. 4 sieve crushed (angular), and should consist of the following
gradation:
U.S. Standard Sieve % Finer(by weight)
6" 100
3" 60— 100
No.4 20—60
No. 200 0-8
Table 1
Particle Size Distribution of Engineered Fill
Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6 inches for both native
soils and engineered fill,respectively. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least
95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and within 3% of
optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained during
construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding.
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. Permanent cut
and fill slopes shall be limited to a slope of 2:1, unless otherwise approved by an
engineer.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 14 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backfill
Native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this project if the total wall height
is 4 feet or less and the recommendations below are followed. Native soils for retaining
walls exceeding 4 feet in height must be approved by the local authority or evaluated by
an engineer. Backfill may consist of engineered fill,as presented in this report,or borrow
material approved by a geotechnical engineer. Compaction of these materials shall be
achieved in compacted lifts of about 12 inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted
to at least 85%, and no more than 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557). If pavement or building loads are planned to be located within retaining
wall backfill, then 90% compaction is required. In addition, heavy construction
equipment should be at a distance of at least 'h the wall height. Over-compaction and
limiting heavy construction equipment should be prevented to minimize the risk of excess
lateral earth pressure on the retaining structure. Envirotech recommends that retaining
wall backfill is compacted with light equipment such as a hand-held power tamper. If
clean, coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, and surcharges will not influence
the retaining wall, compaction may be achieved by reasonably densifying granular soils
with construction equipment.
5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations
Due to the types of subsurface soils, additional provisions may be required during
prolonged wet weather. Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free
moisture from saturating the soils within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used
for footing placement changes from a moist and dense/hard characteristic as presented in
this report to muck or soft, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for
foundation bearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be
notified, and these soils should be completely removed and replaced with compacted
engineered fill or suitable native material as presented in this section.
5.2.5 Building Pads
Building pads for this project, if utilized, shall be constructed per the fill placement and
compaction recommendations as presented above. Both engineered fill and native soils
may be used for building pads. Building pad slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1 for both
compacted engineered fill and re-compacted native soils used as fill. Building pad fill
shall be "keyed" into the existing subgrade to a depth of at least 2 feet below the existing
ground surface. The term "keyed," as used here, implies that the interface between the
building pad and subgrade is horizontally level. Alternatively, building pads may be
keyed into the subgrade to the above specified depth, and stepped. Stepped fill should be
keyed into the subgrade at a minimum width of 10 feet. All footings shall be located at
least 5 feet away from the top of the engineered fill slope.
5.3 Building and Footing Setbacks
Provided that assumptions relating to construction occur and recommendations are followed as
presented in this report, the factor of safety for slope stability is sufficient for a 15 feet footing
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 15 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
setback from the face of the nearby descending slopes exceeding 40%. See the figure below and
the Site Plan in Appendix A for an illustration of the setbacks.
STRUCTURE
TOP OF
SLOPE SLOPE
FACE� _
I IT
SETBACK
SETBACK FOOTING
Structures may encroach the setback and be located closer to the top of slope by extending the
foundation deeper so that it bears on the cemented hardpan. However, the home should not
encroach the vegetation buffer as provided later in this report.
5.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential buildings.
Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface, driveways and sidewalks away from the
project structures. All constructed surface and subsurface drains should be adequately maintained
during the life of the structure. If drainage problems occur during or after construction, additional
engineered water mitigation will be required immediately. This may include a combination of
swales, berms, drain pipes, infiltration facilities, or outlet protection in order to divert water away
from the structures to an appropriate protected discharge area. Leakage of water pipes, both
drainage and supply lines, shall be prevented at all times.
If impervious thresholds are exceeded per the prevailing agency code, then engineered
stormwater management plans are required for this project. The drainage engineer must
coordinate with a geotechnical engineer for input with relation to slope stability prior to
submitting drainage plans. If stormwater management plans are not required for this project, then
the following recommendations should be followed.
For this project, we recommend that infiltration is avoided in order to maintain slope stability,
and that roof downspout dispersion on splash blocks are employed. Recommended drainage
details are provided in Appendix E of this report.
5.5 Vegetation Buffer and Considerations
For this project, we believe that a detailed clearing and grading plan is not warranted unless the
prevailing agency thresholds are exceeded, and basic vegetation management practices should be
adhered to.
