HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP2012-00016 - SEP Determinations - 8/23/2012 QN-STAy, MASON COUNTY
Mc y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A°u = Planning Division
Y �? P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
1864
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-340)
SEP2012-00016
Description of Proposal: DAYTON AIRPORT RD WATER EXPANSION PROJECT
Proponent: CITY OF SHELTON
Location of Proposal: SHELTON SRINGS RD RIGHT AWAY
Parcel Number: 420120060020
Legal Description: COUNTY R/W
Directions to Site: SHELTON SPRINGS RD (CROSS RD OF TARAGON) TO US
HWY 101 TO THE NORTH TO DAYTON AIRPORT RD (US HWY
102) TO STATE PATROL ACADEMY
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request.
Please contact Grace Miller at ext. 360 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC
197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown
below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community
Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 9/6/2012. Appeal of this determination
must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County
Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals.
Authorized Local Government Official Date
_ xl0-T-%(
C�OFu/
uSA�oE
SEPA CHECKLIST
$385 - Single Family (Mason County Permit Center Use)
$630 - Non-Single Family 0 to 9.99 Acres SEP O(,;?
$755 -10 to 20 Acres
$945- Over 20 Acres Date Rcvd:
$2,525 + 70/hr- EIS (IDS)
PN:
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
f environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of
this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or
avoid impacts from the proposal) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are
significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or
give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be
able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really
do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply".
Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental
effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional
information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
There is a fee required, for the processing of the checklist, see above for the appropriate fee. Please make your check
payable to"Mason County Treasurer'.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project: Dayton Airport Rd.Water Expansion Project
2. Name of applicant: City of Shelton
Property owner:
Mason County and Washington State
3. Applicant mailing address: Dennis McDonald, Public Works,525 W.Cota Street Shelton,WA 98584
Applicant phone numbers:
(360)432-5167
4. Date checklist prepared: July 12,2012
5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County
Mason County SEPA Checklist 1
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
It is anticipated that Schedule"A"and Schedule"C"will begin construction fall of 2012. (See Attachment A: Site Location
Map showing locations of Schedules A,and C)
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,
explain.
No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to
this proposal.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Notice of Intent(N.O.I.)
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the
property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Franchise Agreements with Mason County and W.S.D.O.T
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Franchise Agreement Approvals, Notice of Intent(N.O.I.)
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and
site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.
You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional
specific information on project description.)
Schedule"A": Construct 12"watermain; Beginning at the intersection of Tarragon Ave.and Shelton Springs Road; Along Shelton
Springs Road to US 101;Thence along USf101to SR 102;Thence along SR 102 to Washington State Patrol. Schedule"C":
Construct 8"and 12"watermain within V�aAington State Patrol parcel. SIDE
12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site
plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
to this checklist.
Please see attached"Site Location Map"(Attachment A)and Site Plans.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 2
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH:
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other(explain).
Flat to rolling, running along an existing Road Right of way,as described previously.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Less than 5%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know
the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Carstairs gravelly loam; Gravel pit;Grove gravelly sandy loam;Lystair loamy sand;Shelton gravelly sandy loam None of these
soil map units would be classified as prime farmland; none of the project area is used for agriculture. (See Attachment B: Soil
survey map)
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
None observed or noted in the Mason County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan,July,2010 Publication.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of
fill.
Grading is not anticipated for this Project.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
It is not anticipated that there will be any significant erosion associated with this Project. Erosion will be mitigated using BMP's
specified in the SWPPP and Project Plans.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
This Project will not add impervious surfaces.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
The SWPPP and the Plans address erosion and specify applicable BMP's that will be implemented.
2. AIR:
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood
smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities, if known.
During construction there may be minor amounts of dust as a result of trenching, loading and unloading of trucks.
Construction equipment exhaust.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None anticipated.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 3
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Water Trucks to settle dust.
3 WATER:
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and
seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Schedule"A": Palustrine Emergent(PEM)Wetlands near the intersection of Tarragon Ave.and Shelton Springs Road(eastern end of
project). Construction will traverse past Turtle Lake area between SR 102 and W.Sanderson Way within US 101 ROW.
(See Attachment(s)C: Nearby Wetlands and Streams)
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes,
please describe and attach available plans.
Construction will be adjacent to the known PEM wetland area and Turtle Lake mentioned in item#1 above.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or
wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Construction will not fill or dredge either the PEM wetland area or Turtle Lake. All work adjacent to these areas will occur within the
County or State right-of-way.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No. Not according to FEMA Flood Map 530115 0190 C. (See Attachment(s)F) 1-3)
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of
waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
No.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 4
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any
(for example; domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served
(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
N/A
c. Water runoff(including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include
quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters?
Source of run-off will be from existing adjacent roadways. Runoff from these road systems is already collected in the existing road
side ditches. Existing soils consist mostly of gravels and sand. Infiltration rates are high--do not promote runoff.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Applicable BMP's specified in the SWPPP and noted in the construction documents.
4. PLANTS:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
x shrubs
x grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Trees,Shrubs and grasses--mostly grasses;Whatever is growing along the public right of way in the waterline pathway
Mason County SEPA Checklist 5
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None Known(personal communication with DNR Natural Heritage Program staff).
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,
if any:
Hydro seed disturbed areas.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the
site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other hawk,eagle(no nesting noted on PHS maps),songbirds
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other deer
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Mazama Pocket Gopher(candidate,threatened)and Streaked Horn Lark(candidate,endangered)mapped in
Airport runway areas. (See Attachment E:WDFW Priority Habitats and Species(PHS)Maps)
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Not according to WDFW-PHS maps
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None Proposed—no impacts anticipated from this project
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES:
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's
energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Gasoline or diesel in trucks and excavators during construction; none after completion.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed
measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
N/A
Mason County SEPA Checklist 6
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,
spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
Refueling of construction equipment
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No special emergency services needed.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Contractor will not be allowed to store fuel on Project.
b. Noise.
1) What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
None that will affect this Project.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a
long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would
come from the site.
Temporary equipment noise during the construction of the watermain--short term. Construction only expected to run during normal
working hours.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Set specific working hours.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Commercial, Industrial and Residential.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Public infrastructure that includes but not limited to paved roads, underground and above grade utilities.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 7
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? UGA, RR20, RC3, LTCF
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? City of Shelton UGA(Sch.A and C);
g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? None_________
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
The project may overlie standard wetland buffers,but falls entirely within the ROW--i.e., non-functional buffer.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A____._._
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/A
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans:
Watermain extension is in accordance with the City of Shelton Water Comp. Plan and provides potable water to essential
State and County services.
9. HOUSING:
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
N/A
10. AESTHETICS:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior
building material(s) proposed?
N/A
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None
Mason County SEPA Checklist 8
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
N/A-underground facility.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal:
N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
N/A
12. RECREATION:
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Airport;skydiving; bird watching at wetlands,walking or running along road.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
N/A
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known
to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
None known
i
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance
known to be on or next to the site.
None known
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None
Mason County SEPA Checklist 9
14. TRANSPORTATION:
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street
system. Show on site plans, if any.
Shelton Springs Road, US 101 and SR 102--project is directly adjacent to or crosses these roads(See Attachment A)
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the existing street system?
Show on site plans, if any.
Yes, US 101 and SR 102 are Dial-a-Ride(no bus shelters)Shelton Springs Road is Route 7 with stops at gas station, High
School,or a safe place along Shelton Springs Road(no bus shelters).
0
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
No parking spaces created or eliminated
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including
driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
Repaving 1/2 of Shelton Springs Road lane from Tarragon to Hwy 101.
e. Will the project use(or occur in the vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Project is in the airport vicinity, but not expected to impact air transportation.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
N/A
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Temporary traffic control during construction
15. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service(for example: fire protection, police protection,
health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe:
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any:
None
16. UTILITIES:
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: elec, ty, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,
sanitary sewer, septic system, other: All are available; none will be used for project.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity that might be needed.
The City of Shelton proposes to extend watermain NW on Shelton Springs Road from Tarragon Avenue(Shelton City Limits),
continuing on, Hwy 101 and SR 102 to WSP.
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying
on them to make its decision.
Applicant Signature: Date:
Mason County SEPA Checklist 10
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs
further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon,
trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as
endangered, threatened or being considered for listing.
If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project
has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help
determine if the ESA listings will impact your project.
The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can
provide information for the following two questions.
1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located?
YES FV1 NO F Please describe.
Coho--Fed.Threatened.;Chinook-Fed.Candidate; Cutthroat-Fed.Threatened (See Attachment D[WDFW-PHS maps]and
Attachment E[WDFW Basin Map])
2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed?
YES❑✓ NO❑ Uncertain❑ Please describe.
If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the
remainder of this checklist.
PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity.
1. Name of watershed: WRIA--Kennedy Goldsborough(See Attachment F:WDFW Basin Map)
Sch.A:John's Creek,Turtle Lake and PEM wetlands at Tarragon Avenue; Sch C: None
2. Name of nearest waterbody:
3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: Often a buffer
between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative im to fish.
p � pact s
Sch.A: 3000'to John's Ck.;75'to both Turtle Lake and PEM Wetlands;SCh C:about 400'to Turtle Lake.
4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland,
etc.)?
Between Sch.A and John's Ck.--3000 feet of undeveloped forest area; between Sch A and both Turtle PEM wetlands, f
p —50-75 0
vegetated wetland buffer;will cross culvert flowing to west; Sch C: roadway and business park between C and Turtle Lake(no
impacts from C expected). p
5. Is the project above a:
• natural permanent barrier(waterfall) YES❑ NO W1
• natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES❑ NO J r l
" man-made barrier(culvert, dam) YES I NO�•
U
• other(explain):
6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage?
YES❑ on now NO ✓ Don't k NA
n U
7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement& roof area)?
None
Mason Court SEPA Checklist 11
FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult
and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration.
1. Does the project require the withdrawal of:
a. Surface water? YES-0 NO
Amount
Name of surface water body
b. Ground water? YES❑ NO PI
Amount
From where
Depth of well
2. Will any water be rerouted. YES 0 NO❑✓
If yes, will this require a channel change?
3. Will there be retention or detention ponds. YES❑ NO ✓❑
If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface
water body? If to a surface waterbody, please give the name of the waterbody.
YES❑ NO M
4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES❑ NO ✓❑
Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat.
5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES❑ NO❑✓
6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES❑ NO ✓❑
If yes, describe the changes.
7. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows?
YES❑ 1 NO 21
If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project?
WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could adversely impact water quality.
Such impacts can cause problems for listed species.
Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces, altering water temperature, discharging
contaminants, etc.
1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed?
YES❑ NO ❑✓ If yes, describe.
The watershed is huge and includes some developed areas that may or may not have water quality problems, but local water
quality will not be impacted b this project.
q tY P Y P J
I
Mason County SEPA Checklist 12
Ili
2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody?
YES F] NO_ • ] If yes, describe.
Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in
shade.
l
3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants
(fertilizers, other waste discharges, or runoff)to the waterbody? If yes, describe.
YES NOV
4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project.
YES F] NO 5- 1
I
In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity.
I
5. Will your project require long-term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for
vegetation management, clearing of parking lots?
I YES F NO
n If yes, please describe.
VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation,
thereby, adversely impacting salmon.
1. Will the oroiect involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks..
YES NOV
If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed.
2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant?
YES NOS If yes, what types of plants will you use?
Any disturbed soil surfaces along the waterline alignment will be revegetated by hydroseeding(pre-existing vegetation in the
road side area is mostly grass).
The above answers are true and complete to the best o my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decisi
Applicant Signature: Date: 13
Mason County SEPA Checklist 13
x qdb° o
ID
00
o =
n
Johns Lako :
V
W �
--- -W EELLS H LL RD__
n
a ' W BUSINESS PARK RD�
Iva _E FARFELD CT� Ep
ff C
~ W44 11DeftO.VN11Y
'P $�
co�,oaD _-- Schedule A A.Wwwom W,
Schedule C �..
Cpk�ap.-----
I
® 0 37848
Attachment A: Site Location Map, and depictions of Schedule A and C.
1f6724 (Gh r 1
san&
LAIr
[0669 INI
r T 7391 f Ce ���BWC" _
2d8 3 G* '
1968 td 4cf 0t4
(ff85 (CC
�0 AGM Jo�ariraMv Sande Posm.
I""' �ran3uadrerrrcS'�ee
�.. 33.4 F
�384 �d :ranfsa IROY)O am Qta3
3?? ,h', r ;tr rpm Darn
inro
tB 1 � r'do�rna zR la►m O:a 3
r'- r r t
f<y --F-
li3 I'atm r o30r
t �Sa2B4
P 7 S lOf �'ocR ma°e'ty loam 0'.a 3
Schedule A
3 4 GI r f
Schedule C .. 32 x Qom'
Y"IV.�is_Fw �r
�2 7 f LC
.. S
a .'acedgi-i")°-r�Q
: I04 I -
Attachment B: Soil Survey Map of the Project area, showing Schedule A and C subareas
A
k
791700 791702 9 4 791708 791708 1 802 791806 721808
+ + + rr Tv rtl '
See detail in
! Attachment C-3 s Island Lake
790780 +907 790784 +90786 +90788 +90880 _ +-790M 7 908H 8 ¢ 0
4^�
See detail in
Attachment C-2
190760 790762 720704 76 7 788 790860 790802 790866 0868 720960
9+ y + + + + + 4- U +
10
11
X 12 7
2 � F � 4
790740 +9074 +907 4 +90748 790T48 7 90842 + 9084490848 + 940
Schedule A =� �, F
V F
N
Schedule C ��low s<isee— Ks
790720 _N +e722 + 724 +90728 +90820 +90822 790 7908 + 28 790920
15 F .14,IF F FF 13
790700 i 9D z y 90 so6 i 90708 i 9o8oa az o o 790 -
Attachment C-1: Wetlands adjacent to pipeline alignment in Sch. A include Turtle Lake and PEM
wetland system draining under the road toward Goose Lake at the southeast corner of the project
area.
NEIGHBORk CIJ CS L11'E TRAFFIC
1
r' Sch.A
•
rh J
W
101
End of
Project at
_ lit
Tarragon
Avenue
PEM wetlands
ti flowing SW toward
Goose Lake
R
1
101
Attachment C-2: PEM wetlands adjacent to Schedule A alignment
is � ,.i k+i� '••• .•
LN H��•.•.ay.P;.Y.Lu��u `
:� � L�H�L2-.r,�'-'� • Turtle Lake
'�rss Pad RQ .
(y M
' I
�r•.�� 1
Schedule A
Iwo
wOp ---Aj
Attachment C-3: Turtle Lake adjacent to Schedule • alignment
a i
NA—too far from
project to impact
`* Schedule A
Schedule C
M.�..
1`
1 �q
�y r
Mazama Pocket gopher
(Candidate,threatened) habitat
mapped through the airport; i Mappeda Palustrine WL
habitat-no E&T spp;
Streaked horned lark(Candidate,
endangered) breeding habitat P
mapped in southern majority of
airport.
3.
Attachment E: Schedule A and C: WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps.
WDFW staff indicated no expected impacts from this ROW project.
rr f 'f/.` , .\ r P
4.� is i .1 ry4 !/�1.• l i f l l; ,> i
s Project area r' .; t (�:• ,
6 iut
16
WRIA Kennedy Goldsborough Creek a + 16
k 141f ? .-
r
of
14�
1
ns
P.
r
4$L A G"rC N '
t r ,`a J` 31sQn m ij;
Attachment F: WRIA Kennedy Goldsborough Creek from WDFW PHS maps
KEY TO MAP
500•Y141 Flood Boundary- - f
ZONE Et 'I ZTE:l IN FEET100•Year Flood Boundary Schedule A: Northwest extent ,000
Zone Designations :
:DO-Yaar Flood Boundary a.X
ZONE B
5DO-Year Flood Boundary -
NATIONAL F1000 INSgRANCE PROGRAM I
Base flood Elevatior Ltie -
W'i;h Elevation In Fee[•'
Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 9871 Where Uriform Within Zont'• '�,I� FIRM
Elevation Re'el Mark RM7x F1000 INSURANCE RATE MAP
Zorc D Boundary--- -----
R,ver hide cl I, 3lASON COUNTY.
--Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 WASIUNGTON
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS (UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
ZONE EXPLANATION
A Areas of TOO-year flood;base flood elevations and Schedule C 1, PANEL 190 OF 300
flood hazard factors not detelm:ned.
AO Areas of TOOrytar shallow flooding where depths to rw�ae.........
.or.nvteo:
are between one(1)and three(3)feet;average depths
of inundation arc shown,but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
AM Areas of TOO-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one(1)and three(3)`tut;base food
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors
arc determined.
A,-A30 Areas of 100-year flood;base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors determined.
A99 Area, of 100•year rood to be protected by flood COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
protection system under construction; base flood 5301150190C
elevations and flood hmrd factors not determined-
0 Areas between l:mib of the 104year Flood and S00-
year flood;or certain areas subject to 100•year flood• EFFECTIVE DATE:
thewith average depths lea than one(th foot or where MAY 11,1988
me contributing drainage anal is Itss man one sauce ZONE C
mile;or areas protected by levees from the base flood,
(Medium shading)
C Areas of minimal Rooding.(No shading)
D Areas of undetermined,but possible,flood hazards. IL
FWe,al Emergence MaPagrment Agerssy
V Areas of 100-yea:coastal:flood with velocity(wave --
action);base flood elevations and Rood hazard factors ;r.s s err oelelal copy ma porn—err the R
not determined. nc,ed vainq/arm e�-L,w. ,N.map wte r,u realer,cru,q.t
amend
" which may Yore peen meOr suliliil to the dnt-t•e
Vt•V30 Are.of 100-war coastal need with velocity fwave od•n-v For the laeeet Product'Alawut u.eonr Filed 1—new
0 n P r ,am e000 moda caeca the ll Fiaod Map Stop an www.mee.htma gov
Attachment F-1: Western end of Schedule A, and Schedule C FEMA map.
KEY TO MAP
Soo-Year I"Boundary ZONE 8 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
100•Year Flood Boundary—-__- 1000 0 1000
Zone Designations
�.
100•Year Flood Boundary -;3
ZONE B
500.Ytar Flood Boundary fca;M III iIONII FLOOD INSURANCE PROORAY
Be%Flood Elevation Line 513 _ -With Elevation In Foot— _
Base Flood Elevation In Feet (EL 9871 ZONE A _ r✓ III FIB Where Uniform Within Zone** a D
Elevation Reference Mark RM7x FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 2 x 'r'
4
zone DBoundary _ } TURTLE LAKE
RivcrMdc e101.5 ;MASON COUNTY.
**Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1979 WASHINGTON
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS (UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
I � I
ZONE EXPLANATION Schedule A: Central extent
A Areas of 100•yoar flood;base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors not determined. PANEL 190 OF�0
AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths ' eta w•.�.wrc•oe raMau wt.nwna
are between one(1)and three(3)feet;average depths ZONE C
of inundation are shown,but no flood hazard factors
Am determined.
AH Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one(1)and three(3)feet;base flood
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
At-A30 Areas of 100•yeu flood;base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors determined. -\
A99 Area of 100•year flood to be protected by flood COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
protection system under construction; base flood 530115 0190 C
elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.
e Area between limits of the 100-year flood and 500• O \ EFFECTIVE DATE;
year flood;or certain area subject to 100•year flood-
in with average depths ge the none(1)footorwhere O 1 MAY 17,198$
the contributing drainage area Is less than one s0uut
mile-or areas protected by levees from the bass flood.
(Medium shading)
C Areasof minimal flooding.(No shading)
D Area of undetermined,but possible,flood hazards. '. Federal Emergetrcy Management Agency
V Aram of lMyear coastal flood with velocity(wave SHELTON -
action);base flood elevations and flood hoard factors AIRPORT t" a,asur copy or a peraen a:ne aeb,rcrbeneea n—ma, e
not determined. was ekneasa,nnp Fan on.a.ne tN.map oow floc-elect eranya
amergmem.wnch may nave been mace.seee�m r`tar me an ere
V1-V30 Area of 1 a r coastal flood with velocity wa,e cane bock. Fpr lM 1-1 product NOrnee-abet.Recent R000 ll..ranGe
= Program eooe map.cn.ck:ne FEw.F o0o Map Stare rt vw.w'.ms:.re-'a 9w
Attachment F-Z: Central section of Schedule A FEMA map.
LAKE _
KEY TO MAP ZONE C e 1
SOO-Year Flood Boundary
ZONE 8 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
1DO-Year Flood Boundary
Joao 0 1000
Zone Designations M
�'—F—�
Schedule A: Eastern extent
1DO-Ye2r Flood Boundary d ZONE[! v
S00-Year Flood Boundary O NATIONAL FLOOD INSRRANCE FRBRRAIR
4 hi i 'I
Sax Flood Elevatior Lana
With Elevation In Feet.• O
Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 9871 I�
Where Uriform Within Zones- �I -Ii FIPA
Elevation Reference Mark RM7x = I,j f1000 INSURANCE RATE MAP
Zone D Boundary
River M le -M1.5 ON
—Referenced to the Naiiona''Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 �MASON COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS 12 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) I
—
ZONE EXPLANATION
ZONE A
A Areas of 100-year flood;base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors not determined. PANEL 190 OF 300
AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths ; s¢.0�noea roe...aA aor.ansrzol
are between one(1)and three(3)feet;average depths I
of inundation are shown,but no flood hazard factors
are determined. r
AM Areas o1 100-Year shallow flooding where depths ".
are between one(1)and three(3)feet;base flood J l�
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors
a re determined. ZONE A
A7-A30 Areas of 100-year flood;base flood elevations and
flood harard factor determined.
A99 Areas of ]DO-year sold to be protected by flood COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
Protection system under construction; base *food .-..
elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. -"yj',k4a?- 530115 0190 C
8 Areas between Lmits of the 100-year flood and 500•
year flood;or certain areas subject to 100-year flood. v. "'+' Eire'. EFFECTIVE DATE:
with averse d< the le
ss than one 1 foot r who
end P o n
the conVrbuun drainage area I i h MAY 17 1988
H S•SS i>n one Souue
8
in
or area protected by levees from[he bast flood, �-
}m-
Med�um shading)
I ,
R \ I
C Areas of minimal flooding,(No shading)
D Areas of undetermined,but possible,flood hazards. ~ ._�``` / '� Fe4e.1 F—jency Mamgemens Aaen
V Areas of I00-year coasts:flood with velocity(wave
actionJ;base flood elevations and Rood hazard factors u.r
not determined. `� F- rns le an ornc�a perry pro Harem der t.,c ahnv.srra�csa npoe moo. n
Q
V1 V30 <�ro Fuarr 0 - the mp uve J oo
Areas of 100-year clattal flood with velocitv(waveo emA have lin made —,s to me aae der sne
10 City of rig.pock Fa the lretret product b nVhm oar 1-.1 Arad MNa ce
VrOPyn lox maps eYck tM FEI.N Flood Mep Store der www nnp.M1ma pw
Attachment F-3: Eastern end of Schedule A FEMA map.
PORTIONS OF SEC. 1, 2, 3,4, 9, 11 & 12,T. 20 N., R. 4 W.,W.M.
PROJECT
LOCATION
�� T
® Department of ,
2 Corrections
raceixiA c•m
DAYTON AIRPORT ROAD
CITY OF SHELTON
WATERMAIN EXTENSION
SCHEDULE "A VICINITY MAP
SCHEDULE•B"#4 SCHEDULE"R �
NS
T 12. $ K
1
WES EELLS HIL ROAD R 102 ?�
SR 02
AIRPORT
ASHI GTON AIRPORT RD.) SHEET-INDEX
STATE L
CO STRUCT 12• ISLAND 1. COVER SHEET
//�� WA ERMAIN LAKE 2. LAYOUT SHEET
,PORT OF d 3. LEGEND&ABBREVIATIONS
SHELTO� 4. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 121+33.42 TO 128+30.16(STATE ROUTE 102)
5. WASHINGTON STATE PATROL SERVICE AND CONNECTION SITE PLAN
p 6. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 128+30.16 TO 139+50(STATE ROUTE 102)
7. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 139+50 TO 151+10(STATE ROUTE 102)
1 B. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 151+10 TO 161+31.34(STATE ROUTE 102)
CONSTRUCT 12" 9. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 58+69.21(US 101)TO 69+10(US 101)
WATERMAIN 10. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 69+10 TO 78+50(US 101)
11. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 78+50 TO 88+21.24(US 101)
f N•l•Qp 0.O�5tAS'0 P'o� 13. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 12. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 10+10 TO 20+90(SHELTON SPRINGS.24 TO 10+10(SHELTON )
+90(SHELTON SPRINGS)
It r\Skv OF GOB SANDERSON SyFIT ® 15. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 30+90 TO 414. WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 20+90 TO 1+0(SHELTON SPRINGS)
qIt' E FIELD � O.l. 16, WATERMAIN EXTENSION STATION 41+10 TO 49+00(SHELTON SPRINGS)
j OEQ N0. sA17.ti CONTROL DETAILS
18. TREEN CH RESTORATIONDETAILS
RESTORATION DETAILS
20. WATER DETAILS
21. WATER DETAILS
22. WASHINGTON STATE PATROL SERVICE AND CONNECTION DETAILS
i! MASON COON /
FAIRGROUNDS
1
� PROJECT DATUMS: w a•rt�zaxc
SCALE 1-• FEET' tSl+ncµ ppnM auusxr craven�a�wra surz �
o � « w ••••w�A�a w.•��a 90%DRAWINGS
(n[rw m rvw+a•sort IeS�CMawaaal f WL MIIr NL uNwm=
f 110M
rofwmr"as w.emi,.m�iou"x�o u.l w m�swCaui x�wae n"w m wn �2 ua'.r i-soo-•t.-nro
NO DATE BY APPx MUMS Approved By DAYTON AIRPORT RD WATERMAIN EXTENSION
Civil•Municipal•Geotechnical•Land Surveying DAYTON AIRPORT RD SCHEDULE"A"
Jerome W. Morrissette & Associates Inc., P.S. mz Cover Sheet
oo r CITY OF SHELTON
1700 Cooper PI.Road S.W.i8.2,Olympia,Wa.98502-1110 Ph 360.352.9456 Fa 360.352.9990 +.•+" SHEET .1
PORTIONS
PRO E
LOC
10 N'S L
E
S E WES DA IRPORT RO D/SR 102
SHEET 6 SHEET 7 -
SHEET SHEET 8
5
U LE
WASHINGTON LA .
STATE
TROL
VICINITY MAP
OPORT OF SHELTON ISLAND ...a
LAKE
�5
J
2
E y
Y 7^s hFT
A
e OG�
N o
O
t F�7S
5� SANDERSON
S FIELD S
1
F
��•i..n.gmn sun same m.r,
1 r.crox�o•�Ois.ni".Y.n wan
ux io wri s.�afua rrq a.<n•.
ioran oxnu
4 •q[ r•nK WSrZ gv9n pMM nK qr fxGwnav ffi
F 0 250 5�'� •;>�.���xq„q.m.q�gsrgf :.`�`5•.'f '".,q�"."�w';"wi��nn�>>A���f��•`�"gR•f 90%DRAWINGS ���s
i �a a b.:C.WK n.f
NO DATE BY APPR " 'b''�s°��'�"•
REVISIONS ur
Civil-Municipal•Geotechnical Land Surveying Approved By }, DAYTON AIRPORT RD WATERMAIN EXTENSION
°
F Jerome W. DAYTON AIRPORT RD Morrissette & Associates Inc., P.S. o�•. SCHEDULE"A"
1700 Cooper Pt.Road S.W.fB-2,Olympia,Wa.98502-1110 Ph 360.352.9456 Fx 360.352.9990 sorgsm ar CITY OF SH ELTON Layout Sheet
9 q
u::n,...ww m.or o�A..•,mr,..,n.....yr,..,,,,,n�,
�...wxm.�..Hn.,.,,.�a,,,n,,,,,• SHEET 2.OF yL
PORTION OF SEC. 2,T. 20 N., R.4 W.,W.M.
I- -
I
' WASHINGTON '
-"-"- "' PORT OF STATE
SHELTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
II — — —•— — —' I i I 1 � ��
SHEET 24 0 _ 8 ---�• — o`er
•�,` SHEET J E / /•• S EET2 �•��+ -CAL
�a0 0 ��• SHEET 1 — — i SHEEII `� _ •— _ _ n�"° "i.Kn.
!� L
0
WASHINGTON E • III�IIII '1
4 I STATE
PATROL I Y N o •q ;!i ! �=—1
I
¢ I i
3I SHE•25 JI I •
E
1
E
s
I "
B ' I SHEET 21 IIE SHEET 22 SHEET 23
S II IIE j �
E
1 �
i;
IIE �
E
. EN 30%DRAWINGS
a me.wro.awm. _ 1—
meiwi°(')
NO DATE BY APPR REVISIONS Approved By DAYTON AIRPORT RD WATERMAIN EXPANSION PROJECT
Civil-Municipal•Geotechnical-Land Surveying DAYTON AIRPORT RD SCHEDULE"C"
r
VAIE
Jerome W. Morrissette & Associates Inc., P.S. "°' CITY OF SHELTON Layout Sheet
990
1700 Cooper Pt.Road S.W.•13-2,Olympia,Wa.98502-1 E ID Ph 360.352.9456 Px 360.352.9 °tm"r °'� w �°+`^•'� "•�``��� SHEET 1,Q OF JL
Case Number: SEP2012-00016
MEP/SEPA for City of Shelton "Dayton-Airport Water Expansion Project"
City of Shelton Responses to REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Project Description Clarification
What is the project the City is asking for Environmental Review?
The City is acting on behalf of the Washington State Patrol(WSP),and Washington Department
of Corrections(DOC)to design and construct Phase II of the Shelton Area Regional Plan
Dayton Airport Road Water Expansion(DA 99 Project. The original instructions from state
partners were to design the water main extension from a City source to the WSP Academy
("Schedule A")and DOC Washington Correctional Center(described in earlier paperwork as
"Schedule B");with the understanding that"Schedule A"will be constructed as soon as possible,
and"Schedule B"drawings would be put"on the shelf'for future use. Concurrently,WSP
secured additional design funds and decided to include Academy property"offite"water system
improvements(new"Schedule C"). State legislature has authorized construction funds for
Schedules A and C,to be completed by June 30,2013.
THEREFORE:the City is submitting forms for Mason County environmental review only for
the construction of Schedules A and C(see Project Site Map). "Schedule B"construction timing
is unknown. For that reason,the City has removed"Schedule B"from this SEPA review process
and will submit new forms to Mason County when DOC decides and secures funding for
constructing"Schedule B". This is intended to simplify and clarify"what is the project"and the
area being considered for environmental considerations.
Response to Request#1:
• Mason County Environmental Permit(MEP)-Application was not included with the original
City submittal. This was an oversight and not intended to `piggy-back' or be confused with Case
#PAR2007-00018. The 2007 pre-application noted is related to the previous City's sewer and
reclaimed water conveyance pipelines project already constructed. Please see the attached MEP
for the new City's potable water expansion project.
• Critical Aquifer Recharge Area No impacts are anticipated to the Critical Aquifer Recharge
Area due to the fact that all surface and stormwater runoff will be managed and treated as
required under the Mason County Drainage and Erosion Control Manual. Potential for impacts
from this project are minimal to begin with,but by applying stormwater management BMPs
required by existing law,the possibility of impact is significantly reduced.
• Wetlands-The City acknowledges that the water line project runs adjacent to wetland areas
along Shelton Springs Road,and falls within what is already a non-functional portion of a
wetland buffer(i.e.,managed road-side area);but,there will be no direct impacts to the wetlands.
Conversations with County staff indicated Right-of-Way(ROW)projects do not require
assessment of wetland(or stream)buffer impacts as long,as there were no direct critical area
impacts from the project.
• Wetland-Turtle Lake has not been rated. Turtle Lake is on the opposite side of State Route 101
from the water main construction,and did not anticipate seeking rating information for an offsite
Shelton Responses—Page 1
wetland. The design consultant determined an approximate size using Google Earth
measurements;the lake edge is 150-200 feet away from the ROW project and on the opposite
side of the road.Turtle Lake was determined to be too small to be regulated as a lake(Shoreline),
and therefore,falls under wetland regulatory rules. It is likely to rate as a Category II system with
buffers between 110-150 feet. The water line project impacts would be at the far outside edge of
the lake system buffer.
