The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEO2022-00100 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 2/21/2022 Gto 2022 -00 t I 0 REC�1V �p 6 DEC 06 2,�2 15 VV Alder Street Geotechnical Report PLANNING Petrich Single Family Residence 121 E Union Heights Place N, Union Parcel No. 32232-75-90023 Mason County, Washington February 21, 2022 Project#22031 Prepared For: Troy & Sandra Petrich 636 SE 112th Ave Portland, OR 97216 Prepared By: Envirotech Engineering g g PO Box 984 Belfair, Washington 98528 Phone: 360-275-9374 �,CLYDE � � 2 3 � CISr[R tsr'� A 2/21/2022 I MASON COUNTY Submittal Checklist COMMUNITY SERVICES Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed,signed,and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item is found not applicable,the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Note:Unless specifically documented,this report does not provide compliance to the International Residential Code Sections R403.1.7 for foundations on or adjacent to slopes,Section R403.1.8 for expansive soils or section 1808.7.1 of the International Building Code Section for Foundations on or adjacent to slopes. Applicant/Owner Troy&Sandra Petrich Parcel# 32232-75-90023 Site Address_ 121 E Union Heights Place N (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 5 (b) A discussion of specific soil types, Located on page(s) 6 (c) A discussion of ground water conditions, Located on page(s) 7 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology, Located on page(s) 3 (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, Located on page(s) 3 (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity,as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on page(s) 8 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Site Plan—Appendix A (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Site Plan and Soil Logs(Appendix B) (4) The area of the proposed development,the boundaries of the hazard,and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated(top,both sides,and toe)on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Site Plan (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile,and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Soil Profile(Appendix B) (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.Analysis should examine worst case failures.The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles.The minimum static safety factor is 1.5,the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1,and the quasi-static analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) 9 Page 1 of 38 (1) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, Located on page(s) 18 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields, Located on page(s) 19 (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings, Located on page(s) 15 (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) 18 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) 17 (2) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed,a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting,and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) 18 (3) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion,landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) 10 (4) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 12 (5) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management,drainage,erosion control,and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 18 (6) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) 19 (7) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries,scale,north arrow,and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s) Site Plan I,Michael Staten,hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical ti� CLYne Sr Report,dated February 21,2022 and entitled Petrich Single P WAS/J.I I.XF2 Family Residence,meets all the requirements of the Mason a County Resource Ordinance,Geologically Hazardous Areas Section, is complete and true,that the assessment A 43045 �, 4 demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide �X, 4,�sreRF lsS10 1 L0, hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical 2/21/2022 design recommendations,and that all hazards are mitigated in Disclaimer:Mason County does not such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public certify the quality of the work done in health and safety. this Geotechnical Report. Page 2 of 2 it Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION AND SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................ 1 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................3 2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS..................................................................................................................3 21 TOPOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology............................................................................................................3 2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE..........................................................................................................................3 2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies................................................................................................................3 2A SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS...............................................................................................4 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION..........................................»...................»...................................5 3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING...........................................................................5 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS...................................................................................................5 3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................6 3.3.1 Groundwater............................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................8 4.1 SLOPE STABILITY...............................................................................................................................8 4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis..............................................................................................................9 4.2 EROSION............................................................................................................................................10 4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION..............................................................................10 4.3.1 Liquefaction..............................................................................................................................11 4.4 LANDSLIDE,EROSION AND SEISMIC HAZARDS CONCLUSIONS........................................................11 4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES...........................................................................................................11 4.6 ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................12 5.