Vegetation Buffer—Vegetation shall not be removed from the face of the critical slope or within
a distance of 5 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
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 16 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
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 during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the
least extent possible. 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. See Appendix D for sketches and general notes regarding selected erosion control
measures. The Site Plan in Appendix A depicts the recommended locations for erosion control
facilities to be installed as necessary.
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. Selected recommendations for permanent erosion control are provided in
Appendix D. 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 were considered in our geotechnical evaluation. This includes septic drainfields;
with relation to the observed soil conditions, expected vegetation removal, and existing and
proposed topography. Based on the aforesaid parameters, the septic drainfields are not expected
to adversely influence critical slopes. This is also based on compliance with all recommendations
in this report.
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.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 17 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
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 Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 18 Parcel 12332-52-00001
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 Febraury 19,2024
APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN
SCALE- L INtM= D: rEET
c
APPROXIMATE T❑E 13F CRITICAL
SLOPE EXCEEDING 40%
5 FT VEGETATION REMOVAL
- -/BUFFER FROM TOP OF CRITICAL
4 , SLOPE
A a
ne
EX TrNG DRIVEWAY n
ROPOSED BUILDING
AREA
N1 R0A(,4 j/ l
15 FT CONSTRUCTI❑%
SETBACK FROM TOP OF
Tv� h CRITICAL SLOPE,
o ENCROACHMENT
A 33 ALLOWABLE PER
290 ' GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
o PPROXIMATE TOP OF
o CRITICAL SLOPE
EXCEEDING 40%
PROPER LINE
NOTES.
L CRDSW4 CONTROL MAY E RMIRCD rtV INIS SITE.COICRAL LOCATIONS
ARE DEPICTEC ANC ALTERNATIVES May DE ;JT)LIZCD AS CXPLAMD D+ TI•[
GEOTECHNICAIL REPOR'
2,C,OW7O.RS WERE NOT PREPARED DY A LLCEZRSCD LAND SURVVOR
CONTOURS WERE Fx-RAPDLATED FROM A PU&JC LIDAR SOURCE,AND
DNCORPORATEC FIELD MEASUREMENTS AS FXPLA)NEO M THE GEIITECHNECAL LEGEND
RElVR+ ._._.
J, ES
DO..NDARIES `ERE NOT PREPARED I-A LICENSED SURvCYOR LOCATORS _
OF SITE FEATURES THAT ARE SHOWN HEM SUCH AS TEF EF SLOP . TOE >4R�'�� afilNC�
Or SLMPES. vATER FEATURES.ETC.. WITH RELATION TO THE PROPER'r + >'CRD'•IO• R. R0 ERNDIOTECM ENGDNECRTNG
L)NCS Zir E VR)F)CD DY THC OWNR.RCEONMCNWIGNS EN INC Ap, I..E ATTZRR PO DOLE %4
'EOTECHNICAL REPR- PROVIDE SETSAMS, DUF"MS, DEPTHS. M. WITH DELFAJR. WASH)NGTON 985e9
'RELATION TO GEOLOGE FKATLARES, NOT PRCIPERRTY LINES.THESE GEOLOGIC ERI rn. D,raw 360-23-9II4
FEATURES -AY DE LOCATCD ON THE S1 JECT PROPERTY OR RED-,HDORING T TEST SITE PLAN
PROPERTTES. 22
APPENDIX B
SOIL INFORMATION
pew
IQfI rMT SIIL
EXISTING GRADE
29ir -MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND
V ��••. WITH GRAVEL (SM)
NE ROMANCE HILL kU
4Q�*
DENSE L•LACIAL TILL
SECTION A-
`arE&-
Ewa rER
17 ■V110 GRADC CHAKES RC7U(Ro IN OR)[R TO ACHIEVE C%VIRIIIECH ENG104XRING
ROS(TIvE DRAAAGE RO POK "4
P) TIE SE& PROFILE IS ACIUMATE FOR THE DEPTH OF
IELFAER. VASHPvGTON 99528
THE DISKRVER 7ES7 �M A7 THE SPEC73ED LIWAT104S,
WAR DCrTHt ARC RASED ON ME GCCLOG7, Ko-273-9�T�
vELL LOG'S,. MDAP CKPERICW-E N TIE GEhERAL AREA. SOIL P;i[IFILE
TEST PIT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1
PROJECT: Trotter Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 8/26/2021
PROJECT NO: 21217 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: Chris Trotter EXCAVATOR: NIA
LOCATION: XXX NE Daybreak Drive DRILL RIG: None
Mason County.Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
0
SM Brown,moist SILTY SAND with gravel,
medium dense.Gravel is well-graded
and subrounded Sand Is medium and
1 coarse Non-plastic
2 Dense glacial fill
Excavation terminated at approximately 2
feet
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
7trs mformabon pertains o*to the bomg and should not be Geotechnlcal Engineering
interpreted as b"and oboe of the entire ste.