• Threatened or Endangered Species-Other nearby wetlands adjacent to the water line project
have low to moderate habitat values—75-110 ft buffers are anticipated.The water line project
impacts would be within approximately 50 feet of these other systems.As mentioned above,the
area being impacted is a managed road-side zone—not a functional wetland buffer. Conditions in
that area will be the same before and after this project is completed,and due to specified project
requirements for the application of stormwater BMPs,no water quality impacts are expected.
The design consultant is providing Priority Habitats and Species maps from the WDFW database
in the SEPA Checklist;no impacts are anticipated.
Responses to Request#2:
• Stormwater Permit Application-Runoff is not"directed"to Turtle Lake. Some project runoff
occurs within those sub-basins,but all water will be managed as required by the Mason County
Stormwater Manual rules.
• Goldsborough Creek is more than a half mile away from the proposed construction project. As
described above,the project has been reduced to what will actually be constructed,and
"Schedule B"is no longer being assessed. The currently proposed Shelton waterline connection
extends only to the WSP Academy,and therefore consideration of potential impacts to
Goldsborough Creek are not necessary.
Responses to Request#3:
• Geotechnical Report-The Project description in the Geotechnical report is for"Schedule A"
only;the City is providing soils descriptions for the relatively small"Schedule C"area from the
Soil Survey as an attachment to the revised SEPA Checklist.The"Schedule C"areas are flat
with relatively coarse-textured soils.
Responses to Request#4:
• Site Plan—Site Plans for"Schedule A"(Shelton City limits to WSP Academy)and"Schedule
C"(WSP Academy onsite water system)are included
Responses to Request#5:
• Title Notification of Aquifer Recharge Area—Copy of the signed and Recorded Title
Notification is included.
Shelton Responses—Page 2
Page 1 of 1
Grace Miller- FW: SEPA for City of Shelton
From: "Rogers, Gloria S (DFW)" <Gloria.Rogers@dfw.wa.gov>
To: "Skriletz, Jeffrey K (DFW)" <Jeffrey.Skriletz@dfw.wa.gov>
Date: 8/23/2012 4:26 PM
Subject: FW: SEPA for City of Shelton
CC: Grace Miller<Gbm@co.mason.wa.us>
Attachments: 20120823153354168.pdf
Hello Jeff,
Could you please help me with this one. Area may have pocket gophers. Thanks
Gloria Rogers
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano, WA 98563
3 60-249-1293
This e-mail and your response may be subject to public disclosure.
PS. I'll be on vacation 8/29—9/3. Yeah!!!!!
From: Grace Miller [mailto:Gbm@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Rogers, Gloria S (DFW)
Subject: SEPA for City of Shelton
Attached is SEPA for City of Shelton water line. Not sure who, other than you at Wildlife, to send this to? Please
forward if should go to someone else. Thank you.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\gbm\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\503659CAMason... 8/23/2012
Page 1 of 1
Grace Miller-Re: SEPA for Cite of Shelton water expansion project
A
From: Cindy Waite
To: Grace Miller
Date: 8/23/2012 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: SEPA for City of Shelton water expansion project
Attachments: Cindy Waite.vcf
No comments.Cindy Waite
>>>Grace Miller 8/23/2012 3:34 PM>>>
Attached for your comment is SEPA for City of Shelton water expansion project
file:HCADocuments and Settings\gbm\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\503652DCMason... 8/23/2012
1
4
� r<y
a•
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 •Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 •(360)407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service -Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
September 6, 2012
Ms. Grace Miller Your address
Mason County is in the
Department of Community Development Kennedy'
Planning Division Goldsborough
PO Box 279 watershed
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Ms.Miller:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the
Dayton Airport Road Water Expansion project(SEP2012-00016) located in Shelton as proposed
by Dennis McDonald, City of Shelton Public Works. The Department of Ecology(Ecology)
reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s):
TOXICS CLEANUP: James DeMay(360)407-6316
The proposed SEPA action is within a quarter mile of a known or suspected contaminated
site. The site is Port of Shelton All Star Aero(FS ID# 1187). To search and access
information concerning these sites,visit Ecology's Facility/Site database at:
http://www.ecy.wa. og v/fs/and the Cleanup Site Search at:
https://fortress.wa. og v/ecy/gsn/SiteSearchPage.aspx. If contamination is suspected,
discovered, or occurs during the proposed SEPA action,testing of the potentially
contaminated media must be conducted. Contact the Environmental Report Tracking System
Coordinator at the Southwest Regional Office at(360)407-6300. For assistance and
information about subsequent cleanup and to identify the type of testing that will be required,
contact James DeMay with the Toxics Cleanup Program at the phone number given above.
SEPA REVIEWER: Sonia Mendoza
WATER QUALITY CONTACT: Deborah Cornett(360)407-7269
Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in
violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A, Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington,and is subject to
enforcement action.
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading,or construction.
These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil
and other pollutants into surface water or stormdrains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,
silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
a/
September 6, 2012
Page 2
Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot
enter water of the state and stormdrains draining to waters of the state or cause water quality
degradation of state waters.
Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such,they
may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal
requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments,please contact the
appropriate reviewing staff listed above.
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(SM:12-4128)
cc: Deborah Cornett,WQ
James DeMay, TCP
Dennis McDonald, City of Shelton Public Works(Applicant)
Page 1 of 1
Grace Miller - Shelton Water Project
From: "Dennis McDonald" <Dennis@ci.shelton.wa.us>
To: "Grace Miller" <Gbm@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 11/16/2012 9:02 AM
Subject: Shelton Water Project
Attachments: DOC111612.pdf
Grace
Shelton Dayton-Airport Road Water Expansion Project
Mason County SEPA SEP2012-00016
Attached is the project's Construction Stormwater General Permit# WAR-126187 for your
files.
Contact me if you have any questions or comments. I hope this makes SEPA complete.
Thank you
Dennis McDonald, MA-ABS, PMP
Regional Project Manager
City of Shelton
(360) 432-5167
dennis@ci.shelton.wa.us
file:///C:/Users/gbm/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/50A60134Masonmai1100167376E... 11/16/2012
STATf•o�
ok, ��y� 1889 a�Y
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47600 o Olympia, WA 98504-7600 O 360-407-6000
711 for Washington Relay Service Persons with.a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
October 25, 2012
Dennis McDonald
City of Shelton
525 W Cota St
Shelton, WA 98584-2239 *
ow
RE: Coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit
Permit number: WAR-126187
Site Name: Dayton Airport Road Water Expansion Project
Location: Dayton Airport Rd, Shelton Springs Rd,US 101
Shelton County: Mason
Disturbed Acres: 2.54
} Dear Mr. McDonald:
The Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology)received your Notice-of Intent for coverage
under Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit(permit). This is your permit coverage
letter. Your permit coverage is effective on October 25,2012. Please retain this permit coverage
letter with your permit(enclosed),stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP),•and site'log
book. These materials are the official record of permit coverage for your site.
Please take time to read the entire permit and contact Ecology if you have any questions:
Appeal Process
You have a right to appeal coverage under the general permit to the Pollution Control Hearing Board
(PCHB)within 30 days of the date of receipt of this letter. This appeal is limited to the general
permit's applicability or non-applicability to a specific discharger. The appeal process is governed
by chapter 43.21B RCW and chapter 371-08 WAC. ".Date of receipt" is defined in RCW
43.21 B.001(2).
I �
Dennis McDonald
October 25, 2012
Page 2
To appeal, you must do the following within 30 days of the date of receipt of this letter:
• File your appeal and a copy of the permit cover page with the PCHB (see addresses below).
Filing means actual receipt by the PCHB during regular business hours.
• Serve a copy of your appeal and the permit cover page on Ecology in paper form-
by mail or in person (see addresses below). E-mail is not accepted.
You must also comply with other applicable requirements in chapter 43.21B RCW and chapter 371-
08 WAC.
Address and Location Information:
Street Addresses: Mailing Addresses:
Department of Ecology Department of Ecology
Attn:Appeals Processing Desk Attn:Appeals Processing Desk
300 Desmond Drive SE PO Box 47608
Lacey, WA 98503 Olympia,WA 98504-7608
Pollution Control Hearings Board(PCHB) Pollution Control Hearings Board
1 111 Israel Road SW, Suite 301 PO Box 40903
Tumwater, WA 98501 Olympia,WA 98504-0903
Electronic Discharge Monitoring Reports(WQWebDMR)
This permit requires that Permittees submit monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) electronically
using Ecology's secure online system,WQWebDMR. To sign up for WQWebDMR go to:
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/Paris/webdmr.html. If you have questions, contact Tonya Wolfe
at(360)407-7097 (locally),or(800) 633-6193/option 3,or email WQWebPortal@ecy.wa.gov.
Ecology Field Inspector Assistance
If you have questions regarding stormwater management at your construction site,please contact
Deborah Cornett of Ecology's Southwest Regional Office in Lacey at(360)407-7269, or
deborah.cornett@ecy.wa.gov.
Questions or Additional Information
Ecology is committed to providing assistance. Please review our web page at:
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stonnwater/construction/. If you have questions about the
construction stormwater general permit,please contact Joyce Smith at(360)407-6858,or
joyce.smith@ecy.wa.gov.
Sincere,
Bill Moore, P.E.,Manager
Program Development Services Section
Water Quality Program
Enclosure
oN"SM MASON COUNTY
o P� A o N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
> S N Planning Division
7 N y ti P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
of o (360)427-9670
1864
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
March 26, 2012
CITY OF SHELTON
525 W COTA STREET
SHELTON WA 98584
Parcel No.: 420120060020
Project Description: DAYTON AIRPORT RD WATER EXPANSION PROJECT
Dear Applicant:
You have submitted a permit application (case no. SEP2012-00016) for proposed
construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I require
additional information to complete the permit review process.
Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information
is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information
is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your
application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County
within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on
the proposed development shall take place.
Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 360 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
4stav A&
Grace Miller
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
3/26/2012 Page 1 of 3 SEP2012-00016
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
3/26/2012 Case No.: SEP2012-00016
Comments: After reviewing the SEPA checklist for the Dayton Airport Road Water
Expansion Project, it appears that we need the following information
clarified so that we may further review the proposal.
1) Was a Mason County Permit issued, possibly under a different
parcel number, for this project? In order to require SEPA, there must
be a permit associated with the project. It appears from the 2007
pre-application notes under these parcel numbers, Case
#PAR2007-00018, that Planner, Pam Bennett-Cumming, required a
Mason Environmental Permit for the project. The reason given was
because the project is located on the Critical Aquifer Recharge area
and may be within the buffers of wetlands or other critical areas.
If a Mason Environmental Permit was not issued previously for this
project, it will be required at this time. The entire project is located on
the critical aquifer recharge area. It is unclear what impacts it may or
may not have to the aquifer.
It is also unclear what the relation of the project is to the wetlands and
Turtle Lake which is considered to be a Wetland. Have the wetlands
been categorized by a wetland biologist and what are the setbacks of
the project in relation to their buffers?
If threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the
site and they may be impacted, they will need to be addressed within
the Mason Environmental Permit Application also. The MC Resource
Ordinance Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter
requirements would apply. All resource areas would need to be
addressed within a Mason Environmental Permit.
2) The Draft Stormwater Permit Application states that runoff will be
directed to Goldsborough Creek and Turtle Lake. The checklist states
that the project is not within 200' of a state shoreline. Is the project
within 200' of the Goldsborough Creek at any point? Although the
creek, at this location, does not appear to be under the jurisdiction of
the Shoreline Management Act, it would be regulated by the County
Resource Ordinance as a Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
and would also need to be addressed within the MEP.
3) Is the "Project Description" within the Geotechnical Report accurate
for describing the project within SEPA?
4) Site Plan - It appears that the only Site Plan submitted for the project
is within Appendix A, Figure 1, of the Geotechnical Report. If you have
another Site Plan available, please let me know.
3/26/2012 Page 2 of 3 SEP2012-00016
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
3/26/2012 Case No.: SEP2012-00016
5) An Aquifer Recharge Area Title Notification will need to be recorded
with the Auditor's Office and a copy provided to the Planning
Department, to be placed within the parcel file, prior to final
authorization of the permit. The specific requirements for development
on the aquifer can be found within the Aquifer Recharge Chapter of the
Mason County Resource Ordinance.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
3/26/2012 Page 3 of 3 SEP2012-00016
Department of Public Works — Engineering
525 W. Cota St. • Shelton,WA 98584 • PHONE (360)426-9731 • FAX(360)426-7746
..w dd,.,A Srr W1 eommmr TRANSMITTAL
rOGE HLX
■/OM
July 31, 2012
RECEWED
Grace Miller, Land Use Planner �f,
Mason County Planning Department 2�j2
PO Box 279 MMQN c01,-yam
Shelton,WA 98584
Subject: Case Number: SEP2012-00016
MEP/SEPA for City of Shelton "Dayton-Airport Water Expansion Project"
I offer this response to your Request for Additional Information letter,dated March 26,2012.
Attachments include the following:
• Narrative responses to five(5)requests for clarification;
• City of Shelton Dayton Airport Road Water Expansion Project General SITE MAP and SITE
PLANS for Schedule A and C;
• Environmental Permit Application(Case Number SEP2012-00016);
• New SEPA Checklist,Attachments,and list of changes to previous version;
• Copy of Recorded Title Notification ofAquifer Recharge Area requirements;and
• Revised and Signed Notice of Intent Application Form for Ecology Construction Stormwater
General Permit
Please complete review and notify the City of the final SEPA Determination. Contact me via email at
dennis(a,ci.shelton.wa.us or by phone 360-432-5167 if you have any further questions.
Thank you
Sincer ly,
De c onald
Regional Project Manager
cc: Mike Michael
JWMA
Appropriate Project files
1HARegional Plan\2-Dayton-Airport\Design\Permits\MEP_MasonEnvirPermit.Transmittal20120731.docx
e
Changes to previous hand-written version of SEPA for Dayton Airport Road:
1. All information is now entered into an editable pdf file
2. Page 1: No changes, other than Date
3. Page 2:
a. 2.6:Added wording about Schedule C, deleted wording about Schedule B
b. 2.7:deleted wording about Schedule B
c. 2.8: no change
d. 2.9: no change
e. 2.10: no change
f. 2.11: Added wording about Schedule C; deleted wording about Schedule B
g. 2.12: Changed words "Plan Set"to ""Site Location Map" (Attachment A) and Site Plans"
4. Page 3,Section B: (Earth)
a. 1.a.: Added descriptor wording rather than only circling"rolling".
b. 1.b.: no change
c. 1.c.: added some details about soil mapping
d. 1.d.: no change
e. 1.e.: no change
f. 1.f.: no change
g. 1.g.: no change
h. 1.h.: no change
5. Page 3-4,Section B: (Air)
a. 2.a.: no change
b. 2.b.: no change
c. 2.c.: no change
6. Page 4-5,Section B: (Water)
a. 3.a.1.: revised text to read better and to add Schedule C; deleted wording about
Schedule B
b. 3.a.2.: revised text to read better
c. 3.a.3.: revised text to read better
d. 3.a.4.: no change
e. 3.a.5.:Added reference to Attachment F(FEMA maps)
f. 3.a.6.: no change
g. 3.b.1.: no change
h. 3.b.2.: no change
i. 3.c.1.: revised text to read better
j. 3.c.2.: no change
7. Page 5-6,Section B: (Plants)
a. 4.a.: no change
b. 4.b.: revised text to read better
c. 4.c.: revised text to read better
d. 4.d.: no change
8. Page 6,Section B: (Animals)
a. 5.a.: Added words in addition to circling
b. 5.b.: Added some words providing context and Attachment E PHS map reference
c. 5.c.: no change
d. 5.d.: no change
9. Page 6-7,Section B: (Energy and Natural Resources)
a. 6.a.: no change
b. 6.b.: no change
c. 6.c.: no change
10. Page 7,Section B: (Environmental Health)
a. 7.a.1.: no change
b. 7.a.2.: no change
c. 7.b.1.: no change
d. 7.b.2.: minor wordsmithing
e. 7.b.3.: no change
11. Page 7-8,Section B: (Land and Shoreline Use)
a. 8.a.: no change
b. 8.b.: no change
c. 8.c.: no change
d. 8.d.: no change
e. 8.e.: no change
f. 8.f.: added Schedule C details; deleted wording about Schedule B
g. 8.g.: no change
h. 8.h.: mentioned non-functional buffer impacts
i. 8.i.: no change
j. 8.j.: no change
k. 8.k.: no change
I. 8.1.: no change
12. Page 8, Section B:(Housing)
a. 9.a.: no change
b. 9.b.: no change
c. 9.c.: no change
13. Page 8,Section B: (Aesthetics)
a. 10.a.: no change
b. 10.b.: no change
c. 10.c.: no change
14. Page 9,Section B: (Light and Glare)
a. 11.a.: no change
b. 11.b.: no change
c. 11.c.: no change
d. 11.d.: no change
15. Page 9,Section B: (Recreation)
a. 12.a.: no change
b. 12.b.: no change
c. 12.c.: no change
16. Page 9, Section B: (Historic and Cultural Preservation)
a. 13.a.: no change
b. 13.b.: no change
c. 13.c.: no change
17. Page 10,Section B: (Transportation)
a. 14.a.: minor wordsmithing and reference to map Attachment
b. 14.b.: no change
c. 14..c.: minor wordsmithing
d. 14.d.: added details about repaving section of Shelton Springs Rd.
e. 14.e.: minor wordsmithing
f. 14.f.: no change
g. 14.g.: no change
18. Page 10, Section B (Public Services)
a. 15.a.: no change
b. 15.b.: no change
19. Page 10,Section B (Utilities)
a. 16.a.:added some explanatory words
b. 16.b.: added Schedule C details; deleted wording about Schedule B
20. Page 11, ESA Listed Salmonids Checklist
General Primary questions: 1.Added some details and map Attachment reference
2. no change
Project Specifics: 1. no change
2. added Sch C words; deleted wording about Schedule B
3. added Sch C words; deleted wording about Schedule B
4. added Sch C words; deleted wording about Schedule B
5. answered "no"to all,and deleted mention of roadside ditch
6. deleted "not according to PHS maps" comment,added "NA"
7. no change
Fish Migration: 1. no change
2. no change
3. deleted mention of temporary construction retention pond, since that is not
proposed.
4. no change
5. changed "yes"to "no", as no culverts are proposed
6. no change
7. no change
Water Quality: 1. Changed "yes"to "no", and changed explanation slightly.
2. no change
3. no change
4. still answered "No", but deleted "no in-water or near-water work"
explanation
5. no change
Vegetation: 1. no change
2. minor wordsmithing
Map attachments: All are revised and labeled as referenced within the SEPA checklist document.
After recording return document to: 1993153 MASON CO WA
08/02/2012 09:48 AM MISC
City of Shelton CITY OF SHELTON #56390 Re. Fee: $75.00 Pages: 14
525 W. Cota Street ��������������111111
11111 IIIIiI1111111 IN 111111111111111111111 III 11111111111111111111111
Shelton,WA 98584
TITLE NOTIFICATION OF AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA
GRANTEE: Public
GRANTOR(S): City of Shelton
MAILING ADDRESS: 525 W. Cota Street
Shelton, WA 98584
PARCEL NUMBER: 420120060020 by reference, Affected Parcels
Attached
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 12, Township 20, Range 4W
NOTICE: This property lies within a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area as
defined by Chapter 8.52.120 of the Mason County Code.
The property was the subject of a development proposal for
the following:
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Dayton-Airport Road Water
Expansion Project is by the City of Shelton to extend the
municipal water system to the Washington State Patrol
Academy.
COUNTY APPLICATION NUMBERS: SEP2012-00016
Restriction may exist due to natural conditions of the property and resulting
regulation. Review of such application provides information on the location
of the critical aquifer recharge area and the restrictions on the site.
GRANTOR: � * 7—3D 1
Signature Date
Attachment
ATTACHMENT
Parcel Numbers: The proposed municipal water main will be constructed
on Mason County and WSDOT tight-of-way and individual parcels listed
below:
420120060020 Mason County Right-of-Way
420120060000 WSDOT Right-of-Way
420021000020 Mason County Easement
420022400010 Dale P. & Rose M. Nye Easement
420022490090 Community Action Council Easement
420022490010 DAPBP, LLC Easement
420027500020 John Titus and Kusumam Titus Easement
420027290012 Jeffery F. & Sally A. Geibel Easement
420027590013 Jeffery F. & Sally A. Geibel Easement
420023260010 Washington State—WSP Academy
Legal Description: Shelton Springs Road is along Mason County right-of-
way. SR-101 alignment is along WSDOT public right-of-way. For Legal
Description of Alignment along SR-102 (Dayton-Airport Road), see table
below:
Parcel Legal Description Easement Grantor
420021000020 The Southerly 1232.20 feet of the East Half(E 1/2) Mason County
of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) and the West
Half(W 1/2) of the Northeast Quarter(NE 1/4) of
Section 2, Township 20 North, Range 4 West,
W.M. , Mason County, Washington
420022400010 The Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Dale P & Rose M
quarter(SE 1/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) Nye
of Section 2, Township 20 North, Range 4 West,
W.M., Mason County, Washington
420022490090 LOT 9 OF Short Subdivision No. 3027, Recorded Community Action
under Auditor's file no. 1916060, being a portion of Council
the south 24.99 acres of the west half of the east
half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2,
Township 20 North, Range 4 West, W.M., in
Mason County, Washington
422022490010 Lot 1 of short subdivision no. 3027, recorded DAPBP, LLC
under Auditor's file no. 1916060, being a portion of
the south 24.99 acres of the west half of the east
half of the northwest quarter of section 2, township
20 north, range 4 west. W.M. in Mason County,
Washington.
420027500020 That portion of the Southwest one quarter of the John Titus &
Northwest one quarter of Section 2, Township 20 Kusumam Titus .
Norht, Range 4 W, W.M. described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest coner of said
Northwest one quarter; Thence 5870 22' 42: E
along the South line of said Northwest one
quarter;1001.94 feet to the True Point of Begining;
Thence north 10 46' 58" E, 343.42 feet; Thence
north 870 22' 42"W, 351.10 feet; Thence north 1°
55' 10" E, 324.77 feet; Thence south 870 22' 42" E,
670.32 feet; Thence south 1° 46' 58" W, 668.21
feet to the Northerly margin of State Highway
#102; Thence north 870 22' 42"W along said
northerly margin, 320.00 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
420027590012 Lot three (3) of Short Subdivision No. 1851, Jeffery F & Sally
recorded March 1, 1989, Auditor's file No. 491036, A Geibel
and being a portion of the Southwest quarter
(SW1/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of
Section two (2), Township twenty (20) North,
Range four (4)West, W.M.
420027590013 Lot four (4) of Short Subdivision No. 1851, Jeffery F & Sally
recorded March 1, 1989, Auditor's file No. 491036, A Geibel
and being a portion of the Southwest quarter
(SW1/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of
Section two (2), Township twenty (20) North,
Range four (4) West, W.M.
17.01.080 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
In order to protect the public health and safety, prevent the degradation of ground water aquifers used for potable
water, and to provide for regulations that prevent and control risks to the degradation of ground water aquifers, the
following standards for Mason County are described in Section 17.01.080. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are those
areas which are determined to have an important recharging effect on aquifers used as a source for potable water and
vulnerable to contamination from recharge. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are areas of special concern and are
subject to the Mason County Health Codes.
Contents:
A. Classification of Aquifer Recharge Areas
B. Designation
C. Pre-existing Uses
D. Prohibited Uses and Activities
E. Uses Requiring an Environmental Permit
F. Subdivision Standards
G. On-site Septic System Standards
H. Well Head Protection Area- Notice
1. Standards for an Environmental Permit for the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
J. BMP Monitoring and Inspection
K. Map Amendments
L. Reclassification of Specific Land Use Activity
M. Reports
N. Public Education/Notice
O. Protection of Private Wells
P. Secondary Containment and Recycling of Hazardous Materials
A. Classification of Aquifer Recharge Areas
1. Classes. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are classified as either Class I (Extremely Susceptible),
Class 11(Highly Susceptible),Class III(Moderately Susceptible),or Class IV(Low Susceptibility),as
described below.
2. Methodology. The aquifer classification system and maps were developed by a qualified geologist in
consultation with the Washington Department of Natural Resources and considering data from the
following sources;
a. Mineral Resources of the Southern Hood Canal Area,Washington; Mackey Smith and R.J.Carson;
Department of Geology and Earth Resources-Geologic Map GM-21; 1976.
b. Geology and Related Water Occurrence, Southeastern Mason County,Washington; Dee Molenaar
and John B. Noble; Water Supply Bulletin No. 29, Department of Water Resources, State of
Washington; 1970.
c. Geologic Map of the South Half of the Shelton and South Half of the Copalis Beach Quadrangles
Washington;Robert L. Logan;Washington Division of Geology an Earth Resources;Open file Report
87-9; 1987.
d. Geologic Map of North Central Mason County, R. J. Carson; Department of Geology and Earth
Resources; Open File Report 76-2; 1976.
e. Soil Conservation Maps for Mason County Washington;various.
f. Topographic maps for Mason County;various.
g. Water Well records.
Interpretation of these data sources was performed by Geologist Gordon Adams. An explanation of
that interpretation is included in a letter from Gordon Adams dated March 29, 1999.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 37 Revised June 16,2009
2. Standards of Classification.
a. Class I(Extremely Susceptible). Areas designated as Class I demonstrate hydrogeologic characteristics
that allow for an extremely high susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water.These areas are
identified as recessional cutwash of thickness' greater than 25 feet. Recessional outwashes are a
geological formation predominantly composed of underground source of drinking water unconsolidated
sands and gravels. These formations exhibit horizontal permeabilities greater than 30 feet per day
(horizontal permeabilities are generally 10 times less than vertical permeabilities).Potential contaminants
entering an underground source of drinking water can be expected to travel one mile in six months or
less.
b. Class II (Highly Susceptible). Areas designated as Class II demonstrate hydrogeologic characteristics
that allow for a high susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water.These areas are identified
as recessional outwash and alluvium 25 feet or less in thickness. These geologic formations are
composed of unconsolidated sands and gravels interlain with discontinuous layers of hardpan and silty
clays. Depth to water is generally 25 to 125 feet below land surface.These formations exhibit horizontal
permeabilities in the range of 30 to 15 feet per day. Potential contaminants entering an underground
source of drinking water can be expected to travel one mile in a time frame greater than six months and
up to one year.
c. Class III (Moderately Susceptible). Areas designated as Class III demonstrate hydrogeologic
characteristics that allow for a moderate susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water.These
areas are identified as advance outwash. The geologic formations consist of discontinuous layers of
clayey gravel and sand and layers of silt and clay,which are more continuous and have been compacted
into hardpan. Depth to water is greater than 125 feet below land surface. These formations exhibit
horizontal permeabilities in the range of 15 to 3 feet per day. Potential contaminants entering an
underground source of drinking water can be expect to travel one mile in a time frame greater than one
year and up to five years. Class III areas include those well head protection areas, not otherwise
designated as a Class I, 11,or III critical recharge area,and recorded with the Mason County Department
of Community Development.
d. Class IV(Low Susceptibility).Areas designated as Class IV demonstrate hydrogeologic characteristics that
allow for a low susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water.These areas are identified as
advance outwash found in the southwest part of Mason County along the Satsop drainage.
B. Designation
The lands and fresh waters of Mason County meeting the Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Classification,plus
300 feet beyond the mapped boundary of all Class I, II or III areas, are hereby designated under RCW
Chapter 36.70A as Critical Area Protection Zones requiring protection for public health.
C. Pre-existing Uses
Uses legally existing as of the date of adoption of this ordinance and which are listed under Sections D. (Prohibited
Uses and Activities)or E.(Uses Requiring an Environmental Permit)are defined to be pre-existing uses. Pre-existing
uses may continue operation pursuant to the following provisions and procedures.The purpose of these provisions is
to assure that pre-existing uses that represent a threat to the aquifer are brought into compliance with the provisions of
this chapter over time and to the highest degree possible.These provisions shall not be construed to mean that a pre-
existing business must cease operations even if the type of business operates as a prohibited use per section D.
below.The following procedures and requirements are hereby established;
Upon identification of a legal pre-existing use,the county shall contact the operator and/or owner in order to develop a
compliance plan and time line for bringing the pre-existing use into compliance to the highest degree practicable and
which provides an acceptable low level of risk to the aquifer.
1. The County will negotiate with the owner/operator to identify a reasonable time frame and necessary steps
to bring the use into compliance with this chapter.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 38 Revised June 16,2009
2. Technical assistance will be offered the owner/operator by state and\or local personnel to enable the
owner/operator to bring the operation into compliance.
3. The County will require that a written compliance plan be developed and agreed to by the owner/operator
setting forth the compliance steps that will be taken and the agreed time frame under which these steps
will be completed.
4_ The compliance plan shall be agreed to in a reasonable time as defined by the Director on a case-by-case
basis.
5. Such compliance plan will take the form of a contract between the County and the owner/operator.
6. No expansion of any non-conforming aspect of the use or business activity will be permitted.
7. Failure to meet the terms of the contract, including time frames agreed to, shall constitute a breach of
contract subject to all applicable law. If legal action on the part of the County becomes necessary to
enforce the contract,the owner/operator shall be liable for all legal expenses.
D. Prohibited Uses
The following uses or activities are considered high impact uses due to the probability and/or potential
magnitude of their adverse effects on groundwater and shall be prohibited in Class I, Class II and Class III
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
1. Landfill
2. Wood preserving, not fully contained operations
3. Electroplating
4. Dry cleaners excluding drop-off only operations where there is no on-site cleaning using hazardous
materials
5. Class V injection wells, but limited to subclasses 5F01, 5D03, 5D04, 5W09, 5W10, 5W11, 5W31,
5X13, 5X14, 5X15, 5W20, 5X28,and 5N24.
6. Surface mining operations within designated urban growth areas, or within Class I, II, or III areas
contiguous with the urban growth areas.
7. Radioactive disposal sites
S. Outdoor auto wrecking operations
9. Hazardous waste transfer and treatment
10. Land spreading disposal sites where disposal is above agronomic rates(as in WAC 173-304)
11. Feedlots
12. Dumping of chemicals into a on-site septic system of a type or quantity that exceeds the systems
designed capacity to treat.
13. Hazardous waste storage facilities unless accessory to an otherwise permitted use and approved
P PP
under State hazardous waste permit.
E. Uses Requiring an Environmental Permit
The following activities are allowed in Class I,Class II and Class III Aquifer Recharge Areas after issuance of
a Permit per subsection I.below.This requirement is not intended to apply to schools,colleges,hospitals and
other public institutions where the activities are incidental or accessory to the principal activity. This
requirement is not intended to apply to a home occupation or cottage industry, where the amounts of
hazardous materials use are below the thresholds established and regulated in the Uniform Fire Code.Permit
review shall be by the Administrative Review process specified in section 17.01.120.
1. Chemical Manufacturing
2. Chemical mixing and remanufacture
3. Above and below ground storage tanks ad pipes used to contain regulated substances (see section
17.01.240)
4. Facilities that conduct biological research
5. Boat repair shops
6. Chemical research facilities
7. Gasoline service stations
8. Pipelines(petroleum and chemical transfer)
9. Printing and publishing operations that use printing liquids
Mason County Resource Ordinance 39 Revised June 16,2009
I
10. Below ground transformers and capacitors
11. Sawmills producing over 10,000 board feet per day
12. Solid Waste handling and processing facilities
13. Vehicle repair, recycling, and auto wrecking activities
14. Mortuary
15. Furniture stripping
16. Motor vehicle service garages
17. Chemical processing of photographic film
18. Creosote and asphalt manufacturing and treatment facilities
19. Golf courses or ranges
20. Medium quantity generators (of dangerous, acutely hazardous, an toxic extremely hazardous waste)
21. Large quantity generators(of dangerous, acutely hazardous, and toxic extremely hazardous waste)
22. Activities reclassified as eligible for a Permit after County approval of a request to reclassify per
subsection L.
23. Fully contained wood preserving operations.
24. Surface mining operations permitted under general permit by the Washington State Department of
Ecology and not otherwise prohibited per Subsection D.