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................13 5.1.1 Bearing Capacity.......................................................................................................................13 5.1.2 Settlement..................................................................................................................................14 5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade..........................................................................................................14 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................14 5.2.1 Excavation.................................................................................................................................14 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill...........................................15 5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backfill.............................................................................................................16 5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations....................................................................................................16 5.2.5 Building Pads............................................................................................................................16 5.3 BUILDING AND FOOTING SETBACKS.................................................................................................17 5A SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................17 5.5 VEGETATION BUFFER AND CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................18 5.6 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL.......................................................................18 5.7 SEPTIC DRAIlNFIELDS........................................................................................................................19 5.8 STRUCTURAL MITIGATION...............................................................................................................19 6.0 CLOSURE...........................................................................................................................................20 Appendix A-Site Plan Appendix B-Soil Information Appendix C-Slope Stability Appendix D—Erosion Control 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a planned single family residence located at 121 E Union Heights Place N,identified as parcel number 32232- 75-90023, Mason County,Washington. See the vicinity map on the following page for a general depiction of the site location. An initial geotechnical evaluation of the project was conducted by Envirotech on February 17, 2022. It was determined that slopes in excess of 40%with a vertical relief of at least 10 feet were present within 300 feet of the planned development.Based on this site characteristic,the proposed development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO) 8.52.140. During the site visit by Envirotech, surface and subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable project research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report which, at a minimum, conforms to the applicable MCRO. As presented herein,this report includes information pertaining to the project in this Introduction Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section; field methods and soil descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; supporting documentation with relation to slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and lateral earth pressures in the Engineering Analyses and Conclusions Section; and, recommendations for foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, retaining walls, erosion control, drainage, and vegetation in the Engineering Recommendations Section. 1.1 Project Information Information pertaining to the planned development of the project was provided by the proponent of the property.The planned development consists of a 1-or 2-story single family residence,new on-site septic system,and other ancillary features typical of this type of development.Approximate building footprint and other proposed features with relation to existing site conditions are illustrated on the Site Map provided in Appendix A of this report. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope of Work The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to assess geological hazards, and evaluate the project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations that should be implemented during development.The investigation included characterizing the general project surface and subsurface conditions,and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site activities. In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation,the geotechnical program completed for the proposed improvements of the project include: • Review project information provided by the project owner and/or owner's representative; • Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements of the project; • Define general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils within test pits and/ or cut banks, review geological maps for the general area,research published references concerning slope stability, and review water well reports from existing wells near the Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 1 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 project; • Collect bulk samples,as applicable,at various depths and locations; • Perform soils testing to determine selected index and/or engineering properties of the site soils; • Complete an engineering analysis supported by the planned site alterations,and the surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation, soil testing, and applicable project research;and, • Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for foundations, drainage, slope stability, erosion control,earthwork construction requirements, and other considerations. . 1 ro ec t _ Union J I t06 Union Community �� t� Park z ft 4b8 Jt E Dalby R: wniorR,d9e Rd 70 000 0.6 km 0.4mi- & • Vicinity Map from Mason County Website I Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 2 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the project was gathered on February 17, 2022 by a representative with Envirotech. During the site visit, the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed,site features were documented that may influence construction,and site features were examined that may be influenced by construction.This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and observed slope/erosion conditions for the project and surrounding areas that may impact the project. 