Map Unit Description Everett very gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes--Mason
County.Washmoon
Mason County, Washington
Ek—Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent
slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 2t62c
Elevation 30 to 900 feet
Mean annual precipitation 35 to 91 inches
Mean annual air temperature 48 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 180 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Everett and similar soils.80 percent
Minor components 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations,descnphons,and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Everett
Setting
Landform Eskers,moraines,kames
LarK form position(two-dimensional):Backslope
Landform position(three-dimensional) Side slope
Down-slope shape. Convex
Across-slope shape Convex
Parent material Sandy and gravelly glacial outwash
Typical profile
Ot-0 to 1 inches. slightly decomposed plant material
A-1 to 3 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
Bw-3 to 24 inches. very gravelly sandy loam
C1-24 to 35 inches: very gravely loamy sand
C2-35 to 60 inches. extremely cobbly coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope 15 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature More than 80 inches
Drainage class Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat) High
(1.98 to 5 95 irvhr)
Depth to water table More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding None
Frequency of ponding None
Available water supply,0 to 60 inches Low(about 32 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification(imgated). None specified
Land capability classification(nornmgated) 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group A
Natural Resources Web Sal Survey 9/22021
i Conservation Service National Cooperative Sod Survey Page 1 of 2
Map Unit Description Everett very gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes--Mason
County.Washington
Forage suitability group Droughty Soils(G002XN402WA),
Droughty Soils(G002XS401 WA)
Other vegetative dassificallon Droughty Soils(G002XN402WA),
Droughty Soils(G002XS401 WA)
Hydnc soil rating No
Minor Components
Indianola
Percent of map unit 10 percent
Landform Eskers,kames,terraces
Landform positbn(two-dimensional) Backslope
Landiform position(three-dlmensional) Side slope
Down-slope shape Linear
Across-slope shape Linear
Hydnc soil rating No
Alderwood
Percent of map unit.10 percent
Landform Ridges,hills
Lanc form position(two-dimensional/) Backslope
Landform position(three-dimensional)-Side slope,nose slope,tali
Down-slope shape Linear,convex
Across-slope shape.Convex
Hydnc soil rating No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area Mason County,Washington
Survey Area Data Version 16,Jun 4,2020
tt ti m Natural Resources Web Sal Survey 9/212021
41111111111 Conservation Service National Cooperative Sal Survey Page 2 or 2
Q
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY
1 . 0 0
1 10
1 . O
1 - 3
/ 1 _ 4 0
1 _ 5 0
1 . 60
t 1 _ 7 0
I
l 1 _ 8 O
1 _ 90
=2 00
I
P r o j
Datafil Dynamic Analysis
Analysis Bishop
1 . 00
1 . 1 0
1 . 2 0
1 . 3 0
1 . 40
1 . 50
1 . 6 O
1 . 70
1 . 80
J- . 90
=2 . 00
1
I
- 3
P r o j e c t T r o t t e r R e p o r t
Datafil8 Static Analysis
Analysis Bishop
�TAAI.0��::f.� MZ AA�cs.:f�f�• LrA
APPENDIX D
EROSION CONTROL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
WRAP AROUND TRENCH
TO AT LEAST ENTIRE
BOTTOM OF TRENCH
BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR
12' DEEP, 8' WIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER
FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2'
WASHED GRAVEL OR VEGETATION
n 11 zs
DIRECTION OF EXISTING
WATER FLOW GROUND SURFACE
12'
T� 23 R
I �
SILT FENCE - CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
2'x2' WOOD POST (TYP) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH
2 6 FT MAX. O.C.
r as FT
1
GROUND SURFACE
z
12' DEEP, 8' WIDE
TRENCH FILLED WITH 3 rt
3/4' TO 1 1/2' Nvow w w 2.5 FT
WASHED GRAVEL OR VEG TI
BOTTOM EXTENTS OF
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SILT FENCE - DETAIL
N.T.S.
PROVIDE FULL WIDTH
3/4 IN TO 1 1/ N�R r INGRESS/EGRESS
CRUSHED GRAVEL
PLACED AT 6 IN
MINIMUM DEPTH
WELL-DRAINED
SOILS
-0.02 IN/MIN FULL Locfw
R=25 FT MIN
rL
•cceSS Row
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
N.T.S.
PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES,
CNEROL NOTES,
SEEDING FOR RAW SLOPES
SIOILD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON
IESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR L BEFORE SEEDING, INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL
;MALL INSTALL ADDITIOAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACLITBT_S. MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR BIKES,
ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE SWALES, LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS.
NSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED. IF NECESSARY. 2.THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE.
.ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE LEFT IN FOLLOWING SURFACE ROUGHENING.PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS ACCROV
LACE UNTIL THE UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEP+ PERMANENTLY STABILIZER OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE.
3. SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS, AS SHOWN BELOW, AND SHOULD BE
EMPORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES, APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 120 POUNDS PER ACRE,
4. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN MAY 1 AND OCTOBER 31 WILL
OR ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED Ir VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED LAND REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO
ISTURBING ACTIVITIES, AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A FOSTER AND PROTECT THE ROOT STRUCTURE:
RMD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW. ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE 5. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 30,
MMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED ARMORING OF THE SEED BED VILL BE NECESSARY. (e.g.,
SION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME IF YEAR. GRASS SEEDING GEOHFXTILES, JUTE NAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING).
LONE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH 6.FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING TO SUPPLIERS'
PTEMBER. HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF RECOMMENDATIONS.AMOUNTS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED, ESPECIALLY
HE OWNER/CONTRACTOR, BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED WITH MXLGIHNG, NETTING ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS.
OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT,
USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSIOI
r SEASON (MAY 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 30)— THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE CONTROL, OR A COUNTY APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTURE
VAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER. MUST Be LIMITED TO
Y AS MIDI LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE PROPORTIONS PURITY GERMINATION
VISE STABILIZED, AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED NAME By WEIGHT(Y) aI) cX)
Y MO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 tf A GIVEN YEAR UNLESS IMMEDIATE
T n ZATMN IS SPECIFIED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, ALL REBT13P (AGROSTIS ALBA) 10 92 90
S CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED ANNUAL RYE (L1LIl1M MLTIftOtUM) 40 98 90
THE USE OF MULCHING, NETTING,PLASTIC SHEETING.EROSION BLANKETS, CHEWING FESUE 40 97 80
DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., BY SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED (F'ESTUCA RUBRA COMBUUTATA)
OF ACTION. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, (JAMESTOWN. BANNER, SHADOW, 10KET)
TILIZING AND MULCHING OF CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 96 90
LED DURING THE FOLL17WM PERIODS,MARCH 1 TO 14AY 15, AND AUGUST 15 TO (TRIFOLDIM REPENS)
T13KR L SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER 1 WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION
THE PROJECT IS DAINENT AND THE ENVIROENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE MULCHING
SATISFACTORY GROWTTH IN THE EVENT THAT PERANENT STABILIZATION 1S NOT
SSIBLE. AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD O' GROUND COVER, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING,L MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE WOOD
ASTIC SHEETING,EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED By NO LATER THAN FIBER CELLULOSE. AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1000
PTEMBER 30. POUNDS PER ACRE
2. MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSEC SLOPES
N THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT GREATER THAN 21 (HORIZONTAL-VERTICAL).
TIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS. THE 3. MULCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN
WNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION 13F ALL EROSION AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE O' THE SEASON. ALL
D SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORM EVENTS, AND AT AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SHALL BE COVERED By NOVEMBER L
AST ONCE EVERY WEEK. THE OWNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
HE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. TOPSOO.ING
T SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THRU APRIL 30)—ON SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED L TOPSOIL SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT DUE TO HIGHLY
ONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS.THE CLEARING OF LAND. INCLUDING THE DENSE EXPOSED SOOLS.
MOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER, SHALL BE LIMITED 2,TOPSOIL SHOULD BE PLACED ON SLOPES NOT EXCEEDING 2L
AS MUUM LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED VITHDN 24 HOURS IN 3. STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING ON-SITE SOBS SMALL ONLY BE
HE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ 13R EROSION AND SEDIMENT PERMITTED DF TOPSOIL IS FRIABLE AND LOAMY (LOAM, SANDY LOAM,
RANSPORT OF-SITE IS OBSERVED. SILT LOAM, SANDY CLAY LOAM, CLAY LOAM).