F. Subdivision Standards and Evaluation Requirements.
1. Subdivision,short subdivisions and other divisions of land in areas of special concern shall be evaluated
for their impact on groundwater quality as follows:
a_ In urban growth areas, land divisions may be allowed which create lots less than one acre in size
which rely on individual on-site septic systems. Such approvals shall be conditioned so that the total
development allowed within the area to be divided shall not exceed an average density of one
dwelling unit per acre, or an equivalent waste-water volume, until such development is served by
public sewer.
b. In urban growth areas, land divisions may be allowed which create lots less than one acre in size
which rely on a community on-site septic systems. Such approvals shall be conditioned so that the
total development allowed within the area to be divided shall not exceed an average density of one
dwelling unit per acre. or an equivalent waste-water volume, until such development is served by
public sewer. In addition, said system shall be evaluated to assure that it does not have localized
effects that might have a significant adverse impact on wells or surface water bodies.Information for
the evaluation shall be provided by the applicant in the form of a Site Evaluation Report as specified
in subsection M.2.
c. Outside of urban growth areas, subdivisions which provide for clusters of residential development
where the density of the cluster of residential lots exceed one lot per acre,or where development will
rely on a community on-site septic system, shall be evaluated to assure that they do not have
localized effects that might have a significant adverse impact on wells or surface water bodies.
Information for the evaluation shall be provided by the applicant in the form of a Site Evaluation
Report as specified in subsection M.2.
2. Approval of a permit for 1. b. or c. above shall be based on a review of the report and a determination
that there are no probable significant adverse impacts to wells,springs,surface water bodies,or off-site
ground water quality-
G. On-site Septic System Standards
1. The proper operation and maintenance of community or on-site septic systems is required in the critical
aquifer recharge areas. The standards and procedures to be met to assure this are as set forth in the
"Mason County On-Site Sewage Operation and Maintenance Program" and any subsequent
implementing regulations. Participation in this program is mandatory for existing and new septic systems
in the critical aquifer recharge areas.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 40 Revised June 16,2009
i
2. New construction
a. New construction which relies on on-site septic systems shall not be allowed to exceed a density of
one dwelling unit per acre, or an equivalent waste-water volume,except for the development of one
dwelling on lots existing or vested by December 5, 1996,where the on-site septic system can comply
with all Environmental Health Department standards. For the purposes of this section,the sewage
flow of one single family dwelling equals one unit volume of sewage equals 450 gallons per day.An
exception to this may be made where a sewage treatment system or plant is used that processes the
effluent so that the total of contaminants is equivalent to or less than that which would be produced
by one dwelling unit per acre in suitable soils using individual on-site septic systems.The intensity of
non-residential development that is allowed in compliance with this standard shall be calculated from
Table 1. Alternative calculations for activities not included in Table 1 may be proposed, but the
calculation method and conclusions must be approved by the County Environmental Health
Department.
b. Where such development relies on a new on-site sewage treatment plant or other new on-site
community septic system, said plant or system shall not have localized affects that might have a
significant adverse impact on wells or surface water bodies. Information for the evaluation shall be
provided by the applicant in the form of a Site Evaluation Report as specified in subsection M.2.
Approval of a permit shall be based on a review of the report and a determination that there are no
probable significant adverse impacts to wells,springs,surface water bodies,or off-site ground water
quality.
3. All new development within the designated urban growth areas,except for single-family residences built
prior to the opportunity to connect to a public sewer system, shall be required to connect to existing
public sewer systems, or to proposed public sewer systems as soon as connection is available.
H. Well Head Protection Area -Notice
Within well head protection areas,in addition to any other notice requirements,notice shall be provided to the
manager of said area for any applications for an Environmental Permit for the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
or for any long subdivisions.
I. Standards for an Environmental Permit for the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
To receive an Environmental Permit to operate in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area an applicant must-,
1. Implement Best Management Practices (BMP), implement the Washington State Department of
Ecology's Storm Water,Water Quality,Hazardous Waste,Wetland,and Solid Waste Program BMP and
BMP from the Departments of Health,Agriculture,Transportation,and State Conservation District Office,
or
2. Demonstrate through a Best Management Practices Report pursuant to subsection M.1.below,howthey
will integrate other necessary and appropriate mitigating measures in the design, installation, and
management of the proposed facility or use,and
3. Provide a written agreement to the County providing that all employees at the site will be notified that the
operation lies above an aquifer recharge area and providing annual training regarding all measures set
forth by the BMP established in subsection I. 1 or 2 above.
J. 13MP Monitoring and Inspection.
To assure that Hest Management Practices are implemented and maintained over time, the following
procedures and requirements are hereby established.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 41 Revised June 16,2009
1. The countywill maintain a data-base identifying all pre-existing prohibited uses or uses requiring a permit
under the provisions of this section. Information for this purpose will be gathered from applicants for
development permits and by consultation with appropriate state agencies. During pre-application
meetings or on application, the county will require applicants to identify if they are required to have a
hazardous waste identification number by the Washington State Department of Ecology and whether
they generate any hazardous waste as defined under WAC 173-303.
2. Inspection and monitoring procedures.
As a condition of approval, regular inspections for compliance will be required as appropriate to the
activity, but not less than once in two years. The first inspection shall be made within 3 months of the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project.
K. Map Amendments
Applicants may seek to have the Aquifer Recharge Map amended as it pertains to the parcel or parcels for
which they are applying. The application will be for a conditional environmental permit.This may be granted
after the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county that site conditions meet the standards of
classification per subsection C.for the Aquifer Area Class sought.
Such demonstration shall be accomplished by providing a Map Amendment Report per subsection M.2.to the
county. The County shall evaluate the Report and make a written determination as to whether the map will be
amended. Approval of the map amendment requires that,based on the best available science,the site does
not qualify as a critical aquifer recharge area, or qualifies as a different class designation from its current
designation, as applied by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
The report shall be reviewed by the County in conjunction with the underlying permit process, if any exists.
The review process shall be a public review as specked in subsection 17.01.120 E. 2. b. The County may
consult with the Mason County Health Department, State of Washington Department of Health, independent
reviewer, or any other parties it sees fit. The County will review the report with consideration of the level of
science that currently exists and was employed to make the map designation being challenged. The applicant
will not be required to provide information and/or analysis in excess of that required to convince the County
that a map change is warranted.
In addition,the County will re-assess all Map Amendment Reports and all other pertinent information received
on a periodic basis and consider other appropriate map amendments on the basis of this increased
information.
L. Reclassification of Specific Land Use Activity
Applicants may seek to have the use for which they are applying able to receive a Aquifer Areas Protection
Permit per subsection E. This may be granted after the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
County,that the use proposed applies new technologies and/or procedures,not traditional to the industry,that
reduce the threat to the aquifer beyond that posed by the traditional technologies and/or procedures to a
degree that the County determines will justify the reclassification.
Such demonstration shall be accomplished by providing an Activity Reclassification Report per subsection M.
3.to the County. The County shall evaluate the Report and make a written determination as to whether the
individual proposed land use will be recategorized. Review of the application shall be a public review as
provided in section 17.01.120 2.b. Reclassification of a land use shall apply only to the particular use for which
the reclassification is sought and shall not be applied to all or any similar uses.
In addition, the County will re-assess all Reports received pursuant to this chapter and all other pertinent
information received on a periodic basis and consider the other changes in the categorization of land uses in
this chapter on the basis of this increased information.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 42 Revised June 16,2009
M. Reports
1. Best Management Practices(BMP)Report-criteria. The following criteria shall apply when preparing a
Best Management Practices (BMP) report.
a. The report shall be prepared by, or done under the direction of and designed by,a qualified person
with demonstrated expertise in the industry or field as demonstrated by a statement of qualifications
and at least three references from parties familiar with common business practices in the subject
field or known expertise in the field.
b. The report will identify appropriate Best Management Practices by specifying all known and available
reasonable technologies and how they will be employed to prevent degradation of groundwater.All
necessary technical data,drawings,calculations,and other information to describe application of the
BMP must be supplied.
c. The report will identify how the applicant will satisfy the requirements of the Dangerous Waste
Regulations,chapter 173-303 WAC in the event that hazardous material is released into the ground
or ground water.
d. The report will be reviewed by the Department of Community Development or a consultant hired by
the County, at the applicant's expense, for this review.The County may consult with the Mason
County Environmental Health Department;State of Washington Departments of Health or Ecology,
independent reviewer, or any other parties it sees fit.
2. Map Amendment Report/ Site Evaluation Report - criteria. the following criteria shall apply when
preparing a Map Amendment Report/Site Evaluation Report:
a. A qualified groundwater professional will make a determination whether the proposed map
amendment or project application will have adverse impacts on groundwater based on the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Wellhead Protection Program, pursuant to
Public Water Supplies, Chapter 246-290 WAC; Water Quality Standards for ground waters of the
state of Washington,Chapter 173-200 WAC; and Dangerous Waste regulations, Chapter 173-303
WAC_ Those chapters of Washington Administrative Code are hereby adopted, as written or
hereafter amended, as part of this chapter by reference. They are available at County offices.
b. Map Amendment Report/Site Evaluation Reports shall include the following:
i. Identification of features of the proposed development plan (e.g., on-site septic systems and
other on-site activities) that may adversely impact ground water quality underlying or down
gradient of the project or project area.
ii. Drawing in an appropriate scale showing location of abandoned and active wells,springs,and
surface water bodies within 1,000 feet of the project limits.
iii. A description of the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the subject property sufficient to
justify the map amendment sought. This information may include any or all of the following.-
(a) Lithologic characteristics and stratigraphic relationships;
(b) Aquifer characteristics including recharge and discharge areas,depth to ground water,
static water flow patterns, and estimated groundwater flow velocity-
(c) Contaminant rate and transport including probable migration pathways and travel time
of a potential contaminant release from a site through the unsaturated zone to the
aquifer(s) and through the aquifers(s), and how contaminant(s) may be attenuated
within the unsaturated zone and the aquifer(s);
Mason County Resource Ordinance 43 Revised June 16,2009
(d) Appropriate hydro geologic cross sections which depict lithology, stratigraphy, aquifer,
units,potential or probable contaminant pathways from a chemical release,and rate of
groundwater flow; and
(e) Existing groundwater quality, proposal for a groundwater monitoring plan to detect
changes and indicate the corrective actions that will be taken if monitoring results
indicate contaminants from the site have entered the underlying aquifer(s).
(f) Existing soils types and characteristics
(g) A discussion of the probable geologic history of the site and its impact on aquifer
formation soils conditions; and aquifer susceptibility.
3. Activity Reclassification Report-preparation and review criteria. The following criteria shall apply when
preparing an Activity Reclassification Report:
a. The report shall be prepared by, or done under the direction of and signed by,a qualified person with
demonstrated expertise in the industry or field as demonstrated by a statement of qualifications and
at least three references from parties familiarwith common business practices in the subject field or
known expertise in the field.
b. The report shall contain a complete description of the activity for which reclassification is being
sought. This description shall include all necessary technical data for the County to assess potential
threat to the aquifer from an unmitigated operation, including chemicals and substances used,
byproducts produced, etc.
c. The report shall present Best Management Practices and/or mitigation techniques adequate to
insure, to the satisfaction of the County, that the activity or land use for which reclassification is
sought will present no greater threat to groundwater quality than other uses listed in this ordinance in
the category being sought_ The burden is on the applicant to make this showing sufficient in the
eyes of the County to reclassify the use. The report will include all technical data necessary,design
drawings,specifications for equipment used, performance data on equipment or structures,and any
evidence or testimony of successful operation of same or similar facilities and practices in other
locations_
d. The report will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County that reclassification of a land use will
have no adverse impacts on groundwater based on the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
and the Wellhead Protection Program,pursuant to Public Water Supplies,Chapter 246-290 WAC;
Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington,Chapter 173-200 WAC:and
Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. Those chapters of Washington
Administrative Code are hereby adopted,as written or hereafter amended,as part of this chapter by
reference.They are available at Department of Community Development offices.
e. The report will be reviewed by the Department of Community Development The County may consult
with the Mason County Health Department;State of Washington Departments of Health or Ecology,
independent reviewer, or any other parties it sees fit.
N. Public Education/Notice
1. The household or commercial use of herbicides, pesticides,and fertilizers not in conformance with the
manufacturers instructions/label directions is a violation of state and/or federal regulation. Improper
disposal of oil based paints, paint thinners and other hazardous materials is a violation of the Mason
County Solid Waste Regulation and of state and/or federal regulation.The county encourages proper use
of such materials and shall provide educational information to the public through its sponsorship of the
Washington State Cooperative Extension Service, the Mason Conservation District, or through the
provision of informational materials in its offices.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 44 Revised June 16,2009
2. Notification:
a. Title Notification
The owner of any site within a designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area as identified in the Mason
County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Map, on which a development proposal is submitted,shall
record a notice with the Mason County Auditor. The notice shall indicate in the public record the
presence of a critical aquifer recharge area, the application of this Chapter to the site, and that
limitations on regulated activities may exist. Only one such notice is required to be made on any
individual property or lot. The notice shall be as set forth below.
"Notice: This site lies within a critical aquifer recharge area as defined by Chapter 8, Mason County
Code. The site was the subject of a development proposal for
application number
filed on (date). Restrictions on use or alteration of the site may exist
due to natural conditions of the site and resulting regulation. Review of such application provides
information on the location of a critical aquifer recharge area and the restrictions on the site. A copy
of the plan showing the aquifer recharge area is attached hereto.
b. Plat Notification
For all proposed short subdivision and subdivision proposals within Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas,
the applicant shall include a note on the face of the plat_ The note shall be as set forth below:
"Notice: This site lies within a critical aquifer recharge area as defined by Chapter 8,Mason County
Code. The site was the subject of a development proposal for
application number
_ Filed on (date)_ Restrictions on use or alteration of the site may exist due to
natural conditions of the site and resulting regulation.
The note shall be recorded as part of final plat approval of any short subdivision or subdivision.
c. Evidence of recording of these notices must be provided to the County.
O. Protection of Private Wells
Generators of hazardous materials are hereby defined as a known or suspected source of contamination per state law.
No small, medium, or large quantity generators of hazardous materials shall be permitted to locate within 100 feet of
any water well per the provisions of WAC 173-160-171 or its successors.This requirement applies to all portions of the
County.
P. Secondary Containment of Recycling of Hazardous Materials
The following practices and procedures shall be observed throughout the County:
1. Moderate risk waste and petroleum products, including but not limited to oil and grease, shall be
disposed of by recycling or use of a hazardous waste management facility operating under interim status
or with a permit issued by EPA or an authorized state. No person shall intentionally or negligently dump
or deposit or permit the dumping or depositing of any such waste in any other manner,including onto the
surface of the ground, into surface water, or into ground water.
2 Moderate risk waste,petroleum products,and hazardous materials shall be kept in containers and shall
be stored in such a manner and location that if a container is ruptured, the contents will not discharge,
flow, be washed or fall into surface water or ground water. This is not intended to supersede any
regulations as stated in the Fire Code.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 45 Revised June 16,2009
TABLE 1
TYPE OF FACILITY DESIGN UNITS FLOW(GPD)
Airports per employee;add per passenger 10; 4.0
B anquet rooms per seat 5
Barber and beauty shops per chair 100
Bowling alleys(bar and food) per lane 125
Bowling alleys(bar only) per lane 75
Campgrounds with no laundry,no wet sewer per camp site 50
hookups or dump station
Campgrounds/RV park,with toilets per camp site 75
i
Campgrounds/RV park,showers,toilets, per camp site 100
laundry,sewer hookup
Church-food service,4-hour per person 5
Church-no food,4-hour per person 3
Community College per student&faculty,12-hours 15
Country club-includes food,showers,lounge per member;add per non-member 50;25
Day Care Centers, 12-hour per person 20
Dentist office per dentist;add per wet chair 250;200
Doctor office per doctor 250
Doctor office,in medical center per 1000 sq ft, 12-hours 500
Food Service and Bars
a. Ordinary restaurant per seat 50
b. 24-hour restaurant per seat 75
c. Bar and cocktail lounge per seat 30
d_ Drive-in restaurant per car space 75
e_ Bar only,no food per seat 10
f. Coffee shop,6 hour operation per seat 6
Hospital per bed 300
Hospital-mental per bed and per employee 172 and 11
Hotels and motels,rooms only per room 130
I
Mason County Resource Ordinance 46 Revised June 16,2009
TYPE OF FACILITY DESIGN UNITS FLOW(GPD)
Industrial building,excl.cafeteria and process waste per employee/8 hour shift 17
Industrial,add for Cafeteria per employee 13
Laundries,self serve, 16-hour per machine 400
Meeting rooms per seat 3
Mobile home parks per space 300
Nursing homdrest home per bed 200
Office building per worker 20
Parks-toilets per person 10
Parks-toilets&showers per person 20
Prison per resident;add per employee 159; 16
Resort camps,cottages per room 100
Rooming house per resident 50
Schools, no food or showers per student 10
Schools,add for cafeterias per student 5
Schools,add for showers per student 5
Schools,boarding per student 75
Service station-pumps per island;add per employee 500;25
Service stations-repair for first bay;add each additional bay 1000; 500
Shopping centers, 12-hour per 1000 sq.ft floor space 300
Stadiums,race tracks,ball parks per seat 3
Stores,without food service
a. Private toilets,for employees only per employee 20
b. Public toilets per toilet room 400
Theaters
a. Indoor,auditoriums,12-hour per seat 5
b. Outdoor,drive-ins,4-hour per space 5
Sources:WA DOE,Criteria for Sewage Works Design;State of Florida,Dept_of Environmental Regulation,Technical
Information Memorandum 62.1•WA DOE,Large On-Site Sewage Guidelines;US EPA,Design Manual,Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 47 Revised June 16,2009
NOTICE OF INTENT(NOI) Check if applicable:
APPLICATION FORM r El Change o Update Permit Information
DEPARTMENT OF Construction Stormwater General ❑ Modification of Permit Coverage
ECOLOGY Permit Permit#WAR
State of Washington
Please print or type all sections of this appfication. All rrelds are required unless otherwise marked.
(.Operator/Permittee(Party with operational control over plans and specifications or day-to-day operational control of activities
which ensure compliance with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)and permit conditions. Ecology will send
correspondence and permit fee invoices to the permittee on record.
Name: City of Shelton Company:
Business Phone: Ext. Unified Business Identifier(UBI):none
360 432-5125 (UBI is a nine-digit number used to identify a business entity.
Cell Phone(Optional): Fax(Optional): Write"none"if you do not have a UBI number.)
E-mail: mmichael@ci.shelton.wa.us 232-000-085
Mailing Address; City: State. Zip+4:
525 W Cota St. Shelton WA 98584-2239
II. Property Owner(The party listed on the County Assessor's records as owner and taxpayer of the parcel[s]for which permit
coverage is requested. Ecology will not send correspondence and permit fee invoices to the Property Owner, The Property Owner
information will be used for emerge c contact purposes.)
Name: City of Shelton Company(if applicable):
Business Phone: Ext. Unified Business Identifier(UBI): none
360 432-5125 (UBI is a nine-digit number used to identify a business entity.
Cell Phone(Optional): Fax(Optional): Write"none"if you do not have a UBI number.)
E-mail:mmichael@ci.shelton.wa.us 232-000-085
Mailing Address: City: State: Zip+4:
525 W Cota St. Shelton WA 98584-2239
Ill. On-site Contact Person(Typically the Certified Erosion&Sediment Control Lead or 0 erator/Permittee
Name: Dennis McDonald,Regional Project Manager Company:City of Shelton
Business Phone: Ext. Mailing Address:
360 432-5167 525 W Cota St.
Cell Phone(Optional) Fax(Optional): City: State: Zip+4:
Shelton WA 98584-2239
E-mail:dennis@ci.shelton.wa.us
IV. WebDMR Electronic Discharge Monitoring Reporting)
You must submit monthly discharge monitoring reports using Ecology's WebDMR system. To sign up for WebDMR,or to
register a new site,go to www.ecy.wa.aov/stormwater,and click on the"Construction Stormwater"link. You will find information on
WebDMR under the"WebDMR and PARIS"link on the right-hand side. If you are unable to submit your DMRs electronically, you
may contact Ecology to request a waiver. Ecology will generally only grant waiver requests to those permittees without internet
access. Only a permittee or representative,designated in writing,may request access to or a waiver from WebDMR. To have the
ability to use the system immediately,you must submit the Electronic Signature Agreement with your application. If you have
questions on this process,contact Ecology's WebDMR staff at WAWebDMR-Stormwater ec .wa. ov or 360-407-7097.
ECY 020-86(Rev.03/12)
r
V. Site Information
Site or Project Name Site Acreage
Dayton Airport Road Water Expansion Project Total size of your site/project(that You own/control): 38 acres.
Street Address or Location Description(if the site lacks a
street address,list its specific location. For example, Total area of soil disturbance(grading and/or excavating)for your
Intersection of Highway 61 and 34.) site/project over the life of the project: 2.54 acres. (Note: 1 acre=
43,560 W.)
Davton Airport Road Shelton Springs Road U5101
Concrete/Engineered Soils
Parcel ID#: (Optional) How many yards of concrete will be poured over the life of the
project?50 yd3(estimate)
Type of Construction Activity(check all that apply):
❑ Residential How many yards of recycled concrete will be used over the life of
❑ Commercial the project?0 yd3(estimate)
❑ Industrial
❑ Highway or Road(city,county,state) Will any engineered soils be used?(For example:cement treated
X Utilities(specify):Water base, cement kiln dust,etc.)
❑ Other(specify): ❑Yes X No
City(or nearest city): Shelton Zip Code: Estimated project start-up date(mmldd/yy): Sept.2012
County. Mason 98584 Estimated project completion date(mm/dd/yy): June 2013
Record the latitude and longitude of the main entrance to the site or the approximate center of site.
Latitude:47.2519 ON Longitude: 123.1456 °W
For assistance with latitude and longitude, refer to the following website: hflp://wrvw.,eetlatlon.cont Convert all
latitude and longitude coordinates into degrees, minutes, seconds format. For help with this process go to:
htta:/Itransition.kc.aov/m b/audio/bicitel/DDDMMSS-(Iecimal.html
Vi. Existing Site Conditions
1. Are you aware of contaminated soils present on the site? ❑Yes X No
2. Are you aware of groundwater contamination located within the site boundary? ❑Yes X No.
3. If you answered yes to questions 1 or 2,will any contaminated soils be disturbed or will any contaminated groundwater be
discharged due to the proposed construction activity? ❑Yes X No
['Contaminated"and"contamination" here mean containing any hazardous substance(as defined in WAC 173-340-200)that does not
occur naturally or occurs at greater than natural background levels.]
If you answered yes to Question 3, please explain below or on a separate paper in detail the locations,contaminants, and
concentrations,and pollution prevention and/or treatment BMPs proposed to control the discharge of soil/groundwater contaminants.
Ecology may request a copy of your SWPPP. N/A
VII. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP
You must develop a SWPPP prior to starting construction. Do not submit your SWPPP with your application. The exception is that
Ecology may request a copy of your SWPPP if you answered yes to the questions in Part VI.
ECY 020-85(Rev.03/12) 2
VIII. Best Management Practices BMPs
You must use the BMPs listed in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington or the Stormwater Management
Manual for Eastern Washington or other manuals approved by Ecology. Alternatively,you may use demonstrably equivalent BMPs
on the basis of permit condition S9.C.4. If you intend to use a BMP at your site that is not included in these manuals, but that you
believe meets the definition of a demonstrably equivalent BMP,you must notify the appropriate regional office. (See Definitions in the
Construction Stormwater General Permit).*
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pros rams/wq/stormwater/construction/contacts.html
*Note that if you receive permit coverage without indicating the preference for a demonstrably equivalent BMP and later decide to use one,you
must provide Eco!ogy with notice of the selection of an equivalent BMP no less than 80 days before the intended use of the equivalent BMP.
IX. Discharge/Receiving Discharge/Receiving Water Information
Indicate whether your site's stormwater and/or dewatering water could enter surface waters,directly and/or indirectly:
X Water will discharge directly or indirectly(through a storm drain system or roadside ditch) into one or more surface waterbodies
(wetlands,creeks,lakes,and all other surface waters and watercourses).
If your discharge is to a storm sewer system,provide the name of the operator of the storm sewer system:
(e.g., City of Tacoma): Turtle Lake
(NOTE: If your stormwater discharges to a storm sewer system operated by the City of Seattle, King County, Snohomish
County,City of Tacoma, Pierce County,or Clark County,you must also submit a copy of this NOI to the appropriate
jurisdiction.)
❑ Water will discharge to ground with 100%infiltration,with no potential to reach surface waters under any conditions.
If your project includes dewatering, you must include dewatering plans and discharge locations in your site Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan.
Location of Discharge into Surface Waterbody
Enter the waterbody name and latitude/longitude of the point(s)where the site has the potential to discharge into a waterbody(enter
all locations).
• Include the names and locations of both direct and indirect discharges to surface waterbodies,even if the risk of discharge is
low or limited to periods of extreme weather.
• Some large construction projects(for example,subdivisions, roads, or pipelines) may discharge into several waterbodies.
• If the creek or tributary is unnamed,use a format such as"unnamed tributary to Deschutes River."
• Attach a separate list if necessary.
Surface Waterbody Name Latitude Longitude
Decimal Degrees Decimal Degrees
W
Turtle Lake 47.23610 N 123.1314°W
° N °W
° N °W
If your site discharges to a waterbody that is on the impaired waterbodies list(i.e.,303(dj list)for turbidity,fine sediment,high pH, or phosphorus,
Ecology will require additional documentation before issuing permit coverage and these sites will be subject to additional sampling and numeric
effluent limits(per Permit Condition S8).Ecology will notify you if any additional sampling requirements apply.Information on impaired waterbodies is
available online at hHp.11www.ecv.wa.gov/programslwa/303dl2008lindex.html.
ECY 020-85(Rev.03/12) 3
illl
X. State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)
This Notice of Intent(NOI)is incomplete and cannot be approved until the applicable SEPA requirements under Chapter 197-11
WAC are met.
Who is the SEPA lead agency on your site?Mason County
Has the SEPA lead agency issued a final decision on your checklist? X No ❑Yes ❑ Exempt*
If No: The N01 is incomplete. Ecology will hold the application until a final SEPA decision is made or the Construction
Stormwater N01 public comment period ends,whichever is later. You must notify Ecology once the lead agency has issued
a determination.
If Yes:Type of SEPA decision issued:❑ Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) ❑ Mitigated DNS(MDNS) ❑
Determination of Significance(DS) ❑Final Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) ❑Other:_
• Date of final SEPA decision:
• If a supplemental EIS,SEPA addendum,or some other type of additional SEPA review was required, please attach
and submit with this form.
• Date when all SEPA-related comment&appeal periods are exhausted:
*If Exempt:Attach written documentation,check type of exemption below,and proceed to Section VII.
❑Watershed Restoration &Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption(RCW 43.21 C.0382).
❑ Infill Development Exemption(RCW 43.21C.229).
❑ Planned Action Exemption(RCW 43.21C.031).
❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA Rule(WAC 197-11-800)is it exempt? (for
example,WAC 197-11-800(1)Minor New Construction)
More SEPA information is available at.,httP:11www.ecy.wa.pov/programsIsea/sepa/e-review.hfml.
XI. Public Notice
You must publish a public notice at least once a week for two consecutive weeks with seven days between publications, in at least a
single newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the construction is to take place. Ecology cannot grant permit
coverage sooner than the end of the 30-day public comment period,which begins on the date of the second public notice.
Mail or fax(360-407-6426)the NOI to Ecology on or before the first public notice date. If you fax the public notice to Ecology,you
must also mail a hard copy. Failure to do so may delay the issuance of your permit,
Provide the exact dates(mm/dd/yy)that the first and second public notices will appear in the newspaper(s):
First notice: 08/02/2012
Second notice: 08/09/2012 (Begins 30-day public comment period.)
For example: First notice: 01/01/10
Second notice: 01/08/10
Name of the newspaper(s)publishing the notices: Shelton-Mason County Journal
ECY 020-85(Rev.03/11) 4
PUBLIC NOTICE TEMPLATE
Complete this template using project-specific information and submit to a local newspaper with general circulation within the county
where the project is located. The bold language is required by WAC 173-226-130 and must be included in its entirety. (Either use
the till-in template below or attach on a separate sheet of paper, if necessary.)
(Note: This section is unprotected so you can delete text in parentheses)
City of Shelton, 525 W Cota Street, Shelton, WA 98584, is seeking coverage under the Washington State Department of
Ecology's Construction Stormwater NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit.
The proposed project, Dayton Airport Road Water Expansion Project is located at Shelton Springs Road, US 101,and Dayton
Airport Road near Shelton, in Mason County.
This project involves 2 54 acres of soil disturbance for watermain construction activities.
(List all construction activities, for example, residential, commercial, industrial, highway, utility).
Stormwater will be discharged to Turtle Lake.
Any persons desiring to present their views to the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding this application, or
interested in Ecology's action on this application, may notify Ecology in writing no later than 30 days of the last date of
publication of this notice. Ecology reviews public comments and considers whether discharges from this project would
cause a measurable change in receiving water quality,and, if so,whether the project is necessary and in the overriding
public interest according to Tier II antidegradation requirements under WAC 173.201A•320.
Comments can be submitted to:
Department of Ecology
Attn:Water Quality Program, Construction Stormwater
P.O. Box 47696,Olympia,WA 98504.7696
XII. Certification of Permittees
"1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Gary H. Cronce / City of Shelton Mayor
Printed Name i Company(operator/permittee only) Title
Signature of Operator/Permittee* Date
* Federal regulations require this application is signed by one of the following:
A. For a corporation: By a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president.
B. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: By a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
C. For a municipality, state,federal,or other public facility: By either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
Please sign and return this document to the following address:
Washington Department of Ecology- Stormwater
P.O. Box 47696
Olympia,WA 98504-7696
ECY 020-85(Rev.03111) 5
Public Notice
City of Shelton, 525 W Cota Street, Shelton, WA 98584, is seeking coverage under the Washington State
Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit.
The proposed project, Dayton Airport Road Water Expansion Project is located at Shelton Springs Road, US
101, and Dayton Airport Road near Shelton, in Mason County.
This project involves 2.54 acres of soil disturbance for watermain construction activities.
Stormwater will be discharged to Turtle Lake.
Any persons desiring to present their views to the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding this
application, or interested in Ecology's action on this application, may notify Ecology in writing no later than
30 days of the last date of publication of this notice. Ecology reviews public comments and considers
whether discharges from this project would cause a measurable change in receiving water quality, and, if so,
whether the project is necessary and in the overriding public interest according to Tier II anti-degradation
requirements under WAC 173.201A-320.
Comments can be submitted to:
Department of Ecology
Attn: Water Quality Program, Construction Stormwater
P.O. Box 47696,Olympia,WA 98504.7696
�o
a
1?o
Z L06� �PO
N 010
Z �
2 �
City of Shelton
Ake
u� Johns cake
1� Project Site Map
W
t
/IAVTnM AIDDnDT D!1 ` Dayton-Airport
' I WBUSINESS PARKRD—' , � Road Water
Turtlo Lko
CM
Expansion
__l_ E FAIRFIELD CT o Project
� O
Washington w�"DERsoN h'AY
State Patrol J
+
Academy ,
L622
Shelton Water Pipelines �� 5 PROJECT
LOCATION �
Schedule A W "
MCCIMV oM,"
r 11
Sc h e d u l e Cpadk
„ ,.
0—
Shelton Cityvrlway I _
A�
P�f Limits
A� �
0 13784ft
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. MTC
Geotechnical Engineering&Consulting•Special Inspection•Materials Testing•Environmental Consulting
February 23,2012
JWM&A
c/o Mr. Steve Willie, P.E.
1700 Cooper Point Road SW, Suite B-2
Olympia, WA 98502
(Sent via email: steve@jwmorrissette.com
Subject: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report(MTC Project#11SO64-03)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project
Shelton, Washington
Dear Mr. Willie:
This letter transmits our Final Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above-referenced project.
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) performed this geotechnical study in accordance with our
November 22,2011 proposal. The attached report has been issued upon receiving your comments.
The site soils have been classified within the attached report and are generally described as silty sand
with gravel to a gravel with sand. As requested, dimensions of maximum particle sizes encountered
during our exploration were recorded and included in the test pit logs in Appendix B. A free
groundwater surface was observed at a depth of 6.5 feet in test pit 8 (TP-8). Groundwater was not
observed to depths explored in any other test pit.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to you for this project. We
would be pleased to continue our role as your geotechnical engineering consultants during the project
planning and construction. We will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these
services. If you have questions regarding this report, or if we can provide assistance with other aspects
of the project,please contact either Lance at(360) 534-9777 or Scott at(360)755-1990.