2.1 General Observations Currently, the property is vacant with an existing paved driveway and level pad. The pad was constructed by cutting the upslope and filling the downslope. Vegetation on and near the project consists primarily of secondary growth firs,cedars,and other trees and shrubbery common to this area of the Pacific Northwest.An aerial photo of the project and immediate vicinity is provided on the following page. 2.2 Topography The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from a public lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements. Where necessary, slope verification included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site Plan in Appendix A in this report for an illustration of general topography with respect to the I planned development. Critical descending slopes,with grades exceeding 40%appear to be within 300 feet of the planned development.The maximum critical slope is approximately 50%with a vertical relief of about 60 feet. Ascending grades are generally located to the southwest of the planned development.These slopes are relatively minor within 300 feet of the project,with no apparent slope grades of at least 15%. 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology The upland area of the property and beyond is generally situated on a hillside of glacial origin. 2.3 Surface Drainage Runoff originating upslope of the development is mostly diverted away from the property by accommodating topography. Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past drainage problems were not observed within the immediate vicinity of the planned development. 2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned development that would significantly influence the project. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 3 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations The slope gradients near the project signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Some indicators that may suggest past slope movements include: • Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope, • Fissures, tension cracks, hummocky ground or stepped land masses on the face or top of the slope,and parallel to the slope, • Fine, saturated subsurface soils, • Old landslide debris, • Significant bowing or leaning trees,or, • Slope sloughing or calving. These slope instability indicators or other significant mass wasting on the property or within the general vicinity of the project were not observed. Indications of past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems, or surficial slope failures were not observed during the site visit. N A ;:4A 10 *. 8!4! Aerial Photo from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 4 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the project was primarily gathered on February 17,2022 by a representative with Envirotech.Applicable information on field methods,sampling, field testing, general geologic conditions, specific subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. Appendix B of this report includes pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the project,such as subsoil cross-section(s),test pit log(s), and applicable water well report(s). Water well reports were utilized to estimate ground water levels, and if sufficient, were used in identifying subsoil types. Applicable test pit locations are depicted on the Site Plan provided in the appendix of this report. 3.1 Field Methods,Sampling and Field Testing Information on subsurface conditions for the project was accomplished by examining soils within test pits and/or nearby banks extending to depths of up to 4 feet below the natural ground surface. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing geological maps representing the general vicinity of the project,and water well reports originating from nearby properties. Soil samples were not obtained from this project.Envirotech measured the relative density of the near-surface in-situ soils by gauging the resistance of hand tools. Within testing locations, field testing results generally indicated loose to medium dense soils in the upper 48 inches, and very dense soils from 48 inches to the depth of terminus. 3.2 General Geologic Conditions In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic conditions as presented in the"Geologic Map of Washington,"compiled by J.Eric Schuster,2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, %. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated deposits, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is located within the Puget Lowland.Typically,"lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation."as revealed in the Geologic Map.Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales,sandstones and coal deposits from rivers.During the Quaternary period,the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets,with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits. The"Interactive Geologic Map, 1:100,000 Quadrangle,"as depicted by the Department of Natural Resources provides the following caption(s)for the project area: Geologic Age:Pleistocene Geologic Unit Label:Qgt Lithology:continental glacial till, Fraser-age Named Units:mostly Vashon Slade in western WA, unnamed in eastern WA Symbology:Pleistocene continental glacial till Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 5 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 Project Y 4 — KAM 100k Surface Geology 1 km yam,- Pleistocene continental glacial till 1 mi Geological Map Department of Natural Resources Washington State 3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the project subgrade utilizing information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and investigated locations. Soils for this project were primarily described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS)and the Soil Conservation Service(SCS)descriptions. The project is currently composed of native soils without indications of import fill. However, disturbed soils onsite was used as fill of up to 6 feet on the edges of the pad.Within test pit locations, soils within the upper 4 feet of natural ground were generally observed to be moist, brown silty sand with poorly graded gravel and cobbles(GP-SM). The relative densities of the soil within selected test pits are provided above in Section 3.1. Expanded and specific subsurface descriptions, other than what is provided in this section, are provided in the soil logs located in Appendix B of this report. According to the"Soil Survey of Mason County,"by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,the site soils are described as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,Ac, with 15% - 30% slopes. The soil designations are depicted in the aerial photograph below, and descriptions are provided in Appendix B of this report. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 6 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 N .o m mD 20 Soil Survey from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 3.3.1 Groundwater From the water well report(s)and knowledge of the general area,permanent groundwater is at least 100 feet directly below the property at the building pad location.Surface seepage or perched groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on-site, nor indicated on the well reports. I �I �i i III I I II II II Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 7 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS The following section includes slope stability,erosion,seismic considerations,and impacts to both on-site and off-site properties. 4.1 Slope Stability Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. Geotechnical engineering cannot eliminate these risks for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly inducing strain on the sloping soil mass. Excessive wet weather and/or earthquakes will exacerbate these strains. Geotechnical engineering considers excessive wet weather and `design' earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping terrain with relation to current engineering protocol.These factors of safeties are based on engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil, topography, water conditions, seismic acceleration and surcharges.Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep-seated structural capability of the slope.However,repeated surficial slope movements,if not repaired, may present a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. If any slope movement arises,the slope should be inspected by an engineer. Subsequently,maintenance may be required in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated slope movements that may be damaging to life and property. According to the Coastal Zone Atlas of Mason County,Washington,the project is within and near terrain labeled `Stable' and `Intermediate' regarding potential landslide activity. Descriptions of these mapping units may be found in the aforesaid Atlas. A Stability Map from the Coastal Zone Atlas for the general area of this project is provided below: Project z" l ='F J (t �. staut e tnt e iate y tkuta6te(old atMe) i 0 1 2n 1 ' - V tm ta0te(recent Vide) Map from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 8 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the project is not within terrain labeled `highly unstable' relating to soils. DNR labeled portions of this project as medium and high slope instability with relation to slopes. A Resource Map from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System is provided below: N -ali 1_1_i_3 t ■ - - E Alderney St yUnion • ! -i Ccmmunlry Park t 11 E t - eat Project : —� iNoe • � it a yyy E Pine 3t .1 a �. .. .■ em rw ar a s Soils-Hydric Soils So®-Highly Unstable Soils E viol8 In +' 4 Soils-Highly Erodible Soils E j i Westside Slope Stability Model(FP) t Moderate Slope Instabillity ___ _ - } ■ High Slope Instability 1 %OM sue-tea= Resource Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website 4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing `STABLE' software, was used to analyze the static stability of the site slopes. Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case scenario values from the static analysis,a quasi-static analysis coefficient of at least 0.15, and applying the applicable values to STABLE software. Various radii and center points of the circle were automatically selected,and produced factor of safeties in a graphical and tabular format. Worst case scenario values were used in the slope stability analysis in regard to topography, surcharges, water content,internal friction and cohesion of the site soils. STABLE software has been repeatedly checked with manual calculations, and consistently proved to be a very conservative program.The following soil properties were used in the analysis, and are based on observed conditions, known geology, and/or published parameters: Upper 4 feet soil depth Soil unit weight: 132 pcf Angle of internal friction: 30 degrees Cohesion: 200 psf Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 9 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 Soils below 4 feet in depth Soil unit weight: 140 pcf Angle of internal friction: 40 degrees Cohesion: 400 psf Based on the slope stability analysis, unacceptable factors of safety could be present on and near the critical slope,but do not reflect conditions where development is expected to occur. For this project, at the location of the proposed development, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic conditions were estimated to be at least 1.5 and 1.1, respectively.See the slope stability information in Appendix C for a depiction of minimum factors of safety away from the project. 4.2 Erosion Based on the USCS description of the project soils, the surface soils are considered moderately erodible.According to the Resource Map from the Washington State DNR,as provided above,the project is not within terrain labeled `highly erodible.' This project is within an erosion hazard area as defined by the MCRO. Erosion hazard areas are those with USDA SCS designations of River Wash(Ra),Coastal Beaches(Cg),Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Ac and Ad),Cloquallum Silt Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Cd),Harstine Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Hb),and Kitsap Silt Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Kc). It is our opinion that minor erosion control recommendations provided in this report is sufficient for the development of this project, and additional engineered erosion control plans are not required. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures are required for site development. Extents of temporary erosion control will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction,moisture content of the soil,and amount of rainfall during construction. Soil erosion typical to the existing site conditions and planned disturbance of the project include wind-borne silts during dry weather, and sediment transport during prolonged wet weather. Sediment transport could be from stormwater runoff or tracking off-site with construction equipment. The Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Section (Section 5.6) of this report consist of specific erosion controls to be implemented. Additional erosion control information and specifications may be found in the latest addition of the "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 4.3 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction There are no known faults beneath this project. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this property is the Hood Canal Fault Zone,which is approximately 2.5 miles to the north west of this project.This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Potential landslides due to seismic hazards have been considered, and are addressed in the Slope Stability Analysis Section provided earlier in this report. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 10 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this project are generally Type D, corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. According to the IBC, the regional seismic zone is 3 for this project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from 0.50g to 0.60g.This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey(USGS)National Seismic Hazard project in which there is an estimated 2%probability of exceedance within the next 50 years. 4.3.1 Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction is believed to be low for this project.This is based, in part, on the subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems caused from liquefaction include submerged, confined, poorly-graded granular soils (i.e. gravel,sand,silt).Although gravel-and silt-sized soil particles could be problematic,fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoil for this project. 4.4 Landslide,Erosion and Seismic Hazards Conclusions I DNR did not indicate historic landslide activity near the project. Mapped slope conditions, as delineated by the Departments of Ecology and/or Natural Resources,were considered in our slope stability assessment. Based on the proximity and severity of mapped delineations with respect to the proposed development, results of the aforesaid slope stability analysis, observed surface conditions, and other pertinent information, it is our opinion that the proposed development may occur in accordance with the recommendations in this geotechnical report. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining walls may be utilized for this Project. The lateral earth pressures exerted through the backfill of a retaining wall are dependent upon several factors including height of retained soil behind the wall, type of soil that is retained, degree of backfill compaction, slope of backfill, surcharges,hydrostatic pressures,earthquake pressures,and the direction and distance that the top of the wall moves. An equivalent fluid unit weight used for structural design may be estimated as the product of the backfill soil unit weight and the earth pressure coefficient for at-rest pressures. Retaining walls should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of the following: At-Rest Active Native Soils 49 pcf 32 pcf Engineered Fill Soils 45 pcf 28 pcf The values provided above shall be increased by 1 pcf for every 1 degree of backfill/natural slope angle.These equivalent fluid unit weight value's do not include lateral earth pressures induced by Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 11 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 earthquakes,groundwater,or surcharges from live loads.Earthquake pressures should be added to the wall analysis,and treated as an inverted pressure triangle where the resultant pressure is located at 2/3 of the wall height,or other method approved by a structural engineer.The following resultant earthquake pressures as a function of the wall height(H)may be utilized: At-Rest Active Native Soils 15.4H2 psf 9.8H2 psf Engineered Fill Soils 13.6H2 psf 8.2H2 psf See the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section for details concerning the use of native soils,engineered fill and placement of backfill. 4.6 On-Site and Off-Site Impacts From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the subject property and adjacent properties to the proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all recommendations in this report are followed. This opinion is based on the expected site development, existing topography, existing nearby development,land cover, and adhering to the recommendations presented in this report. Future development or land disturbing activities on neighboring properties or properties beyond adjacent parcels that are upslope and/or downslope from the subject property could cause problems to the subject property. For this reason, future development or land disturbance near the subject property should be evaluated by a geotechnical li engineer. i I Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 12 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements of the project.These recommendations have been made available based on the planned improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations including drainage and topography as recapitulated in the Surface Conditions Section;soil/geologic conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in the Subsurface Investigation Section;and,project research,analyses and conclusions as determined in the Engineering Analysis and Conclusions Section. Recommendations for the project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for building foundations, earthwork construction, building and/ or footing setbacks,drainage,vegetation considerations,and erosion control. 5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one- or two-story, single family residential structure.The recommended allowable bearing capacities and settlements as presented below, consider the probable type of construction as well as the field investigation results by implementing practical engineering judgment within published engineering standards. Evaluations include classifying site soils based on observed field conditions and soil testing for this project. After deriving conservative relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils,the Terzhagi ultimate bearing capacity equation was utilized for determining foundation width and depth. Foundation parameters provided herein account for typical structural pressures due to the planned type of development.A structural analysis is beyond the scope of a geotechnical report, and a structural engineer may be required to design specific foundations and other structural elements based on the soil investigation. Stepped foundations are acceptable, if warranted for this project. Continuous, isolated, or stepped foundations shall be horizontally level between the bottom of the foundation and the top of the bearing strata.The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12 inches below the ground surface for this project under normal circumstances and anticipated design features. 5.1.1 Bearing Capacity Existing in-situ soils for this project indicates that the structure can be established on shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively undisturbed native soil that is competent and unyielding. Alternatively, foundations may be constructed on selective re-compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as described in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 1500 psf, a minimum continuous footing width of 15 inches shall be placed outside fill areas and at a minimum of 12 inches below the existing, undisturbed ground surface atop unyielding soils. Alternatively, foundations may be placed in fill areas if the fill is removed and replaced per the Earthwork Recommendations section,or foundations extend beneath the fill.For a columnar load of no more than 2.5 tons,a circular or square isolated foundation diameter or width shall be at least 24 inches.Foundation recommendations are made available based on adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. Alterations to the aforementioned foundation recommendations may be completed upon a site inspection by a geotechnical engineer after the foundation excavation is completed. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 13 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 5.1.2 Settlement Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the structure, reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances, the infiltration of free moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, anticipated development, and construction abides by the recommendations in this report,the assumed foundation system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum differential settlement of 0.75 inch. 5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of compacted coarse, granular material (Retained on U.S. Sieve #10 or greater) that is placed over undisturbed, competent native subgrade or engineered fill per the Earthwork Recommendations Section below. The recommendations for interior concrete slabs-on-grade as presented herein are only relevant for the geotechnical application of this project.Although beyond the scope of this report, concrete slabs should also be designed for structural integrity and environmental reliability. This includes vapor barriers or moisture control for mitigating excessive moisture in the building. 5.2 Earthwork Construction Recommendations Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed native soils to the specified foundation depths.Compacted engineered fill,or selective re-compacted native soils may be used to the extents provided in this Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section.The following recommendations include excavations, subgrade preparation,type of fill,and placement of fill for building foundations. 5.2.1 Excavation Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious material, if present, beneath foundations and to achieve appropriate foundation depth. Additional sub-excavation will be required for this project if the soils below the required foundation depth are loose, saturated, not as described in this report, or otherwise incompetent due to inappropriate land disturbing, or excessive water trapped within foundation excavations prior to foundation construction.All soils below the bottom of the excavation shall be competent, and relatively undisturbed or properly compacted fill. If these soils are disturbed or deemed incompetent, re-compaction of these soils below the anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered, compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or structural concrete. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 14 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is required prior to foundation construction. The following placement and compaction requirements are necessary. For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath foundations, limits of compacted or re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of one horizontal foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill depth beneath the foundation. See the illustration below. FOOTING COMPACTED NATIVE SOILS OR ENGINEERED t FILL I 1-1 UNDISTURBED SUBGRAIIE Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Because of moisture sensitivity, importing and compacting engineered fill may be more economical than compacting disturbed native soils. Engineered fill shall include having the soils retained on the No. 4 sieve crushed (angular), and should consist of the following gradation: U.S. Standard Sieve %Finer(by weight) 6" 100 3" 60— 100 No. 4 20—60 No. 200 0-8 Table 1 Particle Size Distribution of Engineered Fill Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6 inches for both native soils and engineered fill,respectively. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and within 3% of optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding. Temporary earth cuts and temporary fill slopes exceeding 4 feet in height should be limited to a slope of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Utility trenches or other confined excavations exceeding 4 feet should conform to OSHA safety regulations.Permanent cut and fill slopes shall be limited to a slope of 2:1,unless otherwise approved by an engineer. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 15 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backrdl Native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this project if the total wall height is 4 feet or less and the recommendations below are followed.Native soils for retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height must be approved by the local authority or evaluated by an engineer. Backfill may consist of engineered fill, as presented in this report, or borrow material approved by a geotechnical engineer. Compaction of these materials shall be achieved in compacted lifts of about 12 inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 85%, and no more than 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).If pavement or building loads are planned to be located within retaining wall backfill,then 90%compaction is required.In addition,heavy construction equipment 1 should be at a distance of at least'/2 the wall height. Over-compaction and limiting heavy construction equipment should be prevented to minimize the risk of excess lateral earth pressure on the retaining structure. Envirotech recommends that retaining wall backfill is compacted with light equipment such as a hand-held power tamper.If clean,coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, and surcharges will not influence the retaining wall, compaction may be achieved by reasonably densifying granular soils with construction equipment. 5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations Due to the types of subsurface soils, additional provisions may be required during prolonged wet weather.Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free moisture from saturating the soils within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used for footing placement changes from a moist and dense/hard characteristic as presented in this report to muck or soft, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for foundation bearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be notified, and these soils should be completely removed and replaced with compacted engineered fill or suitable native material as presented in this section. 