4, STRIPPING SMALL BE CONFINED TO THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION
CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SMALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE AREAS, A FOUR TO Six INCH STRIPPING DEPTH IS COMMON, BUT
OVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC DEPTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON THE PAR-ICULAR SOD..ALL
HEETING. EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAIMIMG MATERIAL.ETC., VITH[N 5 DAYS AFTER SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL STRUCTURES SHALL BE IN GLACE BEFORE
WING BEEN CLEARED OQ OTHERWISE DISTURBED IF NOT BEING ACTIVELY WORKER STRIPPING.
AT FENCING, SEDIMENT TRAPS. SEDIMENT PONDS,ETC., WILL NOT BE VIEWED AS
OCQUATE (OVER IN AND OF THEMSELVES,IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT
IEING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY
TABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED,ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON
HE SITE, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL
MMEDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFOREMENTIONED LAND AREA HAS BEEN
PROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT
L STOCKPILE SMALL E STABILIZED(VDTN PLASTIC COVERING OR OTHER APPROVED DEVICE)DAILY KTVM NNDvtmWR ;AND MARCH
3L
Z IN ANY SEASON, SEDIMENT LEACHING FOLD(STOCK PIES MUST BE PKVO4 EL
3.TOPSOIL SMALL NOT BE PLACED VMLE W A FROZEN OR MUDDY CONDITION,WHEN THE SUBGRADE 1S EXCESSIVELY VET,IR WHEN
CONDITIONS EXIST THAT MAY OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPER GRADING W PROPOSED SODDING OR SEEDING,.
4.PREVIOUSLY HSTANU94 D GRADES DN THE AREAS TO HE TTFSIBLEC SHALL IE MAWTAI ED ACCODWG TO THE APPROVED PLANS.
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
L MATERIAL SHALL BE 4 NCH TO 8 INCH QUARRY SPALLS (4 TO 6 INCH FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS)AND MAY BE
TOP-DRESSED WITH 1 INCH TO 3 INCH ROCK (STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 9-I5.)
2.THE ROCK PAD SHALL BE AT LEAST LZ INCHES THICK AND 50 FEET LONG (20 FEET FOR SITES WITH LESS THAN 1 ACRE OF
DISTURBED SCR). VIDTM SMALL BE FULL WIDTH OF THE VEHICLE INGRESS AND EGRESS AREA.SMALLER PADS MAY IE APPROVED
FOR SINGLE-FAMELY RESIDENTIAL ANE SMALL COMMERCIAL SITES.
3.ADDITIONAL ROCK SHALL BE ADDEE PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN PROPER FUNCTION OF THE PAIL
4,IF THE PAD DIES NOT ADEQUATELY REMOVE THE MUD FROM THE VEHICLE WHEELS, THE WHEELS SHALL BE HOSED OFF BEFORE
THE VEHICLE ENTERS A PAVED STREET. THE WASHING SMALL BE DONE ON AN AREA COVERED WITH CRUSHED ROCK AND WASH
WATER SMALL DRAIN TO A SEDIMENT RETENTION FACILITY OR THROUGH A SILT FENCE.
ILT FENCE
GEDT[XTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SHALL BE PER SPECIFIED IN THE 'STORMtWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL
THE PUGET SOUND BASH,' OR APPLICABLE CWITY STANDARDS
. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROIL CUT TO THE LENGTH O'
H BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS.IF JOINTS ARE NECESSARY. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED
ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A MINIMUM 6-NCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT
ENDS TO THE POST,
STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FASTENED USING I' STAPLES OR TIE WIRES (MOG RINGS) 0 4 N
ACING,
.POSTS SHRILL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED N THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET, AND
OVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND.
.VIRE MESH SHALL BE 2'x2'xU GAUGE OR EDAVI ENT. THE WERE MESH MAY BE ELDNNATED IF
TRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC (OMNOFLAMENT), AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED,
A TRENCH SMALL BE EXCAVATED ACC13RMNG TO THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE
TS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE SILT FENCE.
.SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DOVNSLDPE FROM THE CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT.