Respectfully Submitted,
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
r�
�ance G. Levine, P.E. Scott A.Palmer,P.E.
Professional Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Division Manager
Attachment: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report
Corporate • 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington,WA 98233 • Phone(360)755-1990 • Fax(360)755-1980
SW Region • 2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW • Olympia,WA 98512 • Phone(360)534-9777 • Fax(360)534-9779
NW Region • 2126 E Bakerview Road,Suite 101 • Bellingham,WA 98226 • Phone(360)647-6061 • Fax(360)647-8111
Visit our website:www.mtc-inc.net
Final Geotechnical Engineering Report
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project
Shelton, Washington
Prepared for:
JWM&A
c/o Mr. Steve Willie, P.E.
1700 Cooper Point Road SW, Suite B-2
Olympia, WA 98502
Prepared by:
�GARY�F
�G Of wasy� Li
cooz
cc
�LI
�✓ �.t� ,9 45853 O ��
FGIST 1e C?�O N A 4 `� ;,&mod 02-23_2012 n '
l
Lance G.Levine,P.E. S ott A. Palmer,P.E.
Professional Engineer Geotechnical Division Manager
MATERIALS TESTING& CONSULTING,INC. (MTC) MTC
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW
Olympia,Washington 98512
Phone:(360) 534-9777
Fax: (360) 534-9779
c
o •
aterials Testing&Consult '
February 23,2012
MTC Project Number: 1 I S064-03
Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain— Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Project No. 1 l S064-03 February 23, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................I
1.1. GENERAL...................................................................................................................................1
1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................1
1.3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES...................................................................................1
2.0 SITE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................2
2.1. SITE EXPLORATION................................................................................................................2
2.2. LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................2
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................3
3.1. SURFACE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................3
3.2. AREA GEOLOGY......................................................................................................................4
3.3. SOIL CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................5
3.4. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.............................................................................................5
4.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.......................:.........................................................6
4.1. EARTHWORK............................................................................................................................6
4.1.1. Excavation ...........................................................................................................................6
4.1.2. Wet Weather Construction ..................................................................................................6
4.2. STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION.....................................................7
4.2.1. Materials..............................................................................................................................7
4.2.2. Placement and Compaction.................................................................................................7
4.3. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES......................................................................8
4.4. UTILITY TRENCHES AND EXCAVATIONS.........................................................................8
5.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................9
APPENDIX A. SITE PLANS
APPENDIX B. EXPLORATION LOGS
APPENDIX C. LABORATORY RESULTS
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain— Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. GENERAL
This report presents the findings and recommendations of Materials Testing& Consulting, Inc.'s(MTC's)
geotechnical engineering study conducted in order to construct approximately 11,500 feet of watermain.
The project site is composed of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Mason
County right-of-ways or parcels near Shelton, Washington. The location of the project site is shown in
Figure 1 of Appendix A. These services were requested by Steve Willie of Jerome W. Morrissette &
Associates, Inc.,via email on October 12, 2011.
1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand the development includes constructing approximately 11,500 feet of 12-inch diameter
watermain. Horizontal borings and typical trenching methods will be used to construct the alignment. Up
to five locations may require horizontal borings to cross existing roadways. The proposed alignment
follows the rights-of-way for SR 102 (Dayton Airport Road), US 101, and Shelton Springs Road. The
proposed alignment is generally flat with no significant slopes that would limit access. Vegetation along
the proposed alignment varies between grass and scotch broom to areas with no vegetation.
View Looking South along US 101 at TP-4
1.3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our study was to explore subsurface conditions at various locations along the proposed
watermain and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the
proposed development. Our scope of services was consistent with our proposal dated November 22,
2011.
1
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
2.0 SITE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
ZL SITE EXPLORATION
We investigated the site on January 6, 2012, by excavating eight test pits. Approximate test pit locations
were selected by Jerome W. Morrissette & Associates Inc. All approximate test pit location
measurements provided in this report were determined by pacing and taping the distance off existing site
features and roadways. Test pits were excavated to a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface
unless prevented by existing conditions (TP-1 and TP-8). During the excavation of test pits, the soils
encountered were logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil samples were
collected at depths of 3, 6, and 9 feet, sealed in plastic bags to preserve their moisture, and transported to
our laboratory for re-examination and testing.
View Looking North at TP-4 View Looking South at TP-6
Additional information on the site exploration program is provided with our exploration logs for the test
pits in Appendix B of this report.
2.2. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM standards to
determine index and engineering properties of the site soils. Testing included natural moisture content
and grain-size distribution. Laboratory test results are presented on test reports included in Appendix C.
2
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
3.1. SURFACE DESCRIPTION
The project site is relatively flat with mild slopes and primarily vegetated with field grass and scotch
broom. During excavation, all existing soils appeared to be in a moderately compacted state (loose to
dense). In general, excavation of the site soils was relatively easy using a large backhoe due to the un-
cemented matrix of site soils. The upper 3 feet was generally the hardest material to excavate as it
contained the largest percent of silty sand acting as a binding material.
Due to the extent of the alignment,the project site is bordered by varying public,private, and commercial
properties in all directions. Site access is from SR 102, US 101, and Shelton Springs Road of which the
watermain will parallel.
View Looking North at TP-2 View Looking Southeast at TP-7
3
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
3.2. AREA GEOLOGY
The site is generally located within the southern portion of the Puget Sound lowland. Multiple glacial
advances have deposited glacial material throughout the area with the last advance nearly 14,000 years
ago. The site soils are mapped as Grove Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes and Carstairs
Gravelly Loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes by the Soil Survey of Mason County.' Carstairs soils are generally a
mixture of sandy and gravelly material that occupies glacial outwash plains. The unit is generally dark at
surface is described as excessively drained. Grove soils are also a mixture of sandy and gravelly material
occupying glacial outwash plains. The unit is generally reddish brown at the surface and is described as
somewhat excessively drained.
According to the Geologic Map of Washington — Southwest Quadrant, the geology of the project sites
consists of undifferentiated outwash deposits (Qgo) deposited during the Vashon Advance. The
recessional and proglacial material is stratified sand and gravel locally containing silt and clay?
The Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington describes the site geology as
proglacial and recessional outwash (Qgo) at test pits 1 to 7 and as Alluvium (Qa) at test pit 8. The
recessional outwash material is typically poorly to moderately sorted and locally contains fine and coarse
deposits including rounded gravel. The alluvium material is sorted combinations of silt, sand, and
rounded gravel deposited in streambeds and alluvial fans.3
The results of our field and laboratory investigations indicate that site conditions are consistent with the
published geology. A free groundwater surface was observed at a depth of 6.5 feet in test pit 8 (TP-8).
Groundwater was not observed to depths explored in any other test pit.
' Web Soil Survey(hnp. itebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.Qoviapp.,ii"ebSoilSurvev.aspx);United States Department of
Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service
2 Geologic Map of Washington—Southwest Quadrant; WA State Department of Natural Resources;
Timothy Walsh and others; 1987
3 Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington; WA State Department of Natural
Resources; Logan et al;2003
4
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
3.3. SOIL CONDITIONS
A general characterization of the onsite soil units encountered during our exploration is presented in this
section. The exploration logs in Appendix B present details of the soils encountered at each exploration
location.
As encountered in our test pits,the onsite soils are generally characterized as follows:
Silty Sand with Gravel—SP-SM: Dark brown silty sand with gravel to 1 to 3 feet below the ground
surface. Moist and loose to dense with roots.
Gravel with Sand — GW or GP (Glacial Outwash): Gray, brown, and orange/brown gravel with
sand generally from 1 to 3 feet below the ground surface extending to 10 feet below the ground
surface (depth of exploration). Excessively drained, moist, loose to medium dense, containing
cobbles and boulders.
TP-2 TP-4
3.4. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
A free groundwater surface was observed at a depth of 6.5 feet in test pit 8 (TP-8) due to the adjacent
wetland. Groundwater was not observed to depths explored in any other test pit.
A review of well logs on file at the Washington State Department of Ecology listed several wells in the
near vicinity of the project. Most well logs indicate a depth to water table of approximately 40 to 50 feet
on the northern portions of the project (higher in elevation) and 25 to 35 feet on the southern portions of
the project(lower in elevation)4
4 Washington State Well Log Viewer(htto:;/amecv.u,a.eov,ivellloQ'MavSearchl Washington State Department
of Ecology, Well Logs for wells BBE769
5
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
4.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. EARTHWORK
4.1.1. Excavation
Excavation of the onsite soils can generally be performed with conventional equipment such as backhoes
and excavators. However, difficult excavations should not be completed in excessively wet soil or near
the water table without proper dewatering. Excavations below the water table will be unstable and will
result in an unstable subgrade which may not provide proper support to utilities or structural fill. A free
groundwater surface was only encountered in TP-8 at 6.5 feet. However, the groundwater surface can
vary due to seasonal and other effects.
The Contractor should anticipate the removal of boulders and cobbles greater than 6 inches from native
(existing) soil to be reused as structural fill. The Contractor should anticipate that the soils may require
moisture conditioning when they are removed from the ground at non-optimum moisture contents. Soils
stockpiled onsite to be used as structural fill shall be covered to limit exposure to inclement weather.
Where possible, excavations should be made within about one foot of finished subgrade level. We
recommend using smooth edged buckets to minimize subgrade disturbance.
4.1.2. Wet Weather Construction
The finer grained native soil may be moisture sensitive and could become soft and difficult to compact or
traverse with construction equipment when wet. During wet weather,the contractor should take measures
to protect the exposed trenches and backfill material.
During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff from draining into
excavations. All runoff should be collected and disposed of properly. Measures may also be required to
remediate onsite soils in the event of wet weather. These measures can include:
• Drying and recompaction. Selective drying may be accomplished by scarifying or windrowing
material during periods of dry or warm weather.
• Removal of affected soils to expose a suitable subgrade and replacement with compacted
structural fill.
• Mechanical stabilization with a coarse crushed aggregate compacted into the subgrade,possibly in
conjunction with a geotextile.
• Soil-cement admixture stabilization.
The fine-grained portion of the onsite soils may be difficult to work with during periods of wet weather.
Since frozen soil is not suitable for use as structural fill,we recommend that earthwork activities generally
take place in late spring, summer, or early fall.
6
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain— Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
4.2. STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALSAND COMPACTION
4.2.1. Materials
All trench backfill material should be placed and compacted as structural fill. Structural fill material
should be free of deleterious material, have a maximum particle size of 6 inches, and be compactable to
the required compaction level.
Native glacial material (below topsoil) may be reused as structural fill, provided it is properly moisture
conditioned and cobbles greater than 6 inches in diameter are removed. Portions of the native glacial
material have a higher silt content and may be more moisture sensitive. Moisture sensitive soils may be
very difficult to use as structural fill if allowed to become too wet. These soils will be difficult to dry out
if allowed to become too wet. Therefore, they are not recommended for use during periods of wet
weather. On the other hand, during warm dry weather, it may be necessary to add water to achieve
optimum moisture conditions.
Imported structural fill material should conform to the most recent edition (at the time of construction) of
WSDOT Section 9-03 in Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (WSDOT
Standard Specifications).5 Controlled-density fill or lean mix concrete can be used as an alternative to
structural fill materials, except in areas where free-draining materials are required or specified. Frozen
soil is not suitable for use as structural fill.
The contractor shall submit samples of each of the required earthwork materials to the geotechnical
engineer for evaluation and approval prior to use. The samples should be submitted at least four(4) days
prior to their use and sufficiently in advance of the work to allow the contractor to identify alternative
sources if the material proves unsatisfactory.
4.2.2. Placement and Compaction
Prior to placement and compaction, structural fill should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of its
optimum moisture content. Loose lifts of structural fill should not exceed 12 inches in thickness; thinner
lifts will be required for walk-behind or hand operated compaction equipment.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dense and unyielding condition and to a minimum percent
compaction based on its modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined per ASTM D1557.
Structural fill shall be compacted to the indicated percent compaction:
Utility Trenches(upper 4 feet): 95 Percent of Modified Proctor
Utility Trenches(below 4 feet): 90 Percent of Modified Proctor
We recommend structural fill placement and compaction be observed on a full-time basis by a MTC
representative. A sufficient number of tests should be performed to verify compaction of each lift. The
number of tests required will vary depending on the fill material, its moisture condition and the equipment
being used. Initially more frequent tests will be required while the contractor establishes the means and
methods required to achieve proper compaction.
5 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction(WSDOT Standard
Specifications); Washington State Department of Transportation; 2010
7
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
4.3. TEMPORARY EXCA VA TIONS AND SLOPES
All excavations and slopes must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible
for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing soil type
information solely as a service to our client for planning purposes. Under no circumstances should the
information be interpreted to mean that MTC is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the
Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
Temporary excavations in the existing native soils should be inclined no steeper than 1 H:1 V. Heavy
construction equipment, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed near the top of any
excavation.
Temporary excavations and slopes should be protected from the elements by covering with plastic
sheeting or some other similar impermeable material. Sheeting sections should overlap by at least 12
inches and be tightly secured with sandbags,tires, staking, or other means to prevent wind from exposing
the soils under the sheeting.
4.4. UTILITY TRENCHES AND EXCA VA TIONS
The contractor should be responsible for the safety of personnel working in utility trenches. We
recommend all utility trenches, but particularly those greater than 4 feet in depth, be supported in
accordance with state and federal safety regulations.
Pipe bedding material should conform to the manufacturer's recommendations and be worked around the
pipe to provide uniform support. Cobbles exposed in the bottom of utility excavations should be covered
with pipe bedding or removed to avoid inducing concentrated stresses on the pipe.
Trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill as recommended herein. Particular care
should be taken to make sure bedding or fill material is properly compacted in-place to provide adequate
support to the pipe. Jetting or flooding is not a substitute for mechanical compaction and should not be
allowed.
8
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. I 1 S064-03 February 23, 2011
5.0 LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed development
and construction activities, our field observations and exploration, and our laboratory test results. It is
possible that soil and groundwater conditions could vary and differ between or beyond the points
explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that vary or differ from
those described herein, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and
supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that
described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed.
We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty, express or implied,
is made. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate
program of tests and observations will be conducted by MTC during the construction phase in order to
evaluate compliance with our recommendations. Other standards or documents referenced in any given
standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the author of this report, are only mentioned in
the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or"included by reference", as that latter term is used
relative to contracts or other matters of law.
This report may only be used by Jerome W. Morrissette & Associates, Inc., and those parties involved
with the project for the purposes stated within the report for a period no later than 36 months from the
date of the report. If the report is to be used beyond 36 months from the date of the report, we must
complete a review of our findings and recommendations to issue an amended report.
Land or facility use, on- and off-site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time and
additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the intended use of the report, MTC
may recommend that an additional inspection be performed and that an updated report be issued. We
recommend that MTC be given the opportunity to review the final project plans and specifications to
evaluate if our recommendations have been properly interpreted. We assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
The scope of work for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental
assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the
soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site.
9
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23, 2011
APPENDIX A. SITE PLANS
Site Vicinity
H-!; 'w
11iI z? �
* e .
V Sanderson
Sys k
qy r chwrnm
Viiloge
a -
a r 4
W sip,, ,p Rk+ Ip a+ ,
'� �118hGi1 �
42, Ca Ekg
OF
* °
ae
4'�Rd
e E ... :.. SEMI
Google 2012
(Dayton Airport Rd)
Map
1 , �- I Site Location T�
IMF
US 101
h`
r Shelton Springs Rd
4
x
Y.�
Google 2012
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Regional and Local Site Vicinity FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 1
Olympia, WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. I I S064-03 February 23, 2011
na
tL'
ff �
a
3 3
"^^--- -....._.W DAYTON AIRPORT RE) X-_-._,-.-..,.
o; eueftfts
P
ARKt,4�
a
FP-1
E FAItFIEID CT
W TP_5 Q
wS4Nl1EkS 3 Gir o' � ;
1P-6
w
m W
g w TP-7 Q Fr
< (n w x
w a
z
P
TP-8 4P S'°c
1
Approximate Test Pit(TP)Location
Not to scale
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Site Plan with Test Pit Locations FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 2
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain— Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
APPENDIX B. EXPLORATION LOGS
Representative soil samples were collected from below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were
collected by grab sampling methods from the sidewalls of the excavations. During the field exploration
the soils were classified in accordance with ASTM D2487. All samples were placed in plastic bags to
limit moisture loss, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing.
The excavations were monitored by our field geologist who examined and classified the materials
encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and recorded pertinent information including soil
sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence. Upon
completion of fieldwork,the test pits were backfilled with the native excavated soil.
The stratification lines shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil
types; actual transitions may be either more gradual or more severe. The conditions depicted are for the
date and location indicated only,and it should not necessarily be expected that they are representative of
conditions at other locations and times.
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Unified Soil Classification System Chart
Major Divisions Graph USCS T Sampler Symbol Description
.io Typical Description
Coarse C; - GW Well-graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand Mix- Standard Pencuattan Test(SPT)
Grained Sods Gravel tires
Clean Gravels ® Shclbc Tube
More Than i- GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand
50%of ;� Mixtures ® Grab or Bug:
Coarse Frac-
tion Retained ! GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures
More Than 50% On No.4 8 California(3.0"O.D.)
Retained On Sieve Gravels With Fines
No.200 Sieve GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand-Clay Mix-
tures . Modified California(2.5"O.D.)
$W Well-graded Sands,Gravelly Sands
San Stratieraohic Contact
Clean Sands Distinct Stratigraphic Contact
More Than Sp Poorly-Graded Sands,Gravelly Sands Between Sod Strata
50%of
Coarse Frac- \ Gradual Change Between Sod
tion Passing $M Silty Sands,Sand-Silt Mixtures Strata
No.4 Sieve ______ Approximate location of
Sands With Fines stratagraphic change
SC Clayey Sands,CleyMvdues
Fine Grained ML Inorganic Sibs,rock Flow,Clayey Silts = Groundwater observed at time of
Soils With Low Plasticity exploration
Silts&Clays Liquid Limit Less C L Irorganic C lays of Low To Medium sz Measured groundwater level it
y 4 Y Than 50 Plasticity exploration,well m or piezoeter
More Than 50% Perched water observed at time
Passing The OL Organic S dts and Organic S ihy C lays of . of exploration
N.200 Sieve Low Plasticity
NIH Inorganic Silts of Moderate Plasticity
Modifiers
Silts&Clays Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity Description %
Greater Than 50
Trace >5
OH Organic Clays And Sibs ofMedium to Some 5-12
High Plasticity
PT Peat,Humus,Soils with Predominantly With >12
Highh Organic Soils Organic Content
Soil Consistency Grain Size
Granular Soils Fine-grained Soils DESCRIPTION SIEVE GRAIN SIZE APPROXIMATE SIZE
SIZE
Denser SPT Consisseaey SPT
Blowcoanr Blowcorrat Boulders >12" >12" Larger than a basketball
Very Loose 04 Very Soft 0-2 Cobbles 3-12- 3-12" Fist to basketball
Loose 4-10 Soft 2A Coarse 3/4-3" 3/4-3" Thumb to fist
Gravel
Medium 10-30 Firm 4-8 Fire #4-3/4" 0.19-0.75" Pea to thumb
Dense
Dense 30-50 Stiff 8-15 Coarse #10-#4 0.079-0.19" Rock salt to pea
Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 15-30 Sand Medium #40-#10 0.017-0.079" Surgsr to rock salt
Had >30 Fire #200-#40 0.0029-0.017" Flour to Sugar
mines 00 <0.0029" Flour and smaller
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Key FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 3
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Materials Testing& Consulting. Inc. Test Pit 1 (TP-1)
Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Pro)ec.. Date Started January 6.2011
Geotechnical Site Investigation Date Completed January 6.2011
Sampling Method Backhoe
Shelton.WA Location Nest of WSP Entrance 1-N47.252'.W123.159')
Project#11 S064-03 Logged By .B Hicks,L Levine
`m
m
E
d m
m m
c Surf U
Elev a DESCRIPTION o Q J
m 300 C m m T
W
0 300
Grass and root zone,3 inch depth �
Brown well graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,medium dense,moist,rounded gravel
and cobbles up to 3.5 inch diameter
t 295
GW
2 298
1
3 297
Total depth=3 feet
Test pit terminated due to discovery of three cables not marked by locate
No Groundwater encountered
4 296
5 295
6 29
7 293
8 292
9 291
10 290
tt
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 4
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Materials Testing&Consulting Inc. Test Pit 2 (TP-2)
Geolechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project Date Started January 6,2011
Geotechnical Site Investigation Date Cpnppo :January 6,2011
Sampling Mettwd Backhoe
Shelton,WA Location :37N,WTE CCDayton Airport Rd/PW Drive Intersection
Project#11 S064-03 Logged By B.Hicks.L.Lavine
ro
E
$ o �
E surf, i ro $, -J
Elev. 0 0- DESCRIPTION E
300 c� mg
0 300
Brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,dense,moist.rounded cobbles up to 8.0 inch �
diameter
SM
f 299 Orange/brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense,moist,rounded
cobbles up to 9.0 inch diameter
SM
2 296 Broom/gray poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,loose to medium dense,moist
to wet,rounded cobbles up to 6.0 inch diameter,soft to medium digging at 3.0 feet,caving at 4.5
feet
3 297 1 6
GP
4 296
ro
5 295
Brown/gray well graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,loose to medium dense,wet,
rounded cobbles up to 8.0 hall diameter,soft to medium digging,caving
6 294 2
7 293
GW
a 292
v
9 291 3
ip
10 290 Total depth=10 feet
No Groundwater encountered
11
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 5
Olympia, WA 98512 Shelton, WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain— Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
Materials Testing&Consulting Inc. Test Pit 3 TP-3
Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia.WA (Page 1 of 1)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project Date Sated January 6,2011
Geotechnical Site Investigation Date Completed January 6.2011
Sampling Method :Badchoe
Shelton,WA Location :130"N,36W of Dayton Airport Rd t 101 Intersection
Project#11 S064-03 Logged By B.Kicks,L.Levine
i6
m
E
m o
c surf.
a Slev. C05v 0. DESCRIPTION £ X
00 7 tmn
0 300
Duff and root zone,3 inch depth
Red I brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL.coarse grained,dense,moist,rounded cobbles up to
4.0 inch diameter,roots
1 299
SP-SM
2 1
298
Gray well graded GRAVEL with SILTY CLAY and SAND,coarse grained,medium dense to
loose,moist,rounded cobbles and boulders to 13 inch diameter,roots to 3 feet
3 297 1 10
W-G
4 296
6
5 295
Gray well graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,medium dense to loose,moist,rounded
cobbles and boulders to 16 inch diameter,caving and easier digging at 7.5 feet
6 294 2 fv
7 293
GW
8 292
ro
x
g 291 3
m
10 290 Total depth=10 feet
No Groundwater encountered
11
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 6
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Test Pit 4 (TP-4)
Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project Date Started January 6,2011
Geotachnicai Site Investigation Date Completed January 6.2011
Sampling Method Sackhoe
Shelton,WA LOCO t on 11 W of road surface.$50'S of Dayeon Airport Rd
Project 0 11 S064-03 Logged By B.Nicks,L.Levine
E
C Surf. S H J
t Ekv. a DESCRIPTION a io
280 Cn
07 280
Grass,moss,and root zone,3 inch depth
FILL;Brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense,dry,rounded gravel up
to 2.0 inch diameter
SP-SM `r
1 279
Asphalt,old road surface
Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,medium dense to loose,moist,
2 278 rounded cobbles up to 5,0 inch diameter(one cobble to 9.0 inch)
3 277 1
4 276
in
5 275
GP
s 274 a
x
7 273
8 272
in
9 271 3
10 270
Total depth=10 feet
No Groundwater encountered
11
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 7
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton, WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Materials Testing&Consulting Inc. Test Pit 5 (TP-5)
Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project Date Started i January 6.2011
Geotechnicall Site Investigation pate Completed January 6,2011
Sampling Method :Backhoe
Shelton,WA Location 70'S of Airport Entry.25'W of 101 Centerline
Project Y 11 S064-03 Logged By B.Flicks,L Levine
0
c Surf.
t Elev. rn n DESCRIPTION a m
a280 rt6n 3
0 280 Moss and root zone,2 inch depth
Light brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,dense,dry,rounded cobbles up to TO x
inch diameter to
1 279 SP-SM
2 276 Dark brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL intedayed with orange!brown SILTY SAND with
GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense,moist,roots,rounded cobbles up to 4.0 inch diameter,
SP-SM caving at 3.5'
a
3 277 Gray/brown well graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,medium dense to loose,moist. 1
rounded cobbles up to 10.0 inch diameter
4 276
5 275
b
x
6 274 2
e
GW
7 273
8 272 io
x
in
9 271 3
b
10 270 tO
Total depth=10 feet
No Groundwater encountered
11
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 8
Olympia, WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain— Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Project No. 1 l S064-03 February 23, 2011
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Test Pit 6 (TP-6)
Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia.WA (Page 1 of 1 l
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project Date Started January 6 2011
Geotechnical Site Investigation Date Completed January 6 2011
Sampling Method Backhoe
Shelton,WA Location 50'N.30'E of 101 i Shelton Springs intersection
Project#11 SD64-03 Logged By B Hicks,L Levine
d
E
m
- 0 m
c Surf
fl E1ev v ° DESCRIPTION E
280 = n
D 280
Grass and root zone,3 inch depth
Dark brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense,moist,rounded cobbles
SP-SM up to 8.0 inch diameter
1 279
Orange i brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense,moist,rounded
cobbles up to 6.0 inch diameter
SP-SM
2 278
Gray 1 brown GRAVELLY SAND.coarse grained,loose,moist.rounded cobbles up to 6.0 inch
SP diameter
3 Orange I brown well graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,medium dense to loose,moist. 1
rounded cobbles up to 9 0 inch diameter
4 275
54 275
GVJ �
6 274 2
7 273
8 272
Orange/brown poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,medium dense to loose. x
moist,rounded cobbles up to 9 0 inch diameter
9 27. GP 3
10 270 Total depth=10 feet
No Groundwater encountered
1t
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 9
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton, WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Test Pit 7 (TP-7)
Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Protect Date Started January 6,2011
Geotechnical Site Investigation Date Completed ,*,,,,,,y 6,2011
Sampling Wttwd Backhoe
Shelton.WA Location 25N.ME of Shelton Songs/Blevins Intersection
Project#11S064-03 Logged By B.Hicks.L.Levine
m
RE
U.
U
Elev rn a. DESCRIPTION a m
n V E
O 280
0 280
Grass and root Zone.3 inch depth
Dark brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense,moist,rounded gravel
up to 2.0 inch diameter
1 279 SP-SM N
Broom well graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,medium dense to loose,moist,rounded
2 278 cobbles up to 4.0 inch diameter
ih
GW
3 277 1
4 276 Brown well graded SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense to loose,moist,rounded
cobbles up to&0 Inch diameter
5 275
SW
6 274 2 to
7 273
Gray!brown wall graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,boss,moist,rounded rabbles
up to 9.0 inch diameter
8 272 GW b
9 271 Gray well graded GRAVEL with SAND,coarse grained,loose to medium dense,moist,rounded 3
GW
cobbles up to 6.0 inch diameter
m
10 270
Total depth=10 feet
No Groundwater encountered
11
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 10
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Materials Testing &Consulting, Inc. Test Pit 8 (TP-8)
Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting
Olympia.WA (Page 1 of 1)
Dayton Airport Road Watermain Project Date Started January 6,2011
Geotechnical Site Investigation Date Completed :January 6,2011
Sampling Method :Backhoe
Shelton,NIA Location :100'N from Tarragon.WE from Shelton Springs Rd
Project it 11 S064-03 Logged By :B Hicks,L Levine
;v
m
E
Cl
tl
U
c Surf. _ rn
ME Elev, in a DESCRIPTION a
0 240
o 240
Grass,scotch broom,and root zone 6 inch depth
Orange/brown SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,coarse grained,medium dense,moist,rounded
gravel up to 2 0 inch diameter,charcoal at 1 0 foot depth
1 239 v
SP-SM
2 233 Brown!orange well graded GRAVEL with SAND coarse grained,loose to medium dense,moist,
rounded cobbles up to 6 0 inch diameter,2 5 inch diameter tree root at 2 5 foot depth
s 237
cw -
4 236
5 235
Brown well graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,coarse grained.loose to medium dense
moist to wet,rounded cobbles up to 6 0 inch diameter,water table at 6 5 foot depth at time of
exploration
6 234 2
7 233 GW
6 232
3
is
9 1
231
Total depth=9 feet
Terminated at 9.0 feet due to caving on west side trench near fiber optic cable
No Groundwater encountered
10 23C
11
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Exploration Log FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 11
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain—Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. I 1 S064-03 February 23, 2011
APPENDIX C. LABORATORY RESULTS
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to better identify the soil classification of
the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering
characteristics. A brief description of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results
of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depths on the
individual test pit logs. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately
represent in situ soil conditions. MTC cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by
others.
The soil samples for this project will be retained a period of 3 months following completion of this
report,unless we are otherwise directed in writing.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Soil samples were visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they were obtained.
They were subsequently packaged and returned to our laboratory where they were reexamined and the
original description checked and verified or modified. With the help of information obtained from the
other classification tests, described below, the samples were described in general accordance with
ASTM Standard D2487. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate locations on the
individual exploration logs, located in Appendix B, and are qualitative only.
MOISTURE CONTENT
Moisture content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D2216 on
representative soil samples to approximately ascertain the in-place moisture content of soil samples at
the times they were collected. The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information
regarding soil compatibility. The results are presented at the appropriate sample depths on the
exploration logs.
GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Grain-size distribution analyses were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standard D422 and
C 136 on representative soil samples to determine the grain-size distribution of the onsite soil. The
information gained from these analyses allows us to provide a description and classification of the in-
place materials. In turn, this information helps us to understand how the in-place materials will react to
conditions such as excavation, loading, potential liquefaction, infiltration, and so forth. The results are
presented in this Appendix.
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consuting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 ASTM D-2487 I nified Soils('lassification Sy stem
Project#: I1SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand --
Client:JWM&A Date Tested:12-Jan-12 Sample Color: -- - -
Source:TP1@3' Tested By:CL Brown
Sam le#: 12-010A
D,., 0 297 mm %Gravel=70.7% Coeff.of Curvature,C,;=1.43
Specifications ll,,,,=0.561 nun °tb Sand=29.4% Coeff,of Uniformity,Cr=55.07
No Specs D,.,=4.981 mm %Silt&Clay=1.0% Fineness ModuluIs=6.53
Sample Meets Specs? D„RI=14.587 mm Fracture°b=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D16,;=30.876 nun Moisture%=9.0% Plastic Limit=Wires
DI,,,,=90.934 mm Sand Equivalent=airs Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Specs Spec tr s @g pgg
US Metric Passin Passing Mu Mis 'x`.x - x �4"a+411�?� aL
100% m n!-•. T I C r r- 100.0%
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0'/• 0.01/6 n 1 1 1 u u 1 1 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0°/R 0.0% I I I I I I u u 1 1 n u t n n 1 1
8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% gm9 Ili l_1 l 1 _I--__lm!' I_I__l,i t L'_I__Lit Ili L 1 _ 900o/.
IIIIII 1I IIIIIII /1111111 IIIIIII
6.00" I50.00 1008/6 100.01/6 0.0% n 1 1 1 1 I 1 n 1 1 1 I I n n 1 1 1 I n 1 1 1 1 1 1
4.00" 100.00 100% 100% 100.0% 0.0% n 1 1 1 InIIII u n I n I
3.00" 75.00 73% 73% 100.0% 0.0% 80% IH Iy++ `1�-1--1M1+r1-1--:rlH rrr-Hl+t+rr- 80.0%
IIIIIII II IIIIIII 'IIIIIII IIIIIII
2.50" 63.00 69% 100.0% 0.0% II111 IIIII :IIIII I IIII I
2.00" 50.00 668/6 100.01/6 0.0% 70% I It
1 1 1 ; IIIII 11 d 11 1 1 i IIII 1 1 1 70 0%
IIIIII IIIII IIIIIII IIIIII 1 1
1.75" 45.00 64% 100.0% 0.0% IIIII I I ` Hill I I IIII I11 I I IIIII I I
1.50" 37.50 62% 62% 100.0% 0.0% III11 I I I Hill I I I IIIII I I 1 IIIIII 1 1
1.25" 31.50 60% 100.01/6 0.0% 60% 1uu 11_J1_. •" __1u 1111_'..wuL 1_1--L11111i 60.0%
IIIII 111 IIIIII IIIIIII II11111 1
1.00" 25.00 58% 58% 100.0% 0.0% C IIII 1 n 1 `% 111 1 1 1 '.IIIIII I IIIIII C
3/4" 19.00 54% 54"/6 100.0% 0.0% jp IIIII IIIII I IIIII '.II, I111 '-
5/8" 16.00 52% 52% 100.0% 0.0% ^ 50% 1nnTT--1Ir1 n-1-I\-mIT n-1--'..mn rl-r-rITITrT 50.0%
6 IIIII I I IIIIII I I IIIIII 11 11111111 1 11111I I I d
1/2" 12.50 47"/o 47% 100.0% 0.0% IIII I III I111 1 IIIII 1 LI11I IIIIII , "
3/8" 9.50 41% 41% 100.0% 0.0% 40% I1111_I __IIIII I_I_I__IIII 1_I_I__41111 1 1_I__ Hill1- 400% \
1/4" 6.30 34°/ 34% 100.0% 0.0% IIIII 1 IIIII II II 1u1111 1 IIIII I I 1
IIIII I I IIII 1 1 I I I I 11 1 1 I '.I I I I I I I � g I I I I I I I
#4 4.75 291/6 29% 100.01/6 0.0% Hill I I II II I I I I Ili`I I I I 111 1 1 I I I I II I I I I I
#8 2.36 21% 100.0% 0.0% 30% IH N t Y-yl+I 1lI I Tell H-I--,It H r 1-r-MI+H r r- 30.0%
I1111 I I II I111 I I IIIII I I IIIIIII I I IIIII I I I
410 2.00 20% 20% 100.0% 0.0% 1 1 IIIII I I I IIIII I I :IIIII I I I IIIII 11 1
#16 1.19 161/6 100.0% 0.0% I dill 1 1 IIIII I I I 1111 1 I IIIII l I
#20 0.850 14% 14% 100.0"/6 0.0% 20� I T i--It-I_I I ii i;i il- -uTl i11 l i I I 'III I i T- 20.0°/
IIII IIIIIII IIIIIII III I I I I I IIIIIII
#30 0.600 11% 100.0°/ 0.Oo/ IIIII IIIII i IIIII I ! 11 I I 1 IIIII I
#40 0.425 88/6 8% 100.0% 0.0% 10% ILI IJII_JIlI LIJ J_-ILIIl LI_I_ LLI•J.LL_LIil1L 1_ 100%
IIII IIIII I IIIII II'.'`
#SU 0.300 5% 1
00.0% 0.0"/ IIIII I I 91111 1 I I IIII l l l I `•. I I I
#60 0.250 4% 41/6 100.0°/ 0.0°/"
#80 0.180 3% 3% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0°r6
#100 0.150 21/6 21/o 100.0% 0.01/6 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 1% 100.0% 0.0% Particle Size(men)
#170 0.090 1% 100.0% 0.0%
#200 0.075 1.0% 1% 100.0% 0.0'/0 + s�ra�.R -. .I. "a -•-w"".. -•-s,...a.I,m
�"vsesl sue,.�e�e a T.�I.�t sw�.es.Ivss•e
our vr6mn,PFrnv,l.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Mesh Ca,doq W'AB(,Suprvvnr laboruory Mwgu.S W Repion
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 12
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton, WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain- Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Air port Rd Warerm ain Geotech Date Received:BJan-12 AS GP,Po Dygrad d Gravel
c'<I Soils Classification System
Project#: I1S064-03 Sampled By:BH GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JAIM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color,
Source:TP2 3' Tested By:CL Brown/Gray A6CREDITED
Sam le#• 12-0lOB ''""+°�„"'°'
D,.,=0.748 mm %Gravel=57.5% Coeff.of Curvature,Cr.=0.91
Specification., Du°,= 1.131 mm 4'•Sand=42.1% Coeff ofliniformity,C,=8.06
No Specs Ias.t=3.067 mm %Silt&Clay=0.4% Fineness Modulus=5.82
Sample Meets Specs° Df51,,=6.425 mm Fracture%=da Min liquid Limit=da
Q.,=9.115 mm Mcistore%=3.7% Plastic Limit=Wa
PPP,=31.010 mm Sand Equivalent=n/A Min Plasticity Index=da
Actual Interpolated --
Cumulathe Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Spas Specs rr g k
US Metric Yassm Paaain Mar Min cIZ gQg�$8�-G a
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.0p/ 100p/. I1 n p_•- art I'l l I>•II tilMFile >+a,i l-ir I I 100.0%
IIII I I I I 111 I I 1 IIII I I I I IIII I I I I I
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.()*/. IIII I I I I 1111"•,'�I I 111111 1 I 111111 1 I I!1111 1 I
8.00, 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.0°/ 90°/P in11_il _ilil IN _I__nili I_I_1__liu_I I_IIf nil I 900./.
IIII I IIII I I I I IIII I I �I I111
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0°/ 'III I (IIII III n11III I Iu1II1 I nnIIII I
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.0/0 n n \ n 11 IIn 1 I I
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 8M. 11',�'-a11{J 41J J -1 u111-I-1--1}I F-I 41- -w1�1;u.- 80.0'/
I I I I '.IIII I I I tin I I I I IIn I I I I Inl I I I I
2.50" 63.00 100% 100% 10D.0% 0.01/6 IIn .IIu IIn I IIn I I ;I I I I 1 1
100" 50.00 95P/ 95% 100.0% 0.0% I I I-i111 I II1111 1-1 _IIII I I I II11111 I I
1.75" 45.00 94% 100.0% 0.0% 7�/ -i IT1 I l-i -1 i n I I I I IIII i-Iin i 1 i 7 70.0P/o
I illl V11 I I I 1 IIII 11 11111 I I 11
1.50" 37.50 92°/ 92% 100.0% O.tP/ �I i I 1 IIII I I I I IIII 1 1 I IIII I I 11 i1111 1 1 1 I
1.25" 31.50 90% 90% 100.0% 0.0°/6 60p/6 ILL IJ L 1_JIU L11 J_ UI1 LI.I__ILU I L-L_UIL11 L L_ 60,0-
IIII I I I IIII I I I I I I I IIII I I I I 'IIII I I I I
1.00" 25.00 851. 85% 100.0% 0.01/0 C IIII V L I111 1 1 •IIn 11 1
3/4" 19.00 79% 79% 100.0% 0 101/ IIII I I I I d l I I 1 1 I I i i I 1111 1 1 I I -.I I I I I I I I 'N
509/6 I n 17 r-r-+IIn r l-r-1--� -1-'Irl ry r l'r-"I r l T
SIR" 16.00 74°/. 74% 100.0% 0.0%
1 V 12.50 68% 68% 100.0% 0.0%
Ills IIII .IIII I 1
3B" 9.50 61% 61% 100.0% 0.0% 40'1'O -i1�ll -ilia -i--i _1__171i1i 1_i_�inilii 7- 40.0%
1/4" 6.30 W/o 50% 100.0% 0.V/. .nllI I 1 1
#4 4.75 431/o 43% 100.0% 0.0°/ 1iii 11 1 I 1n11 i 1 i IIII n 1 I un111 1 1
#8 2.36 25% 100.0% 0.0"/ 30% i4I� 4 _1111L1_I__:WI41+H1- 30.0%
IIII 1I I IIII IIII 111 1 -rill 111 1
#10 2.00 22% 22% 100.0% 0.0% 1IIi 11 1 d111 1 I�� nI1111 1 .nu 1 I 1
#16 1.18 11% 100.0% 0.0D/. IIII nn IIII l i IIII 'IIII 00 1 1
#20 0.850 6°/. ON. 100.0% % 20% lnnrn- mnmnn-r-Inm7rr- 20.096
IIIIII nn 111 II IIIII 1 II11111 !1111111
#30 0.600 3°/ 100.0% 0.0'/o nu I 1 1 1 nl1 11 1 11u I nn I 1 Ilnl 11 I 1
#40 0.425 2% 2% 100.0% 0.01/ 10% n1i 1_ii i_ I11111i_1ui1i 1_i_1 ili l_I__auilii L- 100P/o
#50 0.300 1% 100.0% 0.0% III 11 1 IIII IIu ` ... l I IIII 11 1
III I I I I ]III I I I I IIII I I I � I I illll l l l I
#60 0.250 1% 1% 100.0% 02/0 •. 1
#80 0.180 1% 1% 100.0% 00/
#100 0.150 1% 1% 100.0% 0.0% 1000.00 100.D0 10.D0 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 lP/o 100.0% 0.01/ Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 0°/. 100.0% 0.0"/.
#200 0.075 0.4% 01/6 100.0% 0.0"/b ' '�a='=, -•�sp,,, ---• -�tn.,paa ems".aar1.
Co PJri6hl Span Fi�gi�n�°a 1'sMcal Servce P5.19969.
N rmlu yply"nA to acwl loatim.and mdcriA tc.dui. 4 a mutual Pm c.,un to cimta the puFli and oun d,w,all re Pon.aarc xubmit.tl ax tM1e m Mdmtal Property a(d�nn ab auth:rvainn for Pubiul nn�i(petunmt"mnc Lr unn nr«Ind,Irom or rgrdinP our npmte is rowed pmd,M
am wttcn approa°.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
M14hGPrdm WABOStgerJuP°Llwat"ry M•ugm.SW'aegu"
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 13
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Aapon Rd Watetmain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 %SIN] D-24871 nifted Soils Classification System
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel vvith Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color.
Source:TP2@6' Tested By:CL Dk Brown Gray ACCREDtTE61
Sam le#• 12-010C o.ouc+p+Seam.1pt°o::ra°>
Df51=0.795 mm %Gravel=69.5% Coal ofCurvanre,C,•=1.03
Specifications Due,=IA64 min %Sand=29.7% Coll of Uniformity,q,=9.88
1Vo Specs Am,=4.672 nnm °b Silt&Cal=0.7% Fineness Modulus=6.42
Sample fleets Specs? D,a,=10.106 nun Fracture%=da Min liquid Limit=da
1.)° 14.473 min Mcisure°'=4.2% Plastic Limit=na
Div,,,=83.168 mm Sand Equivalent-n/a Min Plasticity Index=da
ASTM
Actual Interpolated ----
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs t,
us Metric Passing Passing Man Min 4
100% Irn -. f nT r r- 100.0%
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% ill 11 I I
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% IIII IIII 1 1 1 1 'Hill I I IIII I I I I
8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.01/° 90% Ini 1_il -_I--IT. l_I_I--Iin_ii I-I__inilii i_ 900%
1111 I ''H I l l I IIII I I I I -IIII 1 1 1
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.011/ II11 Hill I I I IHi l l 11 111111 1 1
4.00" 100.00 1001/6 100% 100.0% 0.0% IIII 1 1 1 u u 1 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 I 111 1 1 1
3.00" 75.00 85% 85% 100.0% 0.0/ aty/p
II '••` IIII I IIII I I IIII
250" 63.00 84% 100.0% 0.0
200" 50.00 821/0 82% 100.0% 0.0% 70% IIII I I I I 111. ` '.III 11 I I II11 I I I I IIII l 1 1 I
IIII 'Ili ',.11 1 1 IIII 11 I I 1 -.rllr I I - �.�/
1.75" 45.00 82% 100.0% 0.0% nu I I I I I I I
1.50" 37.50 81% 100.0% 0.01/0 Hir I I 1 .1n1 1 1 1 1 nn I I :1u111 1 1
1.25" 31.50 81% 81% 100.0% 0.0/ 50/p Iuui1_aIwuJ \ -:IiI_I_I__liluL_L_Iu1L11LL_ 60.0%
IIII (III IIII l I :IIII I I
1.00" 25.00 75°/ 75% 100.0% 0.01/0 cn
3/4" 19.00 67% 67% 100.0% 0.0/ 'V1 IIII 1 1 11111 , '.III 1 I11111 1 I II111 I I I 'y
,n 50'/0 1tt I7r7-7m r1Y ,IT 1-1---mein ri- -l"Iril 1-t 50tr/. m
5/11" 16.00 63% 63% 1110.0% 0.0/ m Q.
12" 12.50 571/ 57% 100.0% 0.0/ III I11 I II11 I I 1 IIIII I I
III111 IIII 111 III IIII III I innlll
3B" 9.50 48°/ 48% 100.0% 0.0/ 40% -- - --- - ---- - - - - 40.0/ \
1/4" 6.30 38% 38% 100.0% 0.0/ nn r T
ll -i1T1,11 a T1I Iiu lil i �i1l lii
IIII I I I I 4111 I I I I III I I I I IIII I I I I (IIII I I I I
#4 4.75 30% 30% 100.0% 0.01/6 IIII 'IIII IIII I I111 I '.IIII I
#8 2.36 16% 100.0% 0.0% 30% IUI-I�-�-a1u I-IaJ-_I4; �I-I--1,I-141-L--HI1.IlL 1- 30.0%
II vn11 IIII I 1 IHI 11 1 1 '.1111 I I 1
#10 2.00 14°/ 14% 10).0% 0.0/ IIII 1 1 1 l l 1 I I Hill 11 1 1 '.Hill I I 1 1
#16 1.18 8% 100.0% 0.0/ 1111II I I dll11I I I IInI I I IIIII I I I 'IIIIII I I
#20 O.tL50 5% 5% 100.0% 0.0/ 2�° Innr�-�mn1-I--Imr1 -r-lrrnrrr-.nlrcirr
- 20.Oi
III IIn 1111 1 I IIII I .IIII I
#30 0600 39/6 100.0% 0.0/ Hill,I I '.Iu1 l l I I 1ul l I I IIII I I '.nn l l I I
#40 0.425 2% 2% 100.0% 0.0% 1096 IIL I_ii ii1i 1 _1I l it Il_I_1 _I111111_1i11i1ii i- 100%
#50 0.300 1% 1000% 00'h III 'IIII 11 1 IIII I 11111 I I IIII
111 I I I I -IIII 11 1 I I I I I I I I I III I I i l l l l 1 1 I
#60 0.250 1% 1% 100.0% 0.0/ III I11 1 Hill,I IIIIII •L. 1111I 0.0/1
.:�
1�0 0.180 1% I% 100.0% 0.0%
11100 0.150 1% 1% 100.0% 0.0/a 1000.00 100.00 10A0 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 1% 100.0% 0.01/6 Pat Size(man)
#170 0.090 1% 100.0% 0.0%
#200 0.075 0.7% 1 1% 100.0% 0.01/6 + siaasr<.
Copyighspar.raRiv%A T-c.1S.rvca P3.19965°
Alraultr yply pnM In.cwl laatnn.and macrva I.�"d..4a a mutual pm eceon to cimu ree pubic and"un da«.all rcp"n.art ruM1mticJ a•IFc m Tdmlwl prop M1,of Jcnl"aM aulb rvri��n(or puM1i�alun'!"elan ml..a�n.�.yin.��r«,ra.a.li"m or rtg rdine our rtpaM1a i.r«mcd pmdih
ow wr.ten approval.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Muk Gladm,WAaO3y-nie.{Lbonlary Maapr.SN'R.Suu
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 14
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain- Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 ASTN1 D-2487I ni6etl Soils Classification System
Project#: 115064-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Coln r:
Source:TP2@9' Tested By:CL DkBrown/Gray
Sam a#• 12-010D a
D..=Q730 nun %Gravel=682% Coeff.of Curvature,C,.=1.17
Specifications Idol=1.371 tom %Sarl 30.6% Coeff ofUnifonnity,Ci,=9.00
No Specs Dtdo,=4.459 mm %Silt&Clay=1.20/9 Fineness Modulus=6.14
Sample Meets Specs! D,,,,1=9.102 Onto Fracttre%=rJa Min Liquid Limit=n1a
12.336 Onto Moistum%=3.8% Plastic Limit=da
35.333 min Sand Equivalent=-n/a Min Plasticity Index=Wall
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cuinubtive Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Ske Percent Percent Specs Spec gog�g BS� c�
us Metric Passing Passin Max Min 1000h Inn!•-A#i3t,•.�ayi+�ii141�li�atr+>F i171R41 011A r17 r T- 100o%
12.00" 300.00 10D% 100.01% 0.00/e III 1 1111.I 11 n 1 1 1 n I I 1 1 u n 1 I I
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1 uu 1 u11 t 1 1 I u 11 1 1 III I I I I I
8.00" 200.00 100°h 100.0% 0.0% 90% l 1_ilil _I__n1111_1_1__n1n_111_L_Lu111 L 1- 90.0%
II JIIIIII IIIIIII I IIIII III 1111III
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% III IIIII lull I I IIIII I IIII I
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.01"/ °. I I l u I I I I I l u l I I 11 u l l I I 1 I
3.00" 75.00 100% 10D.0% 0.0%
80% 141, -a1H lla`:--INI4 Fl-1--IKIHi I-F-.H If Ii F+- 8D.0%
1 I11 1 1 1 IIIII IIII I I I illll l I l I IIII 1 1 I
2.50" 63.00 100% 1OD% 100.0% O.a/o nl I I I uu un I I !Inl 11 1 I IIn 1
200" 50.00 96% 96% 10D.0% 0.0% 70% I1I1I1I II 1I II I IIlIlI!III I IIIII I 1 IIIII I IIII 1 1 70 0/
1.75" 45.00 95% 1OD.0% 0.0/ II11 I I I I 'IIII I I IIII I I •IIII I I111 I
1.50" 37.50 93% 93% 100.0% 0.0% IIIII 1 1 1 dill 1 111111 1 1 '.HIM I I IIII I I
1.25" 31.50 84% 84% 100.0% 00/0 600/p ILLIJ L I_JIL LIJ_I_-IH111--1- LLILI LI_L_JI-L1 600%
I111111 1 II II III 1111ItI 1 11111111 1 IIII III I
1.00" 25.00 79'/9 79% 100.0% 0.0% ( IIII I I I I i 111 11 1 1 till I I I I hill I I I I IIII I I I I
3/4" 19.00 74°/P 74% 100.0% 0.0M1/o I u 111 1 ,In l l 1 1 nlu 11 1 I In1 t 1 1 1 'y
500/ 7 r Y--IIn r 1 -1- n T n-I--I m n r 1-r-n Ir 17 r T 50.0%
518" 16.00 68°/ 68% 100.0% 0.0°"/ d -IIu I IIII I 1 .IIII I I IIII I a
12" 12.50 60% 60% 100.0% 0.09/ a IIII I I I I lull I I J e
3i8" 9.50 52% 52% 100.0% O.IP/ 409% IIu I 1 -IIII I -I II I I I_ !IIII-I1 I- -IIH I I 1 400%
IIII 1 1 i111 1 1 --11 -1 -=IIII I I IIII I
• 1/4" 6.30 39% 39% 100.0% 0.01% II11 11 1 1 I11111 1 1 III 11 1 1 t111111 1 1 111111 1 1
#4 4.75 32% 32% 1WOO` 0.01% I'll I I I I I I Iol 11 1 IIIII I I I I IIII 11 1 1
#8 236 17% 100.0% 0.0% 000/6 II+H+i--IIH HIi-1--IHI HI-I--II+IH 41-F--HI+Ii L+- 30.00/6
IIII I I I I IIII I l t I IIIII I 1 ;IIII I I I I IIII I I I I
#10 2.00 150/1 15% 100.0% 00% IIII In111 1 1 n 1 11n 11 1 1 uu 11 1 1
#16 1.18 9% 100.0% 0.00/o 11u l nn 11 1 l 11 1n 1 1 1 1u1 l l 1
#20 0.850 6% 6% 100.0% 0.0% 20°h IITnr7-7mrn-1--11� -'�Irin-r-nlrlTrr- ZO.o°i
1111111 1 ill! 'II Iu111 1 1
#30 0.600 4% 10D.0% 0.0% III I I ]IIIII IIII I IIII IIIII 11 I 1
#40 0.425 3% A. 100.0% OAo/p 10°/ Iu11ii1_JlL1II1-1_-Ito II •� -1. 1- -��Ir1iL1_ 10.0%
#50 0.300 2% 100.0% 0.0% III I I o l n I I I I I I 1 •� I
I III I I I I In1111 1 Im 11111
#60 0.250 2% 2% 100.0% 0.0g/ IIn 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1
#90 0.180 2% 2°/l 100.0% 0.0% 0,� 111 - •� 0.0°i.
#100 0.150 1% 1% 100.0% 0.Op/° 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 1% 100.0% 0.01% Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 1% 1OD.0% 0.01i
#20D 0.075 1.2% 1% 100.0% 0.0g/
Co pvight Span ragi-%At T,-SO,-PS 19"
:U rmulu yPl,onA lo.c.al lomlun.anJ macro!�cnd lcamulualpmtcl"n1"ciml.IM1c puM1lc and ound,m.Jl npon,.n,ubmilcda,tM1cm�dmlol pr"pcn M1af dem,,and aulbrvJi"n for pubfmew d41su1".mecMono or ear"°e(mmm Amding our np"d,ic ra m-cd pmdiq
our nrt�c appm.J.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
MukGsb4 t1.4 PI1 Supern,ing I.banlon\!auger.SN'Re8_
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results
g FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 15
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton WA
>
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain- Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geoteeb Date Received:6-Jan-12 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System
Project#: 115064-03 Sampled By:BH GW-GC,Well-graded Gravel with Silty Clay and Sand
laig
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color.
Source:TP3@3' Testy By:CL Gray ACCREDITED
Sam eih 12-010E e.oeael.a laaen.+armsawa
D,r 1=0.068 min %Gavel=64.0% Coefl'of Curvature,C1.=1.91
Splri6cations D;1el=0.299 tram %Sand=30.5% CoetT.ofUnifonnity,Co=56.35
No Specs I]• =3,100 mm %Silt&Clay=5.51/6 Fineness Modulus=5.92
Sample Meets Specs? D,,,=10.87E mm Fracture%=eta Min liquid Limit=n/a
D.)=16.821 nun Moisture%= 1.2°/ Plastic Limit=eta
Drip,=55A88 tam Sand Equivalent=el Mtn Plasticilylndex=eta
Actual Interpolate
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sine Site Percent Percent Specs Specs ;, g
us Metric Passing Passing Met Min k pR 8Y
100
12.W 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% "h Irtnt_� 3tt. >tIF '^rl�rT 700.0%
nil I I IIIr1l
10.00" 250.00 100% 10D.0% 0.0%00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 900/ n111 l 1 AI IlilllI 1 _.Ills 1LI I "It 11 L 1 900p/6.00" 150.OD 100% 100.D% O.tl%4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.0'/ 111111 1 111 .� II1111 1 -IIII I I IIII
3.00" 75.00 700% 100.D% O.tp/ 80% IKH4 4--11H FyI I--1.1 1-1-1--141Hf1-F-..1f1414 800%
I111111 1 '1111111 1 IIIIII1 1 •1111111 1 4III 111 1
2 50" 63.00 100% 100% 100.0% 0.0% IIII 1 1 '.1111 1 1 I III I 1 I I I i m I I I I I n l I I 1 1
200" 5D.00 83% 83% 100.0% 0.0% 11 I I 9In I I 1111 1 1 I I Intl I I I I I, I I l
7�0 itIIII 'IIIII -I IIII 1-I--n111 9111 IT 70.0%
1.75" 45.00 82% 100.0% 0.0% IIII I "I I1111 1 IIII 1 1 :'IIII ]11111 l
1.50" 37.50 Sap/ 90% 100.0% 0.01/6 I I11 I IIII I I 91I 1 1 1 d i l l I
1.25" 31.50 74% 74% 10D.0% 0.0% 80°h ILL IJ 11_JIL LIIJ _ILLII LI-I__:Ill LJ L1_L_.LILI�L1 ���
11 ti I I I IIIII I IIII I 1111 II11 t l
1.00" 25.00 671% 67% 100.0% 0.0% C I I I I I I I I II I I I III I I I I I 1"I'l l I I I III I I I I C
3/4" 19.00 63% 63% 100.0% 0.01/° nu I I I I IIn I 1 1 �1u1 1 I mn 11 1 nli I 'm
°/p 50.0 Irc lnr-r-am rlY-1' In17 r1-r-.rcm rrr-:n lrl�rr % 0
S 8" 16.OD $9°� $9% . 100.0% 0.0% d 50 It I I R
12" 12.50 54/ 54% 100.0% 0.0% nn I 1 11u 1 1 11 1 1 I ,IIn 1 1 :1ni 1 I 1 e
3/8" 9.50 47°/ 47% 100.0% 0.0% 400/6 IIII 1 1 1 1- Illl I I 1 I -1 1 1 1[_I__1111_I I I-I -1111 I I _ 40�% \
I 1 IIII 11 lil 11 I I 'J11111 I 'IIII I I
1/4" 6.30 40% 40% 100A% 0.01/0 1 IIII I IIII.yy1 1 1 ':IIII 11 1 1 9III I I
#4 4.75 36% 36% 10D.0% 0.01/6 �'i'11 1 I IIII I Ind I\I I II11111 1 1 II1111 I
#8 236 271/6 100.0°� 0.0°� 309/6 IK IJ f i--I IH FI S H--IKIK I--IKIH F I-F-H-4 t- 3D.0%
1111111 I IIII III 1 I111111 I 1till III I II11111 I
#10 2.00 26% 26% 10D.0% 0.0% nu 11 1 nn 11 1 1 u11 I I nut I 1 I I :nn 11 1 1
#16 1.18 20% 100.0% 0.01/ 20p/ 1111 1 1 1 1 9111 11 1 1 till I I 11 1nn 11 1 1 111111 1 1
#20 0.850 18% 18% 100.0% 0.0% t17-1T-1 -1 Tl rrt---1IIIT n-I- In rr 1- 11: T F T- �.
II II 1 IIIII IIII I I 11 I I .Ind I
#30 0.600 15% 100.0% 0.0°/ IIII I I I I IIII I I I I IIII 11 1 I lull I I I 4111 I I I I
#40 0.425 13% 13% 100.0% 0.0% 200h ill 1J 11_ 91 L1 LIB_I__1 I111III_I__rIll LI 1_L11111 L 1_ 10.0%
I11 1 IIII I IIn I I I !I I11 1 1 1 'IIII I
#SD 0.300 10% 100.0% 0.01/0 I11 11 I I I I I I I .1 n 1 1 1 1 1 o�o:Xl 11
#60 0.250 9% 91/6 IWO% 00% I11 II11 I IIII I 1 1 not 1 'IIII l 1 1
#80 0.180 7% 7% 100.0% 0.0"/6 0.0%
#100 0.150 7% A/o 100.0% 0.0% t 000.00 t W.00 10.0D 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 6% 1010% 0.ar Particle Sin(nwn)
#170 0.090 6% 100.0% 0.01/0
#200 0.075 5.5% 5% 100.0% 0,01/0 . hiwcs;.. -+ -nl..yn" -.-nf:,spw. SiccRmle
Co FJ^Shl Sp-a,pi...M r iwhncal Servie PS,1996-98
V raull.yplvonh to veal lo.�lonv vnd m.er�h re"d .0 ammud pn�tcaun tn.imlx the publ�vnd"und.a.Jl rcpcn.v«•ubmited vv them�dmlel prnanfof lima vb amb reiionfnr p�M1futnn ofparunmly.mne L.i.na or mrv"n liom nr np rdinp oin reponviv revved pmdilp
our wr"Ic.ppN..1
Comments:
Reviewed by:
sa.hc"la".waeos.p.rr...s I.t"r.l«rla."str.sw R.em
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 16
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain- Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd W"atermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 ASINI D-2387 1 nified Soils Classification System _ -
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: l2-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP3@& Tested By:CL Gray _- -'
Sam le#: 12-OIOF
D,,,--0.537 mm %Gravel=74.2% Cceff.of Curvature,CT=1.50
Specifications D(oo_1.233 mm 1,6 Sand=24.3% Coeff.of Uniformity,Co=17.62
No Specs Dpo,1 6.332 mm %Silt&Clay=1.5% Fineness Modulus=6.55
Sample Meets Specs! D,,,,)=16.797 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D16„,=21.713 man Moisture 9'o=4.46/6 Plastic Limit=n/a
D„p,=50.059 mm Sand Fquivalent=n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Size Percent Percent Spcea Spec u z
us Metric PassingPassingMu Min x �g e��
100% hh.Y.. '. 1 100.0%
12.00" 300.00 100"/ 100.0% 0.0% Inn-•' + IIIIIII 1 n r r
IIIIII I 111 III I IIIIIII I .IIIIIII 1
10.00" 250.00 1001/6 100.0% 0.0% 11 1 1 1 1 n n n 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1
IIIII IIIIII IIIIII I I IIIII 1 1 II1111 i t
8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.0°/, fp% _ __ ___ ____ _ _ - 90.0°/p
IIII I I I IIII. I I IIIII I I I IIIIII I I - !IIIIII i t
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% HHH, 1 1
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.01/ 0.0% III11 I 75.00 . 1r11 + -1II1+II1 -t--IInIIIl+I Ir Il-I--IIr11lrI +r1 I1 '.IIII11
++ 80.0/
3.00" / / f0I " " 1111 1 11 111
1 1 :IIIIII 1 1
2.50" 63.00 100% 100% 100.0% 0.0°/ IIII 1 1 IIIIII' 1 -HILL I I I Iu11I I I :un1l 1 1
2.00" 50.00 90% 90°/ 100.0% 0.0% 70% IIII IIII 1 1 _111 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 I I 111 1 1 1 1 1 70.0
1.75" 45.00 88% 100 0°/ 0 0% 11 1 1 1 -IIII 1 1 -I- 1 1 1 1 1 IIIII l l l l l l 1
IIII IIIIII I illll l IIIIIIIIII II
1.50" 37.50 85% 85% 100.0% 0.0°/ IIIII IIII 1 1 1 IIIII IIII 1 1 1 I
1.25" 31.50 75% 75% I00.0°� 0.0°� 60% Iu IJ 11_J111 LIJ _IV Il LI_I__tyl tJLLL
1.00" 25.00 65% 65% 100.0% 0 0% Q IIII IIIII I I 111 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I n n I I I
C IIIII I I I IIIIII I IIIII I I I IIIII I I Inn11 1 1 �
3/4" 19.00 56% 56% 100.06/6 0.0% j, IIIII 1 IIIII d 1 1 1 I III n n 1 1
5/8" 16.00 48% 48% ]00.0% 0.0% a 50% 1nnT-r-rinnll -:1nu -mnII rrr-n1T1Tr1 - 50.0% m
dIIII IIIII I IIIII IIIII 1uII11 R
1/2" 12.50 43% 43% 100.0% 0.0% X IIII III I1 1 1 1` IIIII IIIII IIIII n
I111_I 1 1 II111 I_I_I IIIII I_I_I_ IIII I I 'IIIII I
1/4" 9.50 37% 37% 100.0% 0.0% 40% -- -�- - - -!- ao.o% \
1/4" 6.30 30% 30% 100.0% 00% 11I I I I IIIII I 1 IIII IIIII IIIII 1 1
IIIII I I IIIIII I I - IIII I I IIIIII I I II11111 I
#4 4.75 26% 26'/6 100.0% 0.0% IIII I I I n 1 1 1 1 I 1 n 1 1 I n 1 1 1 I I "I I I
#8 2.36 170/6 100.0% 0.0 30% Ir11-1+J-1 It"rl+r r-:r 1+11 r+ 30.0%
#10 200 15% 15% 100.0% 00% IIIIII 1 1 IIIIII1 1 11 Ilk I I I IIIIII I I In I11 I I
IIIII 1 1 IIIIII I I IIIII I I I11111 I I 'IIIIII 1 1
#16 1.18 l0% 100.0% 0.0% III I I I n 11_1_I__I U I I I n11111 I n1111I I
20% 11111 ,--IIIIIII I IIIIII IIIII I - 111111 -i 20.0%
#20 0.850 7"/6 7% 100.0"/o 0.0% 1 1 n t 1 1 1 1 1 IIn 1 1 1• 1 n 1 I 1 1 1 n 1 1 I 1
#30 0.600 5% 100.0% 0.0"/ IIIII 1 1 n I I I IIIII 1 III I11 1 1 ,.IIII11 1 1
#40 0.425 4% 4% 100.0% 0.00/ 10% Iuu 11-JILI LIJ J--1uu� •\,1.1ui1-�_uu11�-;_ 10.0%
#50 0.300 3% 100.0% 0.0%
#60 0.250 3% 3% 100.00/ 00% 1 1 1 nl 1 -un 1 1 1
#80 0.190 21/6 2% 100.0% 0.0"/ 0% 0.0%
#100 0.150, 2"/• 2% 100.0% 00% 1000,00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 2% 100.0% 0.01/6 Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 2% 100.0"/o O.Oo/p
9200 0.075 1,5% 1% 100.0% 0.0% + g".e- -^+• r -� -.+ r - �•"="e•
Copyr®M11 tipun rngbmnp @ r-I Sw K.199b9g
Allrnnh.appA onh to.wual bcnbm and malwub laced.A..mutwlpmle<iionw egenl..the puM1lw and our•eha.all rayon•.rc.vAmhled wlM1e cnMidrnlulpmpenr of ctiew...rd authorvnbn rm puFlul6n"f.t.lanenu.canchubw or e.lncl.fmm or reg.rdbg ow rnpaN.ramed pmdbg
ow mmn.ppmv.l.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
t r.,t cwm>W, spp m,t,.mm-efm.rw.sw Regnn
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 17
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
I
i
I
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Airport Rd VJatermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 ASTM D-2487 I_:nilied Soils Classification System _ -
Project#: 11 SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP3W Tested By:CL Gray
Sam le#: 12-OIOG
ASTM*2216'"
D,s,=0.592 mm %Gravel=68.26/o Coeff of Curvature,Cc=1.05
Specifications Dtlm=1.121 nun %Sand=30.01% Coeff.of Uniformity,Cc=14.77
No Spas Dt30,=4.407 min %Silt&Clay=1.7% Fineness Modulus=6.17
Sample Meet Specs! D,s,,,=11.619 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D,,,r,=16.552 mm Moisture%-5.8% Plastic Limit=Na
D,po,=36.354 mm Sand Fquivalent=n/a Min Plasticity Index=Na
Actual laterpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve size Percent Percent Specs Specs >.