APPENDIX D
DRAINAGE DETAILS
HOUSE
ROOF DOWNSPOUT
SERVES UP TO
700 SF OF ROOF
50 FT MIN
VEGETATED
FLOW PATH
DOWNSPOUT
EXTENSION
ROOF DOWNSPOUT AND SPLASH BLOCK DETAILS
N.T,S
MASON COUNTY Permit No:.&,1?ZoA—nc)327 COMMUNITY DE ELOPME��C E I V E D p`4
, i Permit Assistance Center,Building,Planning MAR 11 2024
BUILDING PERMIT A711� Alder Street HG
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION:
NAME: 8016 F c''I'bl mc&6 V NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS: Vi— MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY:S 1-a kJ STATE:W YF : r1fi 5(9(` CITY: STATE: ZIP:
PHONE#I: ,l 5 3 3 3 PHONE: CELL:
PHONE#2: E t EMAIL
EMAIL: j2 iy1 Q 4,13y / L,41'V i s CC b L&I REG# EXP.
PRIMARY CONTACT: OWNER, CONTRACTOR❑ OTHER❑
NAME ITOA EMAIL 111 S CI,) H0tA1 I?t) :(Q l
MAILING ADDRESS c3 1-- CITY S V" STATE U.'K ZIP 5 bg
PHONE S 3— C+3-- 13 12 A CELL
PARCEL INFORMATION: j
PARCEL NUMBER(I2 Digit Number) / ?J —92 D ZONING
LEGAL DESCRIPTION(Abbreviated) FIRE DISTRICT
SITE ADDRESS_ 4_1 A)�— 12 C 6 ► CITY 95 c.) Ft--) PT—
DIRECTIONS TO SITE ADDRESS rl`^� -�` -1 p"}'-i)ZZ —50, ot:-' "-w C.<r d, I t _-5;'
IS THE PROJECT WITHIN 300 FT OF SLOPE(S)GREATER THAN 14%: YESP` NO❑ SNOW LOAD:_psf
IS PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FT OF THE FOLLOWING: (check all that apph):
SALTWATER❑ LAKE❑ RIVER/CREEK❑ POND❑ WETLAND❑ SEASONAL RUNOFF❑ STREAM❑
TYPE OF WORK: NEW jg ADDITION❑ ALTERATION❑ REPAIR❑ OTHER ❑
USE OF STRUCTURE(Residence Garage,cnmmerci i Bldg,Sm.J
IS USE: PRIMARY® SEASONAL❑ NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 3 NUMBER OF BATHROOMS"3__
HEATED STRUCTURE? YES(wwi Bldg)X' YES(Pmt[sl ofBtdg)X NO❑
DESCRIBE WORK !1
S UARE FOOTAGE:tp,posed)
I ST FLOOR 91 sq.ft. 2ND FLOOR sq.ft. 3RD FLOOR sq.ft. BASEMENT sq.ft.
DECK sq.fL COVERED DECK sq.fL STORAGE sq.& OTHER sq.ft
GARAGE %ft- Attached Detached❑ CARPORT sq.& Attached❑ Detached❑
MANUFACTURED HOME INFORMATION: *4 COPIES OF THE FLOOR PLAN REQUIRED*
MAKE MODEL YEAR LENGTH
WIDTH BEDROOMS BATHS SERIAL NUMBER
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
SEWAGE/SEWER SOURCE: SEPTIC SEWER❑ NEW% EXISTING❑
PLUMBING IN STRUCTURE? YES�( NO❑ If i-es,attach completed Water Adequacy Forst
PERIMETERNOUNDATION DRAINS PROPOSED? YES NO❑ EXISTING SQ.FT.
EXISTING BEDROOMS PROPOSED BEDROOMS 3 TOTAL BEDROOMS_3
OWNER acknowledges that submission of inaccurate information may result in a stop work order or permit revocation.Acknowledgement of such is by
signature below.I declare that I am the owner and I further declare that I am entitled to receive this permit and to do the work as proposed.I have
obtained permission from all the necessary parties,including any easement holder or parties of interest regarding this project. The owner or legal
representative,represents that the information provided is accurate and grants employees of Mason County access to the above described property
and structure(s)for review and inspection. This permittapplicatlon becomes null&void if work or authorized construction Is not commenced within 180
days or if construction work is suspended for a period of 180 days.
PROOF OF CONTINUATION OF WORK ON THIS PERMIT IS BY MEANS OF INSPECTION. INACTIVITY OF THIS
PERMIT APPLICATION OF 180 DAYS OF MORE WILL CAUSE THE APPLICATION TO BE EXPIRED.(MASON
COUNTY CODE 14.08.42)
Sig s Dat
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW APPROVED DATE DENIED DATE TAGS/NOTES/CONDITIONS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FIRE MARSHAL
PUBLIC HEALTH