B q2
US Metric Passing Pawing Macs Min 100% h.1f.Y,•,�s •.s�#a �i, }� 700.0%
Inn-4• + nrr-
12.00" 300.00 IOIP/o 100.0% 0.01/6 n n u: n IIIIIII u
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% O.tr/p n 1 1 u ll li I u I I I I a I I I
8.
11111_I 1 1 11,1, 1�1 1 1111111 IIIIII I I_ 'IIIIII 1 - 90.0 00" 200.00 100r/o 100.0% O.Or/r 90% -- ---- - - °/p
IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII (IIIIIII I
6.00" 150.00 ]00% ]00.0'/0 O.Or/• 1I I I I I I I 111 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.01% 1 1 III 1 1 1' III 1 1 1 1 I 1I I
3.00" 75.00 10 100.0% 0.0% 80% I+t-�I+I r1�-I--ln It rl-l--ffl rlrrr-.+11t1�r+- 80.0°/
0r/o
II IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII .Inll1l
2.50" 63.00 100% 100.01/6 0.01/6 l l I111 1 1 1• I I I11 11 1
2.00" 50.00 100% 100r/• 100.0% 0.01% 70% 1 1 1 11 n 1 1 1 I 111 1 1 1 1 1 n I I I I I 1 1111 1 1 1 1 70 0%
1.75" 45.00 97% 100.0% 0.0% nT1 il_i�--n11i11 1 171i1T1 T,ILii i
I I I IIIIII I IIIIII I I IIIIII I I IIIIII I I
1.50" 37.50 91% 91% 100.0% 01 0. 1 1 1 1 I11 1 I I I I1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 n
1.25" 31,50 84% 84% 100.0% 0.0% 60% JIi1 w��-IWl LI-I_ g0.0%
IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII
1.00" 25.00 74% 74% 1000% 0.01/6 0III 1 1 1 1 u n 1 1 1 1, u u 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 d n 1 1 1
5/8" 16.00 59r/o 59% 100.0% 0.01/6 n III I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 (I I I 'IIIII 50.0%3/4" 19.00 65% 65% 100.0% 0.0% -4 50% - r I - '^N
A
d 'Ill l l I Inn I1111 (III II I111 tL
1/2" 12.50 51% 51% 100.0% O.tP/• x IIIIII I I IIIIII I I 111 1 I I I11I I I 1 1 IIIIII I I x
3/8" 9.50 47r/o 47% 100.0% 0.0% 40% 111i1_ii1__u11i 1_i_I__1111_1_1__1j1i1i l_i_.illilii l- 400%
1/4" 6.30 37°/ 37% 100.0% 0.0'/ III 1 1 II III I111
IIIIIII I IIIIIII I IIIIII I I11III11 11uIII I
#4 4.75 32% 32% 100.0% 0.0r/• 1 I I I 1 1 1 I nil I11 1 l l l
#8 2.36 19r/o 100.0r/o 0.0% 30% 1lt rltt--slrl rly-l--Inl 1-1--nl rlrrr-'.n ltly r+- 30,0%
#10 2.00 18% 18% 100.0% 00% IIIII I 1 IIIIII I dnn I IIIII i 1 'lllll l I
IIIIII I I IIIIIII I IIIIIII I IIIIII I I ,WWII
#16 1.18 11% 100.0% 0.0'A IIIIII l I 111 11 1 1 111111 1 1111111 I mu111
20% III -I I 11111 1 I-I--11117 1 1 III I -'II111 1 7- 20.0%
#20 0.850 8% 8% 700.0% 0.0%
Illl I l IIIIII I I IIIII I IIIIII 111111
#30 0.600 5% 100.0% 0.0% IIIIII 1 I IIIIII I I IIIIII 1 1 IIIIII I I :.IIIIII 1 I
#40 0.425 3% 3% 100.0r/ 0.Or/o 10 IU IJ 11_JI111-IJ-1--i1u 11 L1-I- 111U J-LL-�ilulJxi_ 10.0%
#50 0,300 3% 100.0% 0.0r/o llll l I (III I I .IIIIII 1 1 III 1 1 dlII11
I1111 IIIIII I l III11 I II I IIIIII
#60 0.2$0 2°/ 2% 100.0% O.Or/ I I I I I I I 1 1 11111 1 1 I III 1 !•SHgJ"I
#80 0.190 2% 2% 100.0r/o O.01/o 0.0%
#100 0.150 2% 2% 100.0% 0.0% 1000.00 100.00 10.00 too 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 21/6 100.0r/ 0.0r/o Partfde Size(mm)
#170 0.090 2/ 100.0"/• 0.0'/s
#200 0,075 1.79/6 2r/o 100.0% 0.01% ♦ ft- -wnov® �+-rJu,sp=, �•�s.MRmJI.
C"pyr9nt Spw.Fn9nnvn8 @ raMral Swiry PS.1-98
All re,ub"ph onlyl nclunl bcnlonn and ma,m"6,n,d.M.mu,wlpm ce,nn to creNr.IM1e publc.nd"urrehw,all rgrorl.me rubm",uJa",M1ec"nfdentulpmpnly r(etnd".nM amhoranlwn Lr puhlinun of nL,emvm..c"rclurnna or a"neL(mm"repuJwB" rep"n.nrewed prnJnp
our- approval.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
ALA OorJon.N'ABO Supervsmg Lnbrrpory Alnupr.SW Rnpnn
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project ig
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Airport Rd Waternrain Geotech Date Received:6-Ian-12 AS I%I D-2487 1 nified Soils Classification System _
Project#: I1S064-03 Sampled By:BH GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Ian-12 Sample Color: -
Source:TP4@3' Tested By:CL Brown --- -
Sam le#: 12-OIOH
D1s1=0.233 mm %Gravel=59.5% Coeff.of Curvature,C,=0.81
Specifications D,tpl=0.384 mm "I Sand=38.5% Coeff of Unifomdty,Ch=35.54
No Specs D„°I=2.055 min °gyp Silt&Clay 1.9% Fineness Modulus=5.56
Sample Meets Specs? DIw1-8.263 nun Fracture°b=n/a Mtn Liquid Limit=n/a
D,prli=13.634 mm Moisture% 7.2% Plastic Limit=n/a
D1,rll=38.848 mm Sand Fqulvalent=a/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual loterpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Sptxa Specs rr k %
us Metric Pamin Passin Maa Min �{t g $$_g ssc�
100% Inn.•-•.�.liLYt,S� ++ai ArM+r �IFi7I7 r T- 100.0%
12.00" 30000 100D/D 100.01/6 0.0°/D nlI Inl Intl :III. Inll
10.00" 250.00 1001/6 100.00/0 0.0P/° n n n u l l u n
8.00" 200.00 1001/6 100.0% 0.0W/D milli nilL _lill�l_I_I .IiILILI_L_ LII�IiL
90°/p - -- -- 90.0 i
IIIII I I IIIII lI I IIIIII I I ..IIIIII I I IIIIII I
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0°/ 0.0°/ Inn I•` I u u I u I n n I
4 00" 100.00 l000/ 100 tP/° O 01/ 1 1 'IIIII 1 I�I IIIII I I I I l n l l I I n 11 1 1 I I
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.00/0 0.0°/d 10% r1y -IM1+r1-1--rr1 l-Irrr-n1+1+r+ SO.Or:-6
null I I IIIII I I I IIIII I I I .IIIIII I I IIIIII I I
2.50" 63.00 I000/° 100.0% 0.0% I I IIIII IIIII 1 -.IIIIII 11 u n I i
2.00" 50.00 100p� 100% 100.0% 0.0% lull I I_ IIIII -11 1 1 1 I I J I 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1
1.75" 45.00 96% 100.0% O(P/o 70% lulII i 11T1i I-i rini1I 1 um i1 1 -I T1 7 70.0%
IIIII I IIIII I I � IIIIII I I IIIIII I I IIIIII I I
1.50" 37.50 891/6 89°/p 100.0*/ 0.0% till I I I n 1 1 I I 1 1° W i l I I I n 1 1 I I I I n 1 1 I 1 1
1.25" 31.50 86% 86% 100.0% 0.0% 60% IUIJ11_JILI LIJJA-IU II LI_I_-.at LI L I_L_L1111 L 1- 60.00/,
IIIII ( I (III I I I I °\11
1.00" 25.00 81% 81% 100.0% 0.0% c3/4" 19.00 70% 70% 100.00/ 0.0% rlSB" 16.00 63% 63% 100.0% 00% a 50% mnT77Irl rn-I- 17 r1-I--mnrl-r-mTI1 rr- 50trAd II I (IIIIII 1111 1 Jn111 1 IIIIII Ia
1/2" 12.50 58°/ 580/6 IWO% 0.0% A I I I Ill I I I I I11 I I 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 I Hit 1 I I I n
318" 9.50 53% 53% 100.0% 0.0% 40% I 1 1 i__ui1 L1_i_1__1i11 t_1_1_-,.III I I I I_1-- till I I 1 40.0% \
1/4" 6.30 45% 45% 100.0°/p 0.00/0 l l l l IIIII I I IIIII 1 1 IIIIII i l l
IIIII I I IIIII I I I III I11 I ''-IIIII I I I IIIII I I I
#4 4.75 40% 40% 100.0% 0.0% IIIII I I III 1 1 1 I I [till I I n 1 1 1 1 I I Hill 1 I I
98 2.36 31% 100.0% 0.00/0 30% 1H:y++-y1+l hly y--Il l+1-1 S bl rl r l-I--M1+I*r+- 30.0%
#10 2.00 30% 30% 1000°/ 00°� IIIII I I dIII I IIIIII '.11I 1 IIIII 1 1 1
IIIII I I IIIIII I I IIIIII I 411111 I I IIIIII I I
#16 1.18 23% 100.0% 0.0% 20% III I I I _II11 1 1 1_1_ 11111 1 1_I_ �'11 1 1 I111 1 1 1 1 20 0%
#20 0.850 21% 21% 100.0% 0.0% Ili1lT IIIITI-I I -milli 1 1 _.l 11 1 1 Hill I I T
IIIII I I In111 I IIIIII I II I IIIII
#30 0.600 15% 100.0% 0.0% M l I I I IIIII I I 1 IIIIII 1 1 'Ill I I I IIIII 11 1
#40 0.425 11% 11% 100.00/6 0.01/6 10% IUU 11_JILI LI-IJ__W 11 LI_I__:WU`I_L-LI111L1_
#50 0.300 70/6 100 0°/ 0 0°/ IIIII 1 I11 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 u 1 n I.
IIIIII 1 IIIIII I I (IIIIII 1 1111111 • 1 1
#60 0.250 5% 5% 100.00/0 O.OD/D ( I I r1III I 1 n11 1 1 -IIIII I
#80 0.190 4°/p 4% 100.00/0 0.0D/D 0% II 0.0
#100 0.150 3% 3% 100.0% 0,0°/ 1000.00 1M00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 2% 100.00/0 0.0°/a Particle Size(mrn)
#170 0.0% 2% 100.0% 0.0%
#200 0.075 1 1.90/6 1 2% 100.0% 0.0%
Cop!T9M Spun Enpisuvi8 A T.M.1 Sw M.IS46-9t
.\0 rou6 apph airy to.anal baton and malwlr leled.A.amumd prvicMnlo clrnU.N<P"M1lc uW owchm.a0 rrq"n.are rubmitnd ae lR mnldemulpmpvt�"f climU.aM audnvarwn for Dublialwn of rla�emmla.ewwMo�uunxtranrfimm repard�"ur rnpon.nrem rd pmdup
our rMlcn approval.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
slut Gordw w.sao snpa"..D 1.eomwy nt.n,par,sw a.sbn
Materials Testing &Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results
I g g� rY FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 19
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain - Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. I I S064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 :%S"I-%I D-2487 1 niticd Soils(lassification System ----
Project#: 115064-03 Sampled By:BH GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested:12-Jan-12 Sample
Source:TP4@6' Tested By:CL Brmsn
Sam lek 12-0101 --
SEEMM D•2419'[ D-4318
D,.,, 0.205 - %Gavel=53.0% Coeff.of Curvature,Q..=0.50
Specifications DI,°1=0.326 mm °o Sand=44.4% Coeff.of Unifomuty,Cr.=30.57
No Specs D,.W,=1.268 mm °;Silt&Clay=2.5% Fineness Modulus=5.32
Sample Meets Spec? D.w)=5.822 mm Fracture 95=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
Dj6,,;=9.968 mm Mai sture%=6.2% Plastic Limit=n/a
D,�,=53,008 mm Sand Equivalent--all Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Silt Distribution
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Spec ti
US Metric Passing Passing Max Min 100% I n n.•.•. YftlR�I M .ArIMIF T r r 100.0
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 n 1 1 1 1
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.00/0 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 n III 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 I 111 n 1 1
8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.00/1 90% 1111 11 __oil _i_1__1 u 1 t 1_1_I__..Ill l L I_I__111 1 1 1 1 90 0
IIIII I111 I Iltlll l IIII111 1 IIIIIII
6.00" 150.00 1000/0 100.0% 0.00/0 I n 1 1 1 I u 1 ri%�
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.01/ 0.fto III III 1 1 1 ly 1 I n 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1
3.00" 75.00 1000/0 100.0% 0.01/° 80% .rI-r-:n lily r+ 80.0%
IIIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII111 1 IIIIIII
2.50" 63.00 100% 1001/6 100.0% O.Q% III I I I I IIII I I I 1, IIII I I I I :1III I I I I IIIIII I I
2.00" 50.00 87% 87% 100.0% 0.0% • g l I I l 1 I 1111 1 1
70% niil7i--uTli1_i nn111 1 +nn11 -i11T1i7T - 70.11/6
1.75" 45.00 86% 100.0% 0.01/0
1.50" 37.50 85% 100.0% 0.0% 1 Iu 111 1 1 �un11 1 1 :nn111 Iu 111 1
1.25" 31.50 84% 100.0% QO% 60% - J 1_J111LU J- lu 11 u_1__lulu LL L_uu11 r_i 60.0p/
1.00" 25.00 83% 83% 100.0% 0.00/0 :I I 1111 1 1
I I I I I 1 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C
3/4" 19.00 77°/ 7T/o 100.0°/ 0.0% 'I° n 1 1 n I I I I 11 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 'S
5/8, 16.00 71% 71% 1000°/p 000/0 n 50% 1nnT T--11T1 r1 -1--1n I I rrin rrr-nlT17 rT 500%
. s
a �.I IIIIII IIII. I IIIIIII I .IIIIII 1 1 d
1/2" 12.50 65% 65% 100.0°/ 0.0% a , I I IIII I I I I 11111 I I ❑I I I I I I I IIII I I I I o
3/8" 9.50 59% 591/ 100.0% 0.0% 40% _1111 I I_I_1__Ii11i I_ 1_n ilili l_I__i11i1ii 40.0% \
1/4" 6.30 51% 51% 100.0% 0.0"/0 111 1 1 II111 1 1 IIIIII •LI -I1111 1 IIIIIII
.IIIIII I IIIIIII I IIIIIII ❑IIIIII I (IIIIIII
#4 4.75 47°/ 47% 100.0% 0,00/0 Joll I I I Hill I 11 I 1\ I n 1 1 n 1 1 1 1
#8 2.36 38% 100.00/0 00% 30°/p tlH Iy++-yl+l rlti-i--ln It rl-l- iYl rlrrr-+11+I�r+- 30.0%
#10 2.00 36% 36% 1QQ.0°/ 00% IIII11 Hill I I I IIIIII I I %I I I I I 1 IIIIII 1 1
1111111 HIM II I IIIIIII 1 t III : IIIIIII ,
#16 1.18 29% 100.0% 00/6 11111 1 1 (III I I I (III I I i 'll (III I I I I
20% __ _-__ ____ _ _ _ 20.0%
#20 0.850 26% 26% ]00.0°/p 0.0% 1111i T l 1IT1i 1 1i11i 1 I ITI• i1 iuT1i i T
11111 I II111 I IIIII I ill ( I I IIIII 11 1
#30 0,600 20% 100.0% 0.0% 1 I n 1 I I I HIM I I 1 I I I I I I 11 r 111 1 1 I I n u 1 1 1 1
#40 0,425 15% 15% 100.0% 0.01/0 10% 'I1 IJ 1 1_Jlll LIJ J__Ill 11 LI_I__!LLI lJ L`1_L_L 1 L 1_ 10 0n/p
#50 0.300 9% 100.0% Q 01/0 11 1 1 I I I I :.11 1 1 1 11 1
JIII 111I 31111 l t ��
#60 0.250 69/6 6% 100.00/0 0.0°/d � 1
#80 0.180 4% 4% 100.0% 0,01/0 0% 1 1 1 0.0%
#100 0.150 4% 4% 100.0% 001/0 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 3% 100.0% 0.0% Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 3% 100.0% 0.0%
#200 0.075 2.5% 3% 100.0% 0.0% • s�.,e s�... -...,. --" �•-gaaVaa�b.
C"pyrgAl Spun Engvnrx:,g a Tcbnc,l Swcn PS,1-9.
10 rauW apph Doty to,dwl bcationa aM m,lairY lolad.A.am"w,lprvaclon to clo,ar,Ne pubic and ounelvm.,ll aagod,arc ndntad uthe confMndulpmpvfY ofc4rnla.and amMwaina("r publea,ion of alalemrnl..cnn<Iwnna"r cxvac,afi"m or repardwg our rcpoNerecrvd Prndmg
"a.ad n.vwnart
Comments:
Reviewed by:
m.a onus..wneo snp�::ro r.e.mwy xtws,r.sw xqe.
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 20
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. I 1 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Airport Rd Watennain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 AS I%I D 2487 1 nified Soils('lassification Scstem - ---
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP4@9' Tested By:CL Brown
Sam le#: 12-010J -- --
D,s,=0.173 men %Gravel=56.4% Coen of Curvature,C,_=0,96
Specifications Dtlo,=0.357 men %Sand=40.1% Coeff.of Uniformity,C,=29.05
No Specs Dew,=1.881 men °'o Silt&Clay=3.4°A Fineness Modulus=5.49
Sample Meets Specs? D.,,„-6.777 men Fracture%=n/a Mtn Liquid Limit=n/a
D,o,,,=10.369 men Moisture I=7.1% Plastic Limit=n/a
D,y,,,=50.737 men Sand Fquivalenr-n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Spees Speer t+ 's x
US Metric Paxsin Passim Ma: Min �g
100% Inn�.•. !`YH, x 4 'M'aa.# TI7 r T- 100.0%
12.00" 3W00 100% 100.0% 0.0°A III IIIII I1111 IIIII 1
10.00" 250.00 100% 1000% 0.OYo I I I I I I 1 u 1 u u 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1
800" 20000 100% 10000/0 001/ g0% nli l_i __Ilil-1_1_1__It11j I_1_1__11�111 l l_I__Llli l L i 90.0%
IIII I I I IIII'I I I IIIII I I I III I l i I I IIII I I I I
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.00/0 0.0°/d n 1 1 1 11 n 1 1 I n 11 1 1 1 :II I I I I I 1 n n 1 1 1 1
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0°A 0.0°A IIII IIIII `I IIIII I I -I I I I I I I I :I I II I I I I
80% 80,
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 00°A II+I�+ -y1+1 rly•1--1h11+r1-1--:M1 M r 1-r-�I+I+r+- 10
IIIIII 1 IIIII Ir IIIIII 1 'IIIIII IIIIII
2.50" 63.00 100% 101P/o 100.00/0 0.0%
2.00" 50.00 89% 890/. 100.00/. 0.0% 70% IIIII u n 1 1 1 1° 1 n 1 1 1 1 u n 1 1 1 1 .I I I I I I I 1 70 0%
1.75" 45.00 88% 100.0% 0.01% 11 1 1 IIIII -� IIIII '.I11 1 1 1 d
I111I I I IIIIII I I IIIII I I I IIIIII I I IIIIII I I
1.501, 37.50 86% 100.0% 0.01/. IIIII IIIII IIIIII u n 1 l IIII I
1.25" 31.50 84% 84% 100.0% 0.0°A 60% luull_uuar-u_I_ Iuuu1_I__.ulu�l_u_uull�.i- 60.0°/
IIIIII IntIII IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII
1.001, 25.00 80% 80% 100.0% 0.00/0 IIIIIII 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 IIIII -.IIIIIII u n ,
3/4" 19.00 75% 75% 100.0"A 0.00/0 Hit I I IIIII IIIII 1 1 IIIII ',°
5/8" 16.00 71% 71% 1000% 00°A m 50% InnT I--lmrn n--1 ••�T'n_I__,.Irinrr r-nITIT r T- 50.09/0
IT, Iilll l Illll IIII 4I1111 IIIIII a
1/2" 12.50 65% 65% 100.0% 0.0°A IIIII d1I111 I IIII I I '.Intl IIIII
3/8" 9.50 58% 58% 100.0% 0.0% 40% IU11_i1 i_i1i1111_I__lini i�1__'Ii1i111_I__.Luil�Li _ 400"/
1/4" 6.30 49% 49% 100.0°A 0.0°/ II111 1 IIIII IIIIII 'IIIII IIIII I
II111 I I HIII I I I IIIIII i IIIIIII I n111I 11
#4 4.75 44% 441/6 100.0% 0.0°A IIII IIIII IIIIII IIIII
#8 2.36 33% 100.0% 0.00/1 30% rr H++-yl+l 1-- 1M I+rl-' -I rl r l-r-n l+I+r+- 30.00/
IIIIII I I III,I I I HIM 1 `. 111 1 1 11 1 1 1 1
#10 2.00 31% 31% 100.0% 0.00/0 n111 1 1 Hull 1 1 u111I 1 1 1n 111 1 1
#16 1.18 24% 100.0% 0.0% ;IIII I I IIIIII 1 1 Hill I I `. 1 1 n1111
20% 1 1i 1 - 1 _TnL - 20.0%
#20 0.850 21% 21% 100.0% 0.01A n111 1 I u1111 11 n1u 1 I 1 uln 1 I I
#30 0.6W 160/a 100.0% 0.0% IIIII IIIII IIIII •\u H i l l l l 1
#40 0.425 12% 12% 100.00A 0.0% 10% 1 Hui l_uu1 i-u_I__Iu a - 10.0%
#50 0.300 81 100.0% 0 0"/0 1 n 1 1 1 1 u n 1 1 1 a 11 1 1 1 1 111 1 1
I'll I I I Hill I I I IIIII I '.IIIII '•
#60 0.250 7% 7% 100.00/0 0.0"/o u l 1 1 1 1 I11 n 1 1 1 1 1
#80 0.180 5% 5% 100.0% 0.0"/6 0% 0.0`4
#100 0.150 5% 5% 100.0% 0.01/ 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 4% 100.01/6 0.0"A Particle Size(men)
#170 0.090 4% 100.01/6 00%
#200 0.075 3.49/6 3% 100,01/0 0.01/0
rnpyem Spwn bgvy a rzb�s.l smvr;<v cs.1ogd.os
Allraulh apply only to wYwlloculionr and nuraiY rsM.Numwual pm,ervnlo ctim,..Nc pu-uul aunclam.all reponu are rubm�,edwrFewnlda"ielpmpnvofcYmlr,uN rwborw,onlor pubicniov otrinrnml..canclwonamcxtracH 4om ar�egerd�am rcporo•reined pmdmg
ow vraten uppmrul
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Mah Gorden.N'A&1 Supm�ng IiMelory Mwger.SN'Region
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 21
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Ian-12 kSI NI D-2487 I'nilied Soils Classiliration Svctem
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested:12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP5Q3' Tested By:CL Brown/Orange
Sam le#: 12-OIOK --
D-2216 ASTM D-24
D,d,=0.331 train fro Gravel=63.6% Coeff orCunature,Cc=1.42
Specifications D„0,=0.621 mm 95 Sand=34.6% COeff.ofUnilbinil y,CI.=20.58
No Specs Dp_,,,,=3.354 mm %Silt&Clay=1.9% Fineness Modulus=5.88
Sample Meets Specs? Dp51,=9.014 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D„,0,=12.777 mm Moisture%=4.3% Plastic Limit=n/a
D,pg,=40.717 mm Sand Equivalent=nh Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent S S 11111 I I 11.1x
X�US Metric PassingPasn Mau Mo 100% � g R $"-
r 100 0
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.0/
II111 I I I I I I
10.00" 250.00 1001% 100.0% 0.01/0 111 1 1 1 1 n c i n n 1 1 l 1 u l u l 111 1 1 1
8 00" 200.00 1001/e 100 01% 0.0% 90%-11H 11 1 1 90.0%
ulll III. IIIIIII IIIIII I I .IIIIII I 1
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.00/0 0.9"/ I I I I I I I 111 , I I I I I I l I IIIII 1 1 1 IIIIIII I I
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.00/0 0.0"/o I I I I I n 1 n 1 1 a 11 n I
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 80% IH I�+-r-�It� ` --Irl li rl---rtlrrrr-Ir l+lyrr- 80.0%
hill 1 1 I III. Mu l l 111111 1 1 -IIIIII 1 1
2.50" 63.00 100% 1000/0 100.00/0 0.00/0 11111 n ` I 11 1 111111 1 1 :11 I
2.00" 50.00 95% 95% 100.01/ 0.01/a IIIII 1n1 _ u_nl I_1_1_-null 1-I m1111 I 1 _
70% Ii 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 II 11 j 70.0%
1.75" 45.00 92% 100.0% 0.0e/ IIIII 1 • IIIII 1 1 IIIII 1 1 1 UII I
1.50" 37.50 88% 88% 100.01� 0.01/ 111 1 1 1 1 IIIII `411 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1111 1 1 1 1 1
1.25" 31.50 83% 83% 100,0% 00/ 60% ILI IJ 11I_JILI LIJ J_•_Ill 11 UI-I--Ul U LL L- I11J 11- 60,0%
IIIII IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII I I IIIIII
I.Do" 25.00 77% 77°/ 100.0°/ 0.ill/ C IIIII IIIII IIIIII 1 IIIIII I IIIIIII
3/4" 19.00 71% 71% 100.01% 0.00/ b IIIII 1 IIIII 'IIIII I IIIIII I IIIIIII 'y
e 50%
+ III I III 500%
❑I111 I m5/8" 16.00 66% 66/ 100,(ft 0.0% �
I IIIIII I I VIII 11 1 d
1/2" 12.50 59% 590/ 100.0% 0.00/ � 111111 I 11111 1 1 t
3/8" 9.30 52% 52/0 100.0% 0.0/ 40% _ e
40.0%
1/4" 6.30 42% 4r/o 100.00/0 0.00/ IIIII I 1 IIIII I 1 1 III •I I I IIIIII 1 :IIIIII 1
(II I I I I I (IIIII I I IIIII I I (IIIII I I (III I I I I
#4 4.75 361/0 36% 100.01/0 0.0% IIIII 1 lull .IIIII IIIIII I 1
#8 2.36 25% 100.01/0 0.01/0 30% IHHr+--11r1 rlti-l--1r11y -r-mnrrr--t,, r- 30.0°/
#10 2.00 24% 24% 100.0•/ 0.61/0 1111 1 1 lull l I 1 IIIIII IIIII I I I 'IIII11 I I
IIIIII I IIIIIII I (IIIIII IIIIIII 1
#16 1.18 171/ 100.0% 0.01/ III 1 IIIII IIIIII 1111 1 1 1111 1 1 1 o 20% 1 1 i I 11 IIIIII 1 1 III II 1 1 1 IIIII 1 I I 1�IIIII 1 I .IIIIII - 20.0%
• #zo 0.850 la"r lai 1oo.olr o.ai
#30 0.6W 10% 100.0% 0.01/o
IIIIIII I IIIIIII I IIIIIII I I I (IIIIIII I
#40 0.425 7e/ 71/ ]O1t1.01/o O.dl/ 10% ILJ IJI I-JILT LIJ-I--IU Il LI-I_-..`" -.1- L- L111J L1- 10.0%
#50 0.300 41/6 100.00/0 0.01/ I1111 1 IIIII I 1 II111 1 1 1 �"
IIIIII I I IIIIII I I 4IIII I I I �. i t l I
#60 0.250 3% 3% 100.0`% 0.01% 0e 1 1'1 1 0.0%
#80 0.180 3% 3% 100.0% 0.01/0
#100 0.150 21/ 2% 100.01/ 0.0% 100010011 1100.0011 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 2% 100.0% 0.01/ Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 2% 100.01/ 0.01/0
#200 0.075 1.9% 2% 100.0% 0.OYo r +��1- -I- -.I� r -•�gN.aR.ne"
Copyr•M tipun Eng.wvwBa TuclniulSm�m PS.19161g � ,,�•
All�uea apply onF to auual bcNona and maleruh lord.Aaa mutualpmlxlbn to clmla.IM1e puMr.and oureeFm.all reporu are aubmelcd as lM1e co�JNcxul propcn,o(ckmr+.act aNhorcation br publcalbn of Nabnrnlr.mrcMi"na or nsbaGa tivm or rtgudag ou repoN•rvuened prndmp
our xrple PP r'al.
Comments:
Reviewed by: ..,,,a,.h%p'r:H.,-•'..:j-.✓'
Mary(:ordoa W'ABf1 Supmiaag I�borNory A4lugar.S W Rugbn
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 22
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 \S"fNl D-2487 I nified Soils Classification System
Project#: 115064-03 Sampled By:BH GNA,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample(olor.
Source:TP5@6 Tested By:CL Grav%Brown
Sam le#: 12-0IOL
318 ASTM
D13,=0.445 mm %Gravel=70.5% Coefl'of Curvature,Cc=2.18
Specifications D„o,=0.779 mm "/o Sand=28.6% CoeT of Uniformity,C,=18.07
No Specs D(3o,=4.896 mm %Silt&Clay=0.9o/p Fineness Modulus=6.14
Sample Mesta Specs? D„o,=10.592 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D..)=14.084 nun Moisture%_3.8% Plastic Limit=n/a
D„o,=39.374 nun Sand Equivalent=a/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve She Percent Percent Specs Spep M k 1,US Metric Passing Passing Max Min100%
gy� s
12.00" 300.00 100Ye 100.0% 0.0% 100% Inn.•••-1th.Y+, x x •M"`a/111R'F�r I I r T- 100.0
roll 11 (IIII (IIII IIIIII I
10.00" 250.00 IDYK 100.0% 0.0% IIII n; 1 1 I I I I I I
I I_I __II 1_I__II 1 1 I II I Iu 11 1 1
8.001. 200.00 100°/p 100.0% 0.0% 90% - ------------------
Intl IIII( IIIIII IIIIII '.IIIIII
6.00" 150.00 1000/0 100.0°/ 0.0% IIII I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII I I IIIIII I I -.IIIIII I
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.01/o n u l I n 1 1 I 1 u 1 1 1 I u n l 1 1 I I u 1 I 1
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 00% 80% Ir11�++-y1+I r1�-r--In Fi r1-1--r+1 rlrrr-ii11?1i++- 80.0%
(IIII 1 11111 I (IIII I I11111
2.50" 63.00 100% 100p/ 100.01/o 0.00/ a 11 1 HIM I I n 1 1
2.00" 50.00 94p/o 941/6 100.01/6 0.00/0 70% I I I u l l 1 1 1 l u l l 1_I I__HIM 1 1 1 I - n n 1 I 11 70 0p/
1.75" 45.00 92% 100 0% 0 0% 1 1 7 nTl i 1_i 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 T11 1 T 7
I I II111 I I I I I 11111 I I I 1uI I I I
1.50" 37.50 890/o 89% 100.0% 0.0% 1 1 u n 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 11 n l 1
1.25" 31.50 83% 83% 100.0% 0.00/0 60% -W4 1 l_ 60.09%
1.00" 25.00 771/6 77% 100.0% 0.0% 11 u n 1 1 1 I I I I 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 .11 n l 1 1 1
� n i i I I I I I I I I I I i 1 1 1 1 I IIIIII I I I I I I I I I I S
3/4" 19.00 71% 71% 100.0% 0.0% 'Vi IIII IIII 1 1 1 l Ill l l l l III }S
h 50% m n T n-n lrl r n_ _.IT n-1-'m n r r r-n 1711 7 T- 50.0%
519" 16.00 65% 651/6 101 0.00/6 a I I 1 1 1 1 1 u u 1 1 1 I I I n 1 1 1 1 1 l I 1 u 1 1 1 a
1/2" 12.50 56% 56% 101 0.00/6 u 1 1 1 1 1 u u l 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 1
3/8" 9.50 47o/p 47% I00.0o 0.0% 40% ui1_i i__ni1i 1_i_ _ i1_I_1__lilili 1_i_illili 1_ 400%
1/4" 6.30 35% 35% 100.00/0 0.00/ IIII II un1l
IIIIII I (IIIIII I II III I IIIIII ( I (IIIII I i
#4 4.75 29% 29% 100.0% 0.0% IIII IIIIII IIII. IIII I11I
#8 2.36 20% 100.0% 0.00/ 30% 1rr l-l++-y1+1 r1�ti--In1+r1-l--Ml rltrr-wl+I-rr+- 30.0%
#10 2.00 18% 18% 100.0% 0.0"/ IIII IIIIII 1 111II IIII 911I1 1
IIIIII I (IIIIII I IIIIII I (IIIIII I -(IIIII I I
#16 1.18 13% 100.0% 0.0% IIII 1 1 1 InII1 1 II1u 1 1 (IIII I 1 Iu111 1
20% � --------------- -- _ -__ - 20.0%
#20 0.850 11% 11% 101 0.0"/o I Inll11 I n1111I I u1u11 � 1ni1i1 i Iu 11i i 1_
'(IIII IIIIII IIIIII I` IIIIII 411III
#30 0.600 7•/ 100.0% 0.0°/
#40 0.425 5% 5% 100.00/0 0.01/0 10% luula-�lil LIJ-1-_luuul-I_ .I,.r.r_ lei_ 10.0%
#50 0.300 3% 100.0% 0.tP/o l 1 1 1 �• ; 1 1
#60 0.250 210 2% 100.0% 0.0"/ 1 1 �•.
#80 0.180 1% 1% 100.00/10.tP/o 0% 0.0
#100 0.150 1% 1% 101 00"1 1000.00 100.00 1000 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 1% 100.00/0 0.01/o Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 1% 100.0% 00/
#200 0.075 0 9p/o 1% 100.0% 0 o°o + 1-- -.,. p . -•- ,., ,�_�.
l'opvrBM tip=n rngnarnP i TcMiul Smw 15.IY96-Yg I
Tll mops.appF only to awual bcato�u and matnu6lotd.Namulualprvt¢lan to cti"nn.an Publw and ouneAm.all reponx arc eubiniltednlAc cnntidcmul property oreEsMr.mW aulAorrsalnn br publcntion of.n�emrnt...on.lu.un.or..alrau.INm or eegardng our repunew�ameJ prndmg
opr nnun wpro..l. �
Comments:
Reviewed byl-
M.rt Gordon.M'Anl)Supcnsng laboratory Mmugsr.S W Rrynn I
I III
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA 23
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 AS'I M D-2487 1.nificd Soils Classification System _ --
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand =
Client:JWM&A Date Tested:12-1an-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP5@9' Tested By:CL Gray/Brown
Sam le#: 12-OIOM - -- --
D,t,=0.301 mm %Gravel=59.1% Coeff.of Curvature,Cc=1.42
Specification, Dpo,=0.575 mm 0.o Sand=38.9% Coeff.of Uniformity C,;=18.35
No Specs 13,3m=2.930 mm %Silt&Clay=2.00/6 Fineness Modulus=5.66
Sample Meets Specs? D,,.j=7.190 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D,,;p,._10.544 mm Moisture 9b=4.7% Plastic Limit=n/a
D,•„1-29.551 mm Sand Equivalem=n/a Min 111o,!icitv Index=n/a
Aetna) Interpolated --. -
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Side Percent Percent Specs Specs rr 4
US Metric PassingPasai Max Min x >z _g
12.00" 300.00 100% I00.0% 0.fP/o 100% Inn?•-jt1!�Y7: 1} y�tla $ r T- 100.0%
IIIII IIII�I IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII I
10.00" 250.00 100/ 100.01/ 0.01/6 IIII I III 1 1�y IIIII I i l l l l -.IIIIII I
III 11_I IIIIII _II�11�1-I 1 I�IL � I�u�1�
B.00" 200.00 100°/p ]00.0% 0.0% 90% __ ___ _ _ _ 90.0%
IIIII IIIIII IIIIII I IIIIII I 11111II I
6.00" 150.00 100•/ 100.0% 0.0"/ IIIII I I I II111 1 1 1 IIIII I I I IIIIII I I :IIIIII 1 I
4.00" 100,00 100•/p 100.00/ 0.00/ III11 IIIII • IIIII I IIIIII I I111 1
3.00" 75.00 1000/0 100.0% 0.00/0 80% IH Iy+Y-ti1+I rin�- nH r1-I--mrlrrr-;MI+IHr+- 80.0%
IIIIII I I IIIIII I 'III I I IIIIII I I �III1111 I
2,50" 63.00 100% 1000/ 100.0% 0.0%
2.00" 50.00 96% 96% 100.0% 0.0% 70% n 1 1 1 1 I_ IIII 1 _ ((( 1-I I _u n I l 1 I u n 1 1 1 1 _ 70.0
iill T I IIII 1 11 I I11111 I I II
1.75" 45.00 95% 100.00/o 0.01/6 l l l t I IIII 1 1 I I I i l l l l I III 1 1
1.50" 37.50 949/6 100.01/6 0.090 1 1 n I 1 I 1 1 III I IIII 1 1 1 I u n 1 1 1 1
1.25" 31.50 93% 93% 100.0% 0.01/6 60% :ulu_ulaluu `L.0 L1_I__u1ulLL_;lluull- 60.0%
1 IIIIII IIIIII I I �11111I I
1.00" 25.00 83% 83% 100.01/6 0.01/6 0 11u 1 I I Iun 1 1 I IUII I I I unn 11 1 �
'
3/4" 19.00 78% 78% 100.0% 0.01/ n u 1 1 I u I I , 111 1 1 1 1 I u n 1 i I 'y
50%
5/8" 16.00 72% 72% 100.0% OOYo InnT-I-nlnrn I--n-inrrr-:T11TI-ITT- �.0% A m
1 11111I 1 I II11111 1111111 1 IIIIII I I d
1/2" 12.50 65% 65% 100.O0/6 0.0 a 11 1 1 1 11 IIII 1 I I `
3/8" 9.50 58% 580/0 100.0% 0.00/0 40% n IJ 1 i-1, -1__I i 1 i 1_i I__ 1 _1 i 1 1 1 I 1 _- 11 L 40 0%
1/4" 6.30 47% 470/ 100.0% 0.0%
IIII1 I i l l I1111 1 1 1 111 1 1
IIIII I I IIIIII I I 1� I IIIIII I I -IIIIII I
#4 4.75 41% 41% 100.0% 0.01/6 IIIII 1 I IIIIII 1 I I III I I I HIM I I I
#S 2.36 270/o 100.00/ 0.00/6 30% IHH++- nrrr--:nlrinrr- 30.0%
#10 2.00 241/6 24% 100.0% 0 0'/p 111 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 l l l l l l 1 1I I
IIIII I I IIIIII I I 11�, IIIIII I I :IIIII I I
#16 1.18 171/ 100.0% 0.0% 20% IIIII 1 _I 1111 1 111111 •\ 111 I - I1111 1 _ 2000/
#20 0.850 14% 140/p 100.0% 0.0% Ili11T-IIITI T u1 I-i 1 1i1 Ii11 1 1 111 1 11111
IIIII I Illll InII 11 1 1 III1111 I'
#30 0.600 100/0 100.0°"/ 0.01/6 IIIIII I I IIIIII 1 I IIIIII •` I I I111111 1 1
#40 0.425 8% 8% 100.00/ 0.0o/p 100h Iuu44-a1il,_Iu�-_Iuu�l- .`. _c_wulaai- 10.0%
111111 1 IIIHII 1 1111111 1 IIIIII
#50 0.300 5% 100.0% O.Op/ III 1 1 I I n n I I I I 111 1 1 1 1 •` n 1 1 1 1 I 1
#60 0.250 4% 4% 100.01/0 0.0% 11 IIII 11 1 1 1 111 u 1 1
#80 0.180 3% 3% 100.00/0 0.0% -
0.0%
#100 0.150 3% 3% 100.0% 0.0% 1000,00 100,00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 2% 100.00/0 0.01/6 Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 2% 100.0% 0.0%
#200 0.075 2.00/ 2% 100.0% 0.0'/0 + 1-1- -"+in spm �•�s:.•aeo,M1.
Copyrpht Spun Engvmv,e A'1«M'ul Sr�'cu P5.199699
M,uu4 apply mly to nvvwlbutnu u,d m.Ien6luled.n.amuuulpul«Ibv l"ekeua,tM1e public"nd"ur"eha.a0 rpp"rn nrt rbnPled r,M1c epNdcmulpmpeny of ctieme.and arhurvnnn ii�r publea,n�n nl.I.IcmenY.«rchuou«e"traG"6"m nr roprdep"r•ap"ro�mrvd puEng
"r.ur"app"vnr
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 24
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 .AS I NI D-2487 unified Soils Classification System
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP6@3' Tested By:CL Brown/Orange
Sam le#: 12-0ION
ASTM'
D_ 0.366 mm %Gravel=63.1% Coeff.of Curvature,Cc=1.27�-
Specifications D,,o,=0.740 mm °'Sand=34.5% Coeff,of Uniformity,C,=17.63
No Specs D„m=3.497 mm %Silt&Clay=2.4% Fineness Modulus=5.86
Sample Meets Specs? D,,,,=8.951 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D,.,=13.048 our Moisture% 2.9% Plastic Limit=n/a
D„o,=33.464 nun Sand Equivalent=a/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Speea Specs & x k
US Metric passing PassingMu Min
100% 1 n n•!A-Aw 'm^' x ABM'*A•ii�VkF �r T_ 100.0
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.07e 11 n 1 1 1 11 i 1 1�777 I10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.0%8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.0"/0 90% I U,U i_i I i n i l I I I i l i l i I _ ._u_I i i 90.0%
IIIII III111 I I III I111 I
6.00" 150.00 100°/ 100.01% 0.01/6 II111 1 1 n I. IIII11 I I 111111 I I .IIIII I I
4.00" 100.00 1000/1 100.0% 0.00/0
3.00" 75.00 1000/o 100.00/0 0.0% 80% 1r1H++-ylr� , --m1+r1-1--11I+I-I-I--s11+H++ 80.0%
IIIII I I I III IIIII I I I I11111 I I '.un11 I I
2.50" 63.00 1000/ 100.00/ 0.0% IIIII I III ` l ll l l l IIIII I
200" 5000 1 01(ft 1000*/ 00% 70% _ n1i_ _ _In_11 I_I_I_ n1111 1 w111 1 700%
1.75" 45.00 100% 100.0% 0.0P/ i 1 1 -II1111 IIIII -IIII11 I I Iilll l I
I I IIIIII 11• Iu 111I I fllill I f IIIIIf 1 I
1.50" 37.50 100% 1001/6 100.0"/6 0.01/6 I IIII 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 ❑1 1 1 I J 11 1 1 1
1.25" 31.50 85% 85% 100.0% 0.Q% 60% IUIJII_JIII LIJ J__IU Il LII LJLLL_-U 111.1L1_ BQ Qo�
IIIII I IIIII I IIIII I I Hill I I -Hill I I
1.00" 25.00 78% 78% 100.0% 0.0% rn ` O1 C 11111I I I II I1111 I II1111 Illil
3/4" 19.00 721/6 720/6 100.0% 0.0°/ 'n 11 1 1 1 I IIIII j I 1 I 1 1 1 1 4I 1 1 1 'S
5/8" 16.00 66% 66% 1000% 00% w 50% ,InnT�-�1r1rn-1 1Tn-r-rnnrrr-nrtl�rT- 50.0°h m
1/2" 12.50 59P/e 59% 100.0% 0.0% 1 11I d
e I I I IIIII I l i II II I I I IIIII 1 1 1 '.0 IIII I I "
3/8" 9.50 52% 52% 100.0% 0.01/6 40% -'-Ii i__nilLli_1-_1�111_1_I__111�111_1__'.ilfili l_ 40.0% \
1/4" 6.30 42% 42% 100.0"/6 0.0°/ IIII 1 1 I I ""I I IIII 1 1 IIIII '.11111 1 I
IIIIII I I IIIIIII I I1111 I I illlll I I IIIIII I I
#4 4.75 37% 37% 100.0% 00/0 111111 1 1 IIIII 1 1 IIIII 1 1 111111 '.IIII I
#8 2.36 24% 100.0% 0.0% 30% 1M Iy++-r:r1ti-1--1t11+ 1--nl rlrrr--Ml+i+r+- 30.0°/
#10 2.00 22/ 22% 10000/ 00% IIIII III11 I11 IIIII 1n i l
IIIII I I IIIII I I 1 IIIII l I.. in 111 1 1 1u 111 1 1
#16 1.18 14% 100.00/0 0.0% IIII I I I IIn1I In 111 i11111 1 1 -.1n 111 1
#20 0.950 11% 11% 100.0"/6 0.0% IIIII I I IIII11 1 I IIIII I �II1 1 F n 1 I I 11 1
lilt I I III11I I I -I11111 I I I I '.11111I 1
#30 0.600 8% 100.00/ 0.0% Hill1 1 I III 1 1 1 1 I 111 1 1 1 1 l l l 1 1
#40 0.425 61/6 6% 100.0% 0.01/o 10% _ 10.0%
#50 0.300 4% 100.00/0 Q 0°/ 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 J 11 1 1 1 •�•`
IIIII I I I IIIII I I I -IIIII I I I i i l l
#60 0.250 3% 3% 100.0% 0.0%
080 0.180 3% 3% 100.0P/e 0.00/0
0100 0.150 3% 3% 100.0% 0.01/6 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 3% 100.06/0 0.0% Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 2% 100.01/0 0.U%
#200 0.075 2.4% 2% 100.0% 0.00/.
' C"PyngN Spw ay�"vvPa TxM�nlSmen g.1996-98
i All rsuM"apply wly t""a"albuluro WmateruY twd.A.a mulvl prolalun to ckml..IR public"nd ow.cha..11 rcyun."rc rvbmNcdu�hc:nnfWcmul props nf.hml..aM aulAmaal"m6,pvblulon of.lalvncnt..w�clu.vn:nr c�Ua.l.fmmo«p"rdnP M•wrnmcd prn y
"r<.ralrn rowa.,r
Comments:
Reviewed b
y,
Muk G."WARM SWcniviP lab 1n AL"aper.SY'Rnpon
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 25
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 ASTM D-2487 Cnified Soils Classification System -
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP6@6' Tested By:CL Brown/Orange _ ---
Sam 1d1: 12-0100
2419 ASTM D43MMM D-S82
D, 0,478 turn %Gravel=72.T/o Coeff.of Curvature,Cc=1.80
Specifications 13j1°,=0.974 tarn %Sand=26.9% Coeff.of Uniformity,C,.:=18.44
No Specs D(3a,=5.607 tutu %Silt&Clay=0.4% Fineness Modulus=6.29
Sample Meets Specs" D,s°,=12.943 tam Fracture%=n/a Min liquid Limit=n/a
D_,=17.950 tutu Moisture&o=2.0% Plastic Limit=n/a
D,.=31.617 min Sand Equivalent=n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Specs Specs &
US Metric PassingpassingMu Min 100% ltJft.Y,.,<:,. y�a�a� e� 100.0
tun-••A. 17r7
12.00" 300.00 100% I WO% 0.0% u 1 1
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% IIIII II III .I-1 -111 1 III 1 1 1 L I I 1 1 1 1
I_I 111 1 1 I I I_I 11_1__I I I LI I_I_ IIII 1
8.00" 200.00 101 100.0% 0.0% 90/° l u 1 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 u u 1 1 1 1 n 11 1 1 1 90.0°/
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% u 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1�1 1 u n 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 1 n 11 1 1 1 1
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% O.Oo/ IIIII IIIII 1 4IIII 1 I11111 I ':IIII
3.00" 75.00 ]00% 1000% 00% 80% In1�++-�1+1 r1 -1--1r11+r1-I--wl rlrrr-rl+lyr+- 80.0%
IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII '.un11I I
2.50" 63.00 100% 100.0% O.tP/ IIII IIIII IIIII I11111 I III1111 1
2.00" 50.00 100% 100.0% 01 IIII 111 1 1 1 1 IIIII IIIII I ':'I111 1 1 1 1
70% -- ---- --- - - - 70.0%
1.75" 45.00 100% 100 0% 0 0% IIII 111 1 1 1-� IIIII IIIII I L I I 1 1
IIIII I I I IIIII I I IIIII I I I IIIII I I I :IIIII I I I
1.50" 37.50 100% 100% 100.01% 0.01/o n n 1 1 1 1 u l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 u u l 1 1
1.25" 31.50 90% 90% 100.0% 0.0°" 60% 1uu11_u1i1L! ' uL1_ _ulutuu_: IILI- 60.0%
1.00" 25.00 73% 73% 100.0% 00% IIII IIIII 11 1 1 1 H I 1 1 I I I IIII I I I I I
C Illltl I I IIIIII I III I I I11III I I _IIIIIII 1 �
3/4" 19.00 62% 62% IWO% 0.0% .N I111 1 1 I IIIII I I ` I I I I I Ill l l i I I III111 1 I I '�
5/8" 16.00 56% 56% 100.0% 00% 50% InnT 7- 27 -.IT rr I--rrl n r r r-m1TI�rT- 50.0% m
II1111I IIII IIIIIIII 'lllllll d
1/2" 12.50 49"/6 49% 100.0% 0.01/6 " 1: 1 1
318" 9.50 42% 420/6 I WO% 0.0% 40%- i 1 i I L 1_I �. _I_1__111 L1 1 1_L_!1n11�L 1_ 40.0%
1/4" 6.30 32% 32°/ 100.0% 0.0% 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 I u 11 1 1 1 1
I I IIIII I I IIIII I I I :.II11I I I I
#4 4.75 27% 271/o 100.0% 0.0'/0 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 HIM I I I
#8 2.36 18% 100.0% 0.0% 30% 30.0%
#10 2.00 170/c 17% 100.0% 0.0% II1111 II I111 IIIII I 'IIII I I
IIIIII I I lulu I I \ IIIII l l I :IIIIII I I
#16 1.19 11% 100.01/6 0.0% 20% IIIII I I I 111111 1 1 ♦I- .1111 1 1 1111111 1 1 200%
#20 0.850 9% 9% 100.0% 0.01 111 Ii T i 11TIi1-i 1 If 1 lint T 1 i nnT1 T
#30 0.600 6% 100.0% 0.0% IIII I I IIIII I 1 1 1 III 11 1 IIII 1 1 I i
!IIIII I I IIIIIII I IIIIII I I�IIIIII I I ':IIIIII 11
#40 0.425 41/6 4% 100.0% 0.01/6 10% -w 1 111 L IJ uuauu_u,ulaia- 10.0%
#50 0.300 2% 101 0 0% I I I IIIII I I I 1I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII 1 1 1 I I
IIIII I I 111111 I111 I '111111 1 1
#60 0.250 2% 2% 100.0% 0.01/o �I�•.
#90 0.180 1% 1% 100.0% 0.01/o 0% •�I'I 0.0%
#100 0.150 1% 1% 101 0.011 1000,00 100,00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 1% 100.08/a 0.0% Particle Size(tam)
#170 0.090 0% 100.0% 0.0%
#200 0.075 0.4% 09/6 100.0% 0.0% + ,,., �M,"sow, -M r -•�sww a..m
cwnaM sp",w a"na�ae s rwlwr,l sw..:w as.Ivva-se
nu.o"n..°rn o"7 m,c1u,1�ww".."a www:1,,w,d..o..wm„1 vw,eoao"w,rw",..ow.�uM."a"w.,1.�e..n.ry"n.,n:wew°wa w,n,wmal.mul v."rm.�r.ti,w,.,m,tun"."„w"er r�er.1m"orw,mw.,...Po,Mnwo".o.F.v,.r.rww o.esaa:e ow.w"•:�ew.�ed ow�e:s
Comments:
Reviewed by:
ALh Gordoa P'Aat)Sup,rv:ng L,nvruory nlw,gu.SN'x•nloe
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 26
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton, WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project: Da}aon Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 AS TM D-2487 l nified Soils Classification System
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP6Q9' Tested By:CL Brown/Orange
Sam 12-OIOP URV' ASPM D-5821
U,., 0.225 tom %Gravel=51.46/6 Coeff.of Curvature,Cc=0.05
Specifications D/Iw=-0.322 nun orb Sand=46.1% Coeff.of Uniformity,C,: 93.40
No Specs Dm3o,=0.720 Into 46 Silt&Clay=2.5% Fineness Modulus=5.48
Sample Meets Specs P D,so,=7.326 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D„01=30.096 mm Moisture%=3.0% Plastic Limit=n/a
D.%)=57.582 mm Sand Equivalent=n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Spec Spec 6 ;• %
US Metric Passin Pass Max Min �g g$ 8 Qe
100% Inn.:••-h, 1rti # 'M�+AS+IR I,r T- 100.0%
12.00" 300.00 1 W/o 100.01% 0.0% J I n I I I I III I I I I I u I I I I I I I I I I I
10.00" 250.00 1000/0 100.0% 0.00/0 11 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 I n' 1 1 1 u n I I 1 n n I I I
8 00" 200 00 100°/ 100.0% 0 0°/ i 1_i_I__Ifni 90.0 i,
IIIIII IIIIII (IIIIII I 11111II ��IIII I
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% IIII III IIIIII IIII '.IIII
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.00/ 0.00/ 11 1 1 1 IIII I .Ills 1 1 III 1 1 1
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 00% 80% 80.0%
IHIy++- 1r1 1y --Irl+r1-l--nl rrr-nl+lir+-
(IIII II11 1 lull l (IIII 1111111
2.50" 63.00 1000/0 1000/ 100.01/0 0.ft 41111
2.00" 50.00 76% 761/0 100.01/o O.Op/o 70% IIIIII nII+•I1 1 nItI1 I_I__nnI11 1 nIn11I 700"
1.75" 45.00 71% 100 00/ 0 01/ -111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(IIII I I IIII I�I I IIIIII I I (IIIIII I 1111111 1
1.50" 37.50 63% 63% 100.0% 0.0% • IIIIII I
1.25" 31.50 61% 100.0% 0.0% 60% 1uu1�_�1ilr-it�__wu u_1__wui�l__.uuuil- 60.0%
IIIIII (IIIIII 1 (IIIIII (IIIIII I111111
1.00" 25.00 58% 58% 100.0% 0.0% c 11 n 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1, Will 1 1 1 1 n l 1 1 1 1
3/4" 19.00 55% 55% 100.0% 0.01/o Ta 11 1 1 1 I n 1 1 1 1 •••.•� 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 u 1 1 1
5/8" 16.00 54% 54% 100.01/0 0 0oA h 50% Inn 7 r-r m r n-1--1!•..r 1-I--m n r r r-n 17 n r T- 50.0% m
w 1.
R u11111 1 nu111 1 11n11 Inn11 I In IIII 1 a
1/2" 12.50 52% 52% 100.0% 0.0% 11 1 1 1 1 1 u u l 1 1 n n 1 1 1•�u 1 1 1 1 1 1 l u 1 1 1 1 t e
3/8" 9.50 51% 51% 100.0a/o 0.01/0 40% nlil_ii i__uili l_i_I__Iini 1_I-1 IIIIII l-I__inili�l_ 40.0%
1/4" 6.30 49% 49% 100.0% 0.01/ IIII IIII 1 1 11111 1 VIII I IIII
(IIIIII I (IIIII I I (IIIIII I (IIII I -IIIIII ( I
#4 4.75 49% 49% 100.01/0 0.01/0 11 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 u I 1 1
#8 2.36 46% 100.01/ 0.00/0 30% mly+Y-rlrl rlr---rnl+rl-I-- ri+rr-.tt l+l7rr- 30.0%
#10 2.00 46% 46% 100 00/0 0 01/0 11 1 1 1 1 IIIIII 1 n 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I n 1 1
I I I IIII1 1 1 I IIII I I I 111•I I I I 'IIII I I I I
916 List 39% 100.0% 0.01/0 1 IIII I 11I I 1 1 1 I 1 u u I I I I I
#20 0.850 36% 36% 100.0% 0.01/1 20% 20.0%
7 -i1T1 1_1___1i11i 1____1�i1 i i-:Tn11 i T-
#30 0.600 24% 100 00/0 0.0%
(IIIIII I (IIIIII I (IIIIII I I 1.IIIIII ( I
#40 0.425 16% 16% 100.0% 0.01/0 10% 1
10.0%
#50 0.300 9% 100.01/0 0.01/o 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1
#60 0.250 6% 6% 100.00/0 Will00 .11111 1 0.0%
#80 0.180 4% 4% 100.0% 0.01/0
#100 0.150 3% 3% 100.0% 0.0% 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 3% 100.0% 0.01/e Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 3% 100.0% 0.01/0
#200 0,075 2.5% 2% 1000"/0 0.0%
CopyrOt S,-rnea�e 1 I-I swims Ps.199fi-9B
.411r-u4,pph wly t",tlmlbwom act m,tm,h tetd.N,muru,lpmtzton 11 c11cN,.the W�a vM"mreAo.,ll rnpona,m.ubmatcduthc mvrdeeul prmpen�ofcticnla.,M.ulM1orvatunf"r puhi"vvn ofvnrncnl...onlu.un.c�caPact.(tom cr rcpvdal8"m repon,armmod pmdmp
om wratrn,pprov,l.
Comments:
Reviewed by: -- -
nf.h cmm..u�nao snp"�emp L,hn..In�wn,em.sx Rcgon
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 27
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton, WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 11 S064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-I2 AS]%I D-2487 I nified Soils Classification Ss stem -
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color: - - -
Source:TP7@3' Tested By:CL Brown
Sam le#: 12-010 -
ASTM D-221 'ASI N D-24 '.
D15,=0.299 mm %Gravel=63.3% Coll of Curvature,C,=1.03
Specifications D,,,,,=0.548 mm %.Sand=33.1% Coeff.of Uniformity.C,=28.99
No Specs D„o,=2.987 mm °'p Silt&Clay=3.7% Fineness Modulus=6.07
Sample Meets Specs? DL,,;=10.171 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D,1,,,=15.883 mm Moisture%=4.5% Plastic Limit=n/a
D,op,=57.873 mm Sand Equivalent- n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
_y
Actual Interpolated -- -
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sae Percent Percent Specs Specs ,, k
US Metric PassingPassingMu Min x -Ak Q_g 8 B�
12.00" 300.00 10(No 100.0% 0.0% 100% 1 n n�.••h. Yp, X IIIIII A'N 7 r, 100.0
IIIIII I IIIIII I I I IIII II I
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% l u l 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 u 1 1 l u 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1
8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0°/a 0.0% 90% Ill i l_i i i__Ili 1 l_i_I__l- l-t_I--ail- l_1__- l�L 1 90.0%
IIIIII IIII I IIIIIII I -IIIIIII I IIIIIII
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0%
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.9"/ IIIII 1 i IIIII I11 1 1 IIII 1 1 1 1
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 80% rrl- ++-�Irl 1�---Inl+rl-1- rrl rirrr-Witty r> 80.0%
IIIIII IIII 1 IIIIII I.Itllll I IIIII
2.50" 63.00 100% 100% 100.01% 0.0'/ IIII I IIII.I IIIII I 1 .IIII IIIII I 1
2.00" 50.00 75% 75% 100.0% 0.0% 70% III 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 k` 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 u u 1 1 1 1 u u t l l 1 1 700
1.75" 45.00 74% 1000% 00% 11111 1 1 IIIII 1 n �I1 1111 1 1 .nut l 1 - 11 11 1
IIIII I I IIIII I I I yy, IIIIII I I 'IIIIII I I IIIIII I I
00.0 1.50" 37.50 72% 1 % 0.01/o n I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 ' 1 u 1 I I I I 11 I I I I11 I I I I I
1.25" 31.50 71% 100.0% 0.0% 60% 141J11_JIlI LIJ_I♦_IV 111_I_I_ LLI LI LI_L_.L 1111LL- 60.0%
1.00" 25.00 69% 69% 100.0% 001/ 011,
U IIIII ` IIIII "IIIII I IIII I
C IIIIII I IIIIIII I IIIIIII I '.1111111 I IIIIIII I C
3/4" 19.00 666/6 66% 100.0% 0.0% H `IIII 1 1 1 b
5/8" 16.00 60% 60% 100.0% 0.0% i 50% Innrn--Ilrtrn-l-{{n1�r1-1--.rrinrrr-nlrlTrr- 50.0% �
1 IIIII I I IIIIII I I IIII I I :'IIIIIII 1 IIIIII I I tl
112" 12.50 55% 55% 100.0% 0.0% aft 111,1 1 1 ;IIII 1 1 I i l l Lill l I I1111 1 e
3/8" 9.50 49% 49% 100.0% 0.0% 40% n 1 l 1_i __I 1 1_i_1__i 1.1 1_1_ 1 I i I_1__ 1 1 L 1_ 40.0%
1/4" 6.30 41% 41% 100.01/6 0.0'/0 IIIII uu11 1 m�l 1 1 uIII I 1 1 In111 1
IIIII IIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII
44 4.75 371/e 371/e I00.01% 0.01/o n 1 1 1 u n 1 1 n n l�I 1 -IIIIII 1 u I 1 1 1
#8 2.36 28% 100.0% 0.0% 30% IM 1ti 7 i-"1 rly-1-- 111 1- Irl H r l-r-:rl lrl+r I,- 30.0%
410 2.00 261/6 261/6 100.0% 0 01/e n n 1 1 u n 1 1 1 n u 1 1 I•.� n 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1
IIIII IIIIIII IIIIII -1� :.IIu 11I 1 IniI1 1
#16 1.18 20°/1 100.0% 0.0% IIII I I I IIIII I I I IIIIII I I 'IIIII I I I nn1l I I
20% - -- --- - -- - --- 20.0%
#20 0.850 17°"/ 171/ 100.01/ 0.01/ 11 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1-I I ❑1 1 1 1 i 1�I 11 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1
I1111 I I IIIII I I 1 111111 1 1 I 911111
#30 0.600 11% 100.0% 0.0% IIIIII I I IIIIII 1 I IIIIII 1 1 ` 1 1 IIIIII 1 I
#40 0.42$ 71� 71� 100.0% 0.0% 10% 11�IJ 11_J111 LIJ_I__IV 111_I_I_ 11 L _ II II II LL_ '10.0%
II IIIIIII IIIIIII `. ill
#50 0.300 5% 100.0% 0.01/6
I I I IIIIII I I IIIIII I I I I I
"0 0.250 4% 4% 100.0% 0.0% t ..
#80 0.180 4% 4% 100.01/o 0.01% 0% 0.0%
#100 0.150 4% a% 100.0% 0.0% 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 4% 100.0% 0.01/o Particle Size(rnm)
#170 0.090 4% 100.0% 0.01/6
#21Coppjht Spun 0.075 3.71/0 4% 100.0% 0.01/0 + s1rr,:,� -n1. pe. -- ,_.I n -•-,1.,�as.1..
En1YenYIg d Tccbniul Swco f5.1996-96
All rout apph�onh Io aaul bcn�aur and materuY Imted..N a mu"al pmtsli"n 1"clmrr.the pubic and"wehe.all rep"nu are wbmotd u th uvfdMul propat�'of ekuu.rM aulMriuton for publcalon of etutcmuta,con.luronr m eelnctr bum m r.gardip our rcponu i ruwd pmdry
"ur wrdten upprovul.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Mnh GoNon W Aa0 auprnel libonlory Mnnalur.5 W nelion
Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 28
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain- Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. I I S064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 %ST)1 D-2487 I nified Soils Classification Svstem -
Project#: 115064-03 Sampled By:BH S'A,Well-graded Sand with Gravel -
Client:]WM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample(-olor: - -
_- '
Source:TP7Cn6 Tested By:CL Brown = -- -----
18
D131=0.238 mm %Gravel=46.9% Coeff.of Curvature,Cl,=1.10
Specifications D,1°,=0.630 mm "I Sand=48.7% CoetT of Uniformity,CI,_10.63
No Specs D,;°,=2.158 mm 4'°Silt&Clay=4.4% Fineness Modulus=5.45
Sample Meets Specs? D,�,=4.400 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D,•rl)=6.697 mm Moisture%=4.6% Plastic Limit=n/a
DI°,,,=50.368 mm Said Equivalent--n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Spets ti ;
US Metric passing Passing INa: Min lull x I I $
-
100.0%
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.0°/ 100% Inn..• r
I I III I I-I I I?I I':I le i II I I I IIIIII I I
10.00" 250.00 1001% 100.(Pt 0.00/ II I11 III IIIII III III I1 t
800" 20000 100% 10000/0 000/0 90% 11L 11 i i__liit III-I--ILIi I_I_I__Ilili l_1_ mill i!- 900%
IIIIII I Imi1I II I I I I I I IIIIIII I It I I I I 1 1
6.00" 150.00 100°/ 100.00/ 0.0°/ IIIII 1 1 1n1IY 1 u111 1 1 1u1111 1 1 In 111
4.00" 100.00 100% ]00.0% 0.0% In 1 1 1 1 I III II t 1 I IIIII I I I H M I 11 111 1 1 1 1 1
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% I+
0.0% 80% H 1y+y-y1+1rr4-1--IHr1-r-.I+1H t I- H1+1+++- 80.0%
I I I IIIIII 1111111 I unIII I I IIIIII I I
2.50" 63.00 100% 1000/0 100.01/ 0.0% l l IIIII I IIIIII I I 1111
2.00" 50.00 90% 900/0 100.01% 0.0% 70% 1 1 11 n 1 1 1 1 u u 1 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1 70 0%
1.75" 45.00 87% 100.0% 0.0% 7 1 nil il_i-I Iini 1 1 1 -.171 1 1 i11i1i i i
I I I IIIII I I I II111 I I 'IIIII I I I IIIII I I I
1.50" 37.50 82% 82% 100.00/0 0.0% 1 1 1 1
1.25" 31.50 80% 100.0% 0.0% 60% 1u 1111_Ju1Lu_I__i. _L_.u1u L1_L_Lu11 L1_
1.00" 25.00 79% 79% 100 0% 0 0% u 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1 1
� IIIIIII I IIIIIII I I :1111111 I IIIIIII I �
3/4" 19.00 76% 76% 100.0% 0.00/ 1 1 1 I 4 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 •u l u 1 1 1 u
5/8" 16.00 74% 74% 100.0% 00/6 '^ 50% III III -nlrl rn-1--r. r-.m n r r r-nlnr r r- 50.0%
R IIIII 1 IIIII -.1 n 1 111 1 1 1 1 R
1/2" 12.50 71% 71% 100.00/6 0.0% a IIIII I I IIIII I I I � I II11111 1 1 IIIII I I I "
3/8" 9.50 67% 671/6 100.00/0 0.0°0 40% n 1 1_i n 1 -i-I__ - 1 1 1 1 1_ a 1---_ 40.0% \
1/4" 6.30 590% 59% 100.0% 0.0% u11I1 1 011ii1 I i., 1u 1111 1 n1111I
1111 I I I I I IIII I I I IIIIII 1 1
#4 4.75 53% 53% 100.01/6 0.0°/ n 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1
#8 2.36 32% 100.0% 0.0% 30% 1 H 1-+++-y 1+1+I y-1--w i+ \ i+1 n r 1-r-H 1+1 i 11+- 30.0%
#10 2.00 29% 29% 100.0°/a 0.0% IIIIII 1 1 u11111 1 IIIIII -111I 1 1 u1111 1
IIII I I I II I111 I I ill!l I I IIIIII I I
#16 1.18 17"/6 100.0"/0 0.00/6 1n 111 1 uii111 1 ilnlil 1 nn111
20% 1 Fi ii T-I--nil i l l-__ i i i t i i-_---I I__ 20.0%
#20 0.850 13% 13% 100.0% 0.0 111
#30 0.600 10% 100.0% 0.00/0 n 1 1 I I I II IJ I I I I IIIII I I ILn 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1
#40 0.425 7% 70/ 100.01/6 0.00/ 10% 10.0%
#50 0.300 61% 100.01% 0.0% n 1 1 1 1 1 u n 1 1 1 1 u n 1 1 1 1 n�• 1 1 1
IIIIII I (IIIIII I (IIIIII I 'IIIIII. ... II I
#60 0.250 5% 5% 100.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 1 1 11 n 1 1 1 n n 11 1 .
#80 0.180 5% 5% 100.00/6 0.0% 0% 0.0%
9100 0.150 5% 5% 100.0% 0,0°/ 1000,00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 4% 100.01/6 0.01/0 Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 4% 100.00/0 00/
#200 0.071 4.4% 4% 100.0% 0.01/0 + scam -
pvrphl Spun lnpmcnmg B TaMul Swan Pg.1996-9P
:\II rnuln apply on1Yto•nwl bcalianr•nd matmuh Iured.N•mulu•Ipvrnlwn In chrnn.U�puM1la•nd uuneh.s,all repun.an.ubn�g�W uthe cunfdmrulpmpenyofekrnn.•M•ulhorv�Ionforpublr•Iion of rtalcmrnn..oncluevnr or cr4•en fi-or regarding our repann rnrnMprndmp
our"rn1 ppro.•I.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
�.4rk-i-WAao S W III
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 29
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain- Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 ASTM D-2487 1.nified Soils Classification System -_ -
Project#: 11SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand =
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP7@9' Tested By:CL Gray/Brown ---- ---=
ASTM D- 19 1
D..,--0.399 mm %Gravel=63.54/6 Coeff of Curvature,Cr=1.14
Specifications D„a=0.743 mm %Sand=35.3% Coeff.of Uniformity,C,=20.25
No Specs D,;d,=3.564 torn %Silt&Clay=1.2% Fineness Modulus=6.16
Sample Meets Specs 7 D,wl=9.536 nun Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D,.,=15.050non Moisture%-4.3% Plastic Limit=n/a
D,op,=56.104 mm Sand Equivalent-n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve size Percent Percent Specs Spec s,
US Metric Passing Passing Mu Min �� �xp•�i�x'i 100% 1 n n•4� Y7RaMtIt�ArI�'1wa 41t/}# a n r - 100.0%
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0'/g 0.00/ n 1 1 l 1 n 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 u u 1 1 1
10.00" 250.00 100"/g 100.0p/e 0.IP/a n 1 1 1 n m 1 1 1 u 1 u n 1 1
800" 20000 100% 1000% 00'/6 90% Ilil_ii iIli lillil l_1lilili l_1 ;inilii 90.0%
IIIII II. 11111I I IIIIII I (lullll :
6.00" 150.00 1001/. 100.01/6 0.0% IIII I I I II!� Itlll I I I IIIII I I I 'IIIII 11 1
4.00" 100.00 10M/a 100.00/0 0.01/6 n I I 1 n n 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 n 1
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.00/0 0.0% 80% IHHi t-HI+% --m1i rl-l--rlHrrr-:n ltlt r+ 80.0%
I1111 111 III111 1 1 IIIII I IIIII I
2.50" 63.00 1001/6 100% 100.0% 0.0%
2 00" 50.00 81% 81% 100 01/ 0.0% .11 1 1 I 1 111 !11 1 1 1 1 1 IIIHI I I III 1 l I 1 70.0%
7D% IIII I I nil ` - -ill du l I I IIIII l I I '. 11 I I
1.75" 45.00 79o/g 100.00/0 0.0% n 1 1 1 1 1 n l I I I n n 11 I IIIII I I
1.501, 37.50 76% 100.01/0 0.0% ...111 1 1 Ill 11 1 1 IIII11 1 1 11u1I I 1 1
1.25" 31.50 74% 74% 100.01/6 0.01/6 60% 11W 1-I 11 1-_;yuJ 60.0%
1.00" 25.00 73% 73% 100.00/0 0 0% M
n 1 1 1 1 1 11 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 n u 1 1 1 1
IIII I I lull l III I (IIII '111111
3/4" 19.00 661/6 66% 100.0% 0.0°/ N IIII 1 1 IIII 1 1 ` IIII I IIII '.111111 "y
5/8" 16.00 62% 62% 100.0% OOYo m 50% TIMnT 7--lIn n1- , I mnrrr-mllnr T- 50•0 m
0. HIM I I 1111I I I ulll l I I IIIn1I 1 1 (1.
1/2" 12.50 561/6 56/ 100.00/0 0.0% u IIII I I 1 IIIII I 1 \ null 1111111 a
3/8" 9.50 501/0 501% 1 Wo% 0.01/6 40% u.[Ii J1!__''it L IJ-- ; --111 i 1 1 1-L_i I I i I i I 1_ 40.0%
1/4" 6.30 42% 42% 100.0°� 001/6 IIII I IIII I IIII I11111
II11I I I IIIII I I 11111I a IIII
#4 4.75 36% 36% 100.0% 0.0% III I I I II111 I 1 ♦1 III VII
#8 2.36 23% ]00.0% 0.0% 30% IHHtt-y1rlrly --n ---rrlHrrr-;+t Hlt ri- 30.0%
#10 2.00 21% 21% 100.00/ 0.0% 111II I 1 I 111II 1 1 L. I11111 1 411111 1 1
IIII I 111111 I IN. nlll l I '.II I111
#16 1.18 14% 100.0% &ON. 11111 1 1 n1111 I I III111 I� 11111 1 '1I1111 I I
20% _ _ ____ __ ____ __ 20.0%
#20 0.850 12% 12% ]00.1P/o 0.0g/ 11 1 1 1 I I -I
#30 0.600 8% 100 0"/ 0 0% 111 1 1 I I I I I J I :I
IIIII I I 1 II I111 I I 111II I I I IIII I I I 'II I111 I
#40 0.425 5% 5% 100.00/0 0.0% 10% Iuu.Ll-aul 4lu--_Iuu -1_1__ uiuu--uulaal - 10.0%
#50 0.300 3% 100.0% 0.0% III 1 1 III I11 1 1 11111 1 1 1 1 •.IIII
IIII 1 1 IIIII I I II1111 .IIII I wall
#60 0.250 20/a 2% 100.0% 0.0% 11 1 n n 1 1 1 1 u 1 I n I I •��•.�i'tI I I
#90 0.180 2% 2% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0
#100 0.150 2% 2% 100.0% 0.01/ 1000,00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 1% 100.00K 0.00/0 Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 1% 100.00/0 0.01/6
#200 0.075 1.2% 1% 100.0p/o 0.0% t ,-1- ^ -�1. games-nh.
enp>*em spe.r.engnee.e m rw.,t.1 sw:�rs.Ivse-sg
AO rtuuh++pph only 1"+ctwl butom+nd m+lmah twld.Aa a modal polalon 10 egew.lhe public and"urwhw.ag rgroN are aub"aad a the c".Jde"Iul pmpeny"f cgeN++M a"tlwm+lov dr puhl�alon"("Ialanen4.coru.luvi"nv"r e�trvvu form"r reg+rdeg our rtp"r1v h rwmW pmdmg
ow.rgdn wr+•"+t
Comments:
Reviewed by: ''` `""i�
M.h Gordon,wABO guperv�og L+b"nl"ry N+n+ger.Sw'Rego"
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 30
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-12 AS]M D-2487 Unified Soils Classification SN'atem
Project#: 1 IS064-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand _-
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color: =_
Source:TP9@3' Tested By:CL Brawn/Orange --
---- - -------
Sam le#: 12-OIOT -
D,s,=0.565 mm %Gravel=75.3% Coeff.of Curvature,C,=2.60
Sptrifications Do°,=1.178 mm %Sand-23.5% Coeff.of Uniformity,C, =9.92
No Specs D,dg,=5.980 mm %Silt&Clay=1.1% Fineness Modulus=6.08
Sample Meets Specs P D,s,1,=9.758 mm Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
D,,=11.690 mm Moisture%=4.4% Plastic Limit=n/a
D„�g,=28.089 mm Sand Equivalent-a/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
Actual Interpolated
_ Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs ti k
k B aR
US MetricPwsin PassingMu Min 100% Inn-�.t#6Yj,°,�� Im4'�OWA=I�r T- 100.0
12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0,0% 11 u 1 1 I 1 n 1 °• u 1 u 1 1 11 u 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.01/. 0.00/o 1I I I I I 1 u u u n 1 I u
III I_I I __III II_I I I I11 1 -II I11 1 1
8.00" 200.00 1000/ 100.0% 01 90%
_I-I__CI� --- -L- - 90.0
IIII I III IIIII 111111 I illlll l
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 01 IIII I I I III \ .III I I I IIII11 I I "-111111 I I
4.00" 100.00 1001/. 100.0% 0.0p/ 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 u I 1 1 I
3.00" 75.00 lOG°/ 100.0% 0.0% 80% 1r11ti T t-y1r11 ' IT r1-1--1r1 r1 r r r- 1HIi r t- 80.0%
I I IIIII 1 1 I I n l l i
2.50" 63.00 1001/. I00.01/6 0.00/ I I I I IIII 1 1 l i III I1111 1 III I I I I
2.00" 50.00 100p/o 100% 100.0% 0.00/ 70% 'IIIII u 1 u l I I I I n 1 1 1 I_I l I n I 1 I _ 70 W.
1.75" 45.00 99% 100.0% 0.0% IIIIIII I T i -uT1 1 I I I I I i I i I -1 1111111 1
7u71 1
II I IIIIIII IIII I I'
1.50" 37.50 91 97% 100.0% 0.0/ 1 I IIIII 11 IIII11 I I IIIIIII 1 1
1.25" 31.50 92% 92% 100.00/0 0.01/o 60% ula 111411>,i_ 60.0%
1.00" 25.00 88% Il 100 00/ 0 IJ% 11 1 1 I IIIII l l 111 1 1 1 I !I I
C III11I I I IIIII I I III I I IIIIII I I IIIIIII I I �
3/4" 19.00 83% 83% 100.00/ 0.0p/ 'N I1111 I I IIIII �I IIIII 50% In 111111 1 'y
5/8" 16.00 76% 76% 100.0% 0.0% m n T T-11r1 n7 7 m n r- -� n-r- rr-:n IT T I rT- 50.0p/o
A
tl IIIII I I IIIIII I I d
1/2" 12.50 64% 64% 100.0% 0.0% n IIII II u I I I I I I I n n 1 1 1 1 II u I I I I e
3/8" 9.50 49% 49% 100.0% 0.0°/ 40% n 1_i i i__u 1 L1_i -1__111 L1-1-L '.-i 1 i i i_ 40.0p/
6.30 31% 31% 100.0°/s 0.0% IIII 1 1 IIII 1 1 1 1 II 111 1 I I II n 1 1 1 1
IIIII I I IIIIIII I IIIIIII 1 '.1111II I I
#4 4.75 25% 25% 100.IP/o 0.01/ IIII I IIII11 IIIII 1 1 I (IIIII
#8 2.36 16°/a 100.0% 0.0°/ 30% IHHT♦--11tl H-I-I--'.`` --ITI rlrr r-Y1HH rT- 30.0%
IIIII IIIII IIIII III I111 I I
010 2.00 141/6 14% 100.00/0 O.Op/° 1IIIII 1 1 IIII I I I I L IIIII I I I :.IIIII I I I
#16 1.Is 100/0 100.0% 0.01/. IIII I _ IIII I.. III111 'IIII 1 1
20% `II- -- - -- 20.0p/
#20 0.850 8% 8% 100.0% 0.0p/ 11 1 i i nil I_i 1i11 I ITn! l
IIIII III 1 1 1 I .IIII �,I4 IIIII !111 1 1
#30 0.600 5% 100.00/0 0.0% 111 1 1 1 1 I IIIII I I I 1 u n 1 1 „ IIIII I I-I IIIIIII I I
040 0.425 3% 3% 100.0% Will 10%4.1 W IJ 1 1__Iw L-I J__ILl 11 L1_ .` 1 _IN µl1 a_1- 10,0%
#50 0.300 2% 100 0°/ 0 0°/ IIIII I IIII 1 1 I I IIIII % n 1 I
IIIIIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIII
#60 0.250 2% 2% 100.0% 0.0% IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIII 1 � �•- �,1 1
#80 0.180 2% 2% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0 i
#100 0.150 2% 21/6 100.0°/ O0*/ 1000.00 100.00 10,00 1,00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 1% 100.00/0 0.01/0 Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 1% 100.00/0 0.00/0
#200 0,075 1.1% 1% 100.0% 0.0% + +^•+.•a -,I. ,.R -�I: , •�sam.Rmm
Copyright Spun Engnarng R TVM1neal gavcv P5.1996-98
i All muW appal only to amwl bul6m and malmblvaed.Aaamu°ulpmrxtinn to c4n"a,Ihn public and ourwhv,ag rcp"na an aubmi°adulM1e coN'dcnulpropcny of cgema.eM adM1arvalbn br pubM1ulion of.Wvncnl..corcbunns or vtracla hum or ngudvg ou vpoN�ro-mwlpudmg
ow Nrmu approval.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
!M1Lr1 Gordon.N:Vi11 Supenvbg I.aMralan lWagv,tiN'R<gnn
Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results
I g g rY FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 31
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23,2011
Sieve Report
Project:Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Geotech Date Received:6-Jan-I2 "IIS I NI D-2487 Unified Soils('lassificati(on System
Project#: I1SO64-03 Sampled By:BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-Jan-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP8@6' Tested By:(T Brown
Sam INE: 12-010U _---_----
TM D-2216 ASTM D 18 ASTM D-
D_- 0.582 mm %Gravel=72.9Yo Coeff.of Curvature,Ce=1.56
Specifications D,ro,=1.411 min 0',Sand=24.90/9 Coeff.of Uniformity,Cr=9.72
No Specs D„o,=5.487 min Silt&Clay=2.1% Fineness Modulus=6.20
Sample Meets Specs? aso)=10.766 min Fracture%=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
Didg)=13.710 min Moisture%=4 9% Plastic Limit=n/a
D„A,=30.071 min Sand Equivalent=n/a Min Plasticity Index=n/a
AS
Actual Interpolated - - -
Cumulative Cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sze Percent Percent Specs Specs Lg{r
Us Metric PassingPassingMax Min 100% in n!.•{Lr<.'�`<fi•�,�'• 'aaa�..�l�"�aT 1 T r r 100.0
12.00" 300A0 1001/6 100.0% 0.01/6 n 1 1 1 n l 1 i 11 u 1 1 1 u l l l 1 1 1 n n 1 1
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0p/e 0.0%
8.00" 200.00 100% 100.00/ 0.0% 90% 1 1 I_1 __u _I__i i n i____i 1_I__ i L 1 90.0
IIIII IIIIII IIIIII I Hill II I 11111111
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 n 1 1 11 1 n l i l 1 •.I null 1 1
4.00" 100.00 1000/0 100.0% 0.00/0 11 1 1 1 1 u n 1 1 1.1 i u 1 1 i 1 1 n 1 u l t i u n 1 1 1
3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0°/b 0.0% 80% Iri 1y+y-y1+l rly -InI+r1-1- r+1 r1 rr r-M1+Iy r+ 80.0%
IIIIII 1111111 IIII111 'IIIIIII IIIIII
2.50" 63.00 100% 100,0% 0.IW/a 1 1 II II11 1 1 'III 11 III
2.00" 50.00 1WK 100.0% 0.01/6 n 1 1 1 1 4 n 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 n i I I I n 1 I I 1
1.75" 45.00 100% 100 0% 0 0% ul 1 1 T 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1T1 ii l TnT 1 1 1 -
1I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1.50" 37.50 1000/ 100% I DO.0% 0.0% Hill I 1 w 1 1 1' III n
1.25" 31.50 92% 92% 100.0% 0.0% 60% 1uu 11_�Iiluu_ ._uu1_i__.uluil_u_u1111ii_ 60.0%
11111 I I III111 � II I I I lull l I I IIIIII I I
1.00" 25.00 83% 83% 100.0% 0.0"/o c
3/4" 19.00 73% 73% 100.0% 0.0% qIIIII 1 1 11 1 I 'H
5/8" 16.00 67/0 67"1 100.00/0 0.0% 'a 50% 1n n T -nln rn -IT rrI--I IT': nII"!T T r- 60.0%
IL I I'll I I I Hill 11 1111 IIIIII 4IIII I IL
12" 12.50 56% 56% 100.00/ 0.01/6 I •IIIIII J l l t o
3/8" 9.50 45% 45% 100.00/0 0.09g 40% 1111111 i__ui1i 1_I_ _I_1_I_-Iliiili�_t _.i IIII1 40.0"/p \
1/4" 6.30 33% 33% 100.0% 0.06/ IIII 11 1 Hill� 1 :Hill 1 1 1 IIIIII 1 1
III11 1 I IIIII I I ,� II11111 1 I IIIIII 1 I
#4 4.75 27/0 27/6 100.0% 00/
#8 2.36 15% 100.0% 0.0% 30% IHN++-yl+l riy-l--.�_` - Irrltirl-r-wl+I-r++- 30.0%
#10 2.00 13% 13% 100.00/ 0.00l IIIIII 'IIII 1 1 1 111 1.1111I 4III
IIIII I I 1111111 I I '.1111�11 I 1111111
#16 1.18 9"/0 100,00/ 0.01% 11111 I 11111 11 nn11
_
20% _ __ ____ _ __ _ _
#20 0.850 7% 7/0 100,0% 00% nl 1 1 T n T i _I i v. 1 i71 71 1 l_ TiIT 1_I i T 20.0%
11111 1 I 1111111 � 1111. �I -1111111 I I11uII I I
#30 0.600 5% 100.0% 0.01/ II111 .IIIIII 1 IIIIII 1 IIIIII 1 I
#40 0.425 4% 4% 100.0% O.OYg 10% 1u a 11_J 111Lu_1__1uuu• LL!u L1_L_-II I
L 11u 11- 10.0%
#50 0.300 3% 1000/0 0.0"/e 1 1 1 l t 11
#60 0.250 3% 3% 100.00/0 0.01/6 n l I I I I I I I I 1111 I I I i
#80 0.180 3% 3% 100.00/. 0.0% 0% 0.0%
#100 0.150 3% 3% 100.0% 0.0% 1000,00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0,10 0.01
#140 0.106 2% 100.0% 0.0"/o Particle Size(mm)
#170 0.090 2% 100,0% 0.01/6
#200 0.075 2.1% 2% 100.0% 0"op/o ♦ s�wa�m -n� pQ. -+-ra,n sprc, -• ,.,�xe�n.
CopY^gb�sPon EngK�g n TcMi.a1-P5.1991�-98
AO rmu4 apph"M to actml bcaiionr and maivuY.orcd.Tuamu�ualprotwmnt"clmas-�bc publi aM ouncha.all rcpnnearceubm�rW aaikmnfka"ialpwputYofcYmra.aM auaMwWnfor publ�tlnn o(.,atmwib,cmcbuova or e�vaue from rcgardmg" cp surnmcd prndmg
ow xrllcn appraaal.
Comments:
Reviewed by:
ALrY Cnadm,WARD SupmYy l�bonlory h4nagar,SN'Region
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 32
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Dayton Airport Rd. Watermain-Final Geotechnical Report Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc.
Project No. 115064-03 February 23, 2011
Sieve Report
Project: DaNlo11SO6 Airport Rd w'aternlain Geotech Date Received: B1Jan-12 GW, ll--?rad 111i5ve Suits Sand flcatiun S,acln
Project#: 115064-03 Sampled F3p: BH GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand
Client:JWM&A Date Tested: 12-.Ian-12 Sample Color:
Source:TP8Q9' Tested By:CL Brown ACCREDITEU�
Sam lek• 12-OIOV c.,s.=• -.
D 2216 ASTM D-2419 ASTM D-431
1) 0636 mm 4b Gravel=76.0% Coeff of Curvature,Cc,=1.89
Specifications Dtlp�= 1.533 mm %Sand=22.3% Coeff of Uniformity,CI,=8.92
No Specs D,., 6.288 nun %Silt&Clay=1.6% Fineness Modulus=6.22
Sample Meets Specs? 11.075 nun Fracture ono=n/a Min Liquid Limit=n/a
Dtopl=13.681 mm Moisture%=11.64/6 Plastic Limit=n/a
D„pl=23.994 mm Sand Equivalent=n/a Mtn Plasticity Index=n/a 1,
Actual Interpolated
cumulative cumulative Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sole Percent Percent Span Specs ti 8 Q$ egg
US Metric Pawing Passing MAX Mn 100% ,R-.,.k$Y..$<:. �tM4 r„r r- 100.0
12.00" 300.00 1WK 100.0% 0.0% 1
10.00" 250.00 100% 100.0% 0.01/6 a n u n n
1HII I I I _II II I_II 1 11111I
8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 90.0°/
III I I � � IIII IIII I I I I -111111 I i I1111l 1
6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% n l I u u n i -u i i i I i n u i l
4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 00/6 jm i l I n a n u I I a I I I I I 1 1
3.00" 75.00 100o/p 1000% 00% 80% ini�++-yiri, - --ini+i----_rn r-irrr-nl+itr+- 80.0%
2.50" 63.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% u 1 u n l n n 1 u 1
2.00" 50.00 100% 100.0% 0.0P/e n 1 I n u I
70% nl ii T --uii ii 'i l iTi ii -ii i7i T- 70.0%
1.75" 45.00 100"/e 100.0P/o 0.0% n u n n e❑ n u
1.50" 37.50 100% 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1a n u t u n n u l
1.25" 31.50 99% 99% 100.01/6 0.0% 60% iw�i u_�1ii>_u_.' i_i_i__uw,-i_u_uuil i.- 60.0%
unit i unlit Ili i iuiiii I niuli i
1.00" 25.00 92% 921/6 100.0% 0.0% n n l a u u 1 u n c
3/4" 19.00 79% 79% 100.0% 0.0% 'w _ n ni m r j 1 n u u •h
e 50% r n-4 rn r 1 n n-r rn r r-n it I r 500%r- . w
SB" 16.00 69°/P 69% 100.0% 0.0% m
1/2" 12.50 56% 560/6 100.0% 0.0% � � i n i i i i n n l i i i •u i i i i 1 n i i i i 1 i i n i i i 1 i iE
3/8" 9.50 44% 44% 100.0% 0.0% 40% n i_i 1 _n 1 111 1 1 I I 'J I i_i I I H i111 1 1 40 0%
1/4" 6.30 300/. 30% 100.0% 0.0% n n nn 1st
#4 4.75 24% 24% 100.0% 0.0%
#8 2.36 14% 100.0% 0.0%
30% - +i-yw riy-'. - - - ',1+I ri ri-r-ei+I+r+- 30.0%
#10 2.00 12% 12% 1000% P/o O0 iiiiii iniii
#16 ].is 8% ]00.0% 0 0% still nii' _
#20 0.850 7% 7°/p 100.0% 0.0% 20% -- -. 1 - I - 20.0%
l l \ ❑III I
#30 0.600 5% 100.01/6 0.08/6 1 n n n 1 n n
#40 0.425 4% 4/ 100.0% 0.0% 10% iuull_�w�u_i •'� �,.�u,-I_�_uuil>_i_ 10.0%
#50 0.300 3% 100.0% 0.0% •y' 1 n u
#60 0.250 3% 3% I00.0% 0.0% R 1'I-!•�.4
.o •I i i i i
#80 0.190 2% 2% 100.00/ 0.0P/o 0% 0.0%
#100 0.150 2% 2% 100.0% p0o/ t000.00 100.00 10.00 L00 0.10 0.01
#140 0.106 2% 100.0% 0.0% Particle Size(mrn)
#170 0.090 2% 100.0% 0.01/6 lc.r.. 1 -M, .-.. -\, p� -•
#21 0.075 1.6% 2% 1000"/o 0.0% +
c"pyripN Spc+n Enpvsam6 R rcclmiul5avicw PS.l--98
Allrwuhn appty��tybnnuJ ben,on,and mn,tteh t-,eJ Nnmutunlpm m,on,o clmlr.the publw.M ouneNe.nll npoNnrt rvbmHduthe mn(dm,ul Pr"pen�otchM•..nd mlbrv�tvn far publu,nno(,�tmnWv.vonclwunx ar exVac,n Eom re8nrdiy" rtponrnrexm uJ pmJmu
"m wrltm approval
jComments:
I
j
I I
Reviewed by: =_ "
�,.a c,�raon u nuo snar,.�r i.lwrnnr.tun+em,sw tkeon
ill
Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Laboratory Test Results FIGURE
2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW Dayton Airport Rd Watermain Project 33
I
Olympia,WA 98512 Shelton,WA
Il
l
I
� I
I
i
S �
a
�o �a
G
City of Shelton
W Johns Lake
AV
Project Site Map
W
Dayton-Airport
wBUSN PARKt0' Road Water
o ' I 1 Turtle La he
"'al Mr Expansion
FRD , G r__ __E FAIRFIELD CT o Project
Washington w$1NOERS0
N WAY —
O _
Y State Patrol s �Nu °
K Academy .. - s
— �° ----- .,
o
L W O sa
Shelton Water Pipelines �4 s �RaEO
LOCATION
l
Schedule A """
r �
Schedule C � .. Pdk
Shelton CityVICANIT„
MAP
a° F►�a ov °g a° UM, its
v+
0 37848
DAYTON-AIRPORT ROAD WATER EXPANSION PROJECT
City of Shelton for WSP DOC
Parcels adjacent to route 420020060000 County road
Case Number SEP2012-00016
Shelton Spring Road ROW Tarragon Avenue
420121300010
420125300004
420125100027
E. Woodland Drive
420125100001
420121260040
E. Island Lake Road
420125200024
420125200025
E. Park Place
402125200031
420122100020
420122190124
420122100010
420125500029
420125500001
E. Springwood Drive
420125500028
420122190001
420122190002
420122200040
420122200180
420128888888
420122200110
420122200100
420122200120
420122200122
E. Blevins Road North
420122200140
420122200000
420013300060 Trailer Park
SR 101 ROW 420024400010 Arsen/101
420020062000 Port/101
SR 102 Parcels with Easements 420021000020 Mason County/102
W. Public Works Drive
420022400010 Nye
420022490090 Com mCoun
420022490010 Bloom
420027500020 Titus
420027590012 Geibel
420027590013 Geibel
Cross SR 102
4200232600101 WSP Academy
4/27/2012 H:\Regional Plan\2-Dayton-Airport\Design\Permits\ParcelsAlongRoute.xlsx