5.2.5 Building Pads Building pads for this project, if utilized, shall be constructed per the fill placement and compaction recommendations as presented above. Both engineered fill and native soils may be used for building pads. Building pad slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1 for both compacted engineered fill and re-compacted native soils used as fill.Building pad fill shall be"keyed"into the existing subgrade to a depth of at least 2 feet below the existing ground surface. The term "keyed," as used here, implies that the interface between the building pad and subgrade is horizontally level.Alternatively,building pads may be keyed into the subgrade to the above specified depth, and stepped. Stepped fill should be keyed into the subgrade at a minimum width of 10 feet. All footings shall be located at least 5 feet away from the top of the engineered fill slope.See the diagram below for a depiction of fill pads for structural support. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 16 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 COMPACTED FILL LEVEL CUT BENCH BENCH EXISTING GROUND SURFACE BENCH BENCH 5.3 Building and Footing Setbacks Provided that assumptions relating to construction occur and recommendations are followed as presented in this report, the factor of safety for slope stability is sufficient for a 50 feet footing setback from the face of the nearby descending slopes exceeding 40%. See the figure below and the Site Plan in Appendix A for an illustration of the setbacks. STRUCTURE TOP OF SLOPE SLOPE FACE I-I I -T - I� SETBACK FOOTING From the illustration above, structures may be located closer to the top of slope by extending the foundation deep enough to maintain the recommended setback.In addition, the required setback may be reduced by mitigation,and subsequently would require additional geotechnical studies. 5.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential buildings. Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface,driveways and sidewalks away from the project structures. All constructed surface and subsurface drains should be adequately maintained during the life of the structure. If drainage problems occur during or after construction, additional engineered water mitigation will be required immediately. This may include a combination of swales,berms,drain pipes,infiltration facilities,or outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structures to an appropriate protected discharge area. Leakage of water pipes, both drainage and supply lines,shall be prevented at all times. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 17 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 If impervious thresholds are exceeded per the prevailing agency code,then engineered stormwater management plans are required for this project. The drainage engineer must coordinate with a geotechnical engineer for input with relation to slope stability prior to submitting drainage plans. If stormwater management plans are not required for this project, then the following � recommendations should be followed. I For this project, we recommend that any drainage protocol per Mason County standards is acceptable if located outside building setbacks and buffers in this report. This may include roof downspout dispersion on splash blocks or trenches,infiltration pits or other means. 5.5 Vegetation Buffer and Considerations For this project, we believe that a detailed clearing and grading plan is not warranted unless the prevailing agency thresholds are exceeded, and basic vegetation management practices should be adhered to. Vegetation Buffer—Vegetation shall not be removed from the face of the critical slope or within a distance of 25 feet beyond the top of the slope. However, any tree deemed hazardous to life or property shall be removed.If tree removal is necessary,then stumps and roots shall remain in place, and the underbrush and soil shall remain undisturbed as much as possible.Any disturbed soil shall be graded and re-compacted in order to restore the terrain similar to preexisting conditions and drainage patterns. See the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report for a depiction of the vegetation buffer. 5.6 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the least extent possible.Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls.Although other controls may be used,if adequate, silt fencing is presented in this report as the first choice for temporary erosion control.Any erosion control should be located down-slope and beyond the limits of construction and clearing of vegetation where surface water is expected to flow. If the loss of sediments appears to be greater than expected,or erosion control measures are not functioning as needed,additional measures must be implemented immediately. See Appendix D for sketches and general notes regarding selected erosion control measures. The Site Plan in Appendix A depicts the recommended locations for erosion control facilities to be installed as necessary. Permanent erosion control is necessary if substantial vegetation has not been established within disturbed areas upon completion of the project.Temporary erosion control should remain in place until permanent erosion control has been established. Permanent erosion control may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching,seeding or an equivalent measure. Selected recommendations for permanent erosion control are provided in Appendix D. Additional erosion control measures that should be performed include routine maintenance and replacement,when necessary,of permanent erosion control,vegetation,drainage structures and/or features. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 18 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 5.7 Septic Daannfields Septic drainfields were considered in our geotechnical evaluation.This includes septic drainfields with relation to the observed soil conditions, expected vegetation removal, and existing and proposed topography.Based on the aforesaid parameters,the septic drainfields are not expected to adversely influence critical slopes.This is also based on compliance with all recommendations in this report. 5.8 Structural Mitigation With respect to landslide alleviation or slope improvements,structural mitigation is not necessary for this project. This determination is based on the anticipated improvements of the project, engineering conclusions,and compliance with all recommendations provided in this report. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 19 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 6.0 CLOSURE Based on the project information provided by the owner, the proposed development, and site conditions as presented in this report,it is Envirotech's opinion that additional geotechnical studies are not required to further evaluate this project. Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during construction are different than those described in this report.It is not recommended that a qualified engineer performs a site inspection during earthwork construction unless fill soils will influence the impending foundation.However,if native,undisturbed subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report,then a geotechnical engineer should be consulted. This report presents geotechnical design guidelines,and is intended only for the owner,or owners' representative, and location of project described herein. This report should not be used to dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility. Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid in conjunction with the compliance of all recommendations provided in this report. Semantics throughout this report such as `shall,' `should' and `recommended' imply that the correlating design and/or specifications must be adhered to in order to potentially protect life and/or property. Semantics such as `suggested' or `optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed, but is provided for optimal performance.The recommendations provided in this report are valid for the proposed development at the issuance date of this report.Changes to the site other than the expected development, changes to neighboring properties, changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the long-term conclusions and recommendations of this report. The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech.Michael Staten has appropriate education and experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards,earthquake hazards, and general soil mechanics. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering Jessica Smith,M.S. Michael Staten,P.E. Staff Geologist Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 20 Parcel 32232-75-90023 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 February 21,2022 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN SCALE, I INCH•100 FEET o A 310, APPROXIMATE TOE \ \ OF SLOPE NEY LANE EXCEEDING 407 25 FT 34a - VEGETATION 3g0_.-4 BUFFER FROM APPROXIMATE TOP TOP OF SLOPE 360 OF SLOPE EXCEEDING 40% �i 380 50 FT TU/ C❑NSTRUCTION SETBACK FROM 39G400- \ I ,EXISTING R�TAEITA TOP OF SLOPE 410_-�_ ti �-1 ED F — z m I` PROP 3SEII. `1 BUILDING TPIO 3 G I = 43 I AREA •, H Z I � PROPERTY LINE I + r I A + M 440---_.. I z I f NOTES- PROJECT/OWNER/LOCATION 1.EROSION CONTROL MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE.GENERAL LOCATIONS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ARE DEPICTED,AND ALTERNATIVES NAY BE UTILIZED AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 2.CONTOURS WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. PETRICH CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE,AND 121 E UNION HEIGHTS PI N INCORPORATED FIELD MEASUREMENTS AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND PARCEL 32232-73-90023 REPORT. NGTON BOUNDARIES WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR.LOCATIONS TEMPORARY ENGINEER, TY VA OF SITE FEATURES THAT ARE SHOWN MERE,SUCH AS TOP OF SLOPES,TOE -�-+-�-EROSION CONTROL ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING OF SLOOPES,WATER FEATURES,ETC.,WITH RELATION TO THE PROPERTY PO 984 LINES MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE OWNER.RECDMENDATMNS IN THE - SLOPE INDICATOR DEL BOX R,WWASHINGTON 98WB GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROVIDE SETBACKS,BUFFERS, DEPTHS.ETC.WITH 3Gp-273-937� RELATION TO GEOLOGIC FEATURES,NOT PROPERTY LINES. THESE GEOLOGIC _80` EXISTING CONTOUR FEATURES PROPERTIES M.AY BE LOCATED(IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR NEIGHBORING TP1 TEST PIT SITE PLAN APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION vOtTY,IL AYp M]K7W�4 A4G AAaO �D01�N[Rl PREPGSED HOUSE EXISTING = I DRIVEWAY 26� EXISTING GRADE .t7T,i f� MEDIL.H DENSE SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL CSM7 CARNEY LAAE- VERY DENSE ALPM GLACIAL DEPOSITS (SM) SEcnim A- MACT/OVNER/ LO=AT(Ou SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PMR:rH In c tr=N maws PI N PARCR 32232-75-9CM3 HITES, HLSOV CDL.NIY, VASNDWTCH mbtmt. :)I(NM CAAIE CHANGES ROXMI)D+ OttER 10 ACIDEVE ENVDtOIECH EHGINEERtNG POSITIVE IWAINAGE PO BOX 964 P)THE SOIL.PROFILC IS ACCURATE Foe rK DEPTH or DELFAIR.VASK%7(v 987YB ME ODSERvCD rEsr PITS AT TLc sPrcrr=LOCAr(ard. 360-277r9374 LOVER DDITNS WC RASED OH SITE CEDLOGY, YELL MCA$%--,(P EYMIEWE DY THE GENERAL ARV, SOIL PROFILE TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PROJECT: SFR Geological Assessment DATE OF LOG: 1/292022 PROJECT NO: 22031 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: Petrich EXCAVATOR: WA LOCATION_ Parcel 32232-75-90023 DRILL RIG: None Mason County,Washington ELEVATION: N/A INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: WA SOIL STRATA, sTAN ONW PERETnATrow TEST DEPTH SA�p S USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI DEPTH N CURVE AND TEST DATA 1 D 3D 50 0 . ..........................I................. ...... SM Brown,moist,medium dense SILTY SAND with GRAVEL.Gravel is fine and suhromded.Sand is primarily coa-se t Non plastic. 2 Light brown,low mDisture,very dense a 'hard Dan Excavation lennnaled at aWroxinatety 4.0 feet 5 6 7 8 E g i , j { 1D No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING rM rlf maum pen2V]s fro'to MS bamv SfV zN KAV."M be Geotechn'ical Engineering L'iferpreted as 8effgr fmattIve dMe efd e z t. Map Unit Description.Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes---Mason County,Washington Mason County, Washington Ac—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t627 Elevation: 0 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 240 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations,descriptions,and transects of the mapunit. Description of Alderwood Setting Landform. Ridges,hills Landform position(two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Side slope,nose slope,talf Down-slope shape: Linear,convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits Typical profile A-0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bwl-7 to 21 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bw2-21 to 30 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bg-30 to 35 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cdl-35 to 43 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cd2-43 to 59 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Very low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 2.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated): None specified Land capability classification(nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B t� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/102018 Conservation Service Notional Cooperative Sal Survey Page 1 of 2 Mop Unit Description Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes—Mason County,WasMngton Forage suitability group: Limited Depth Soils(G002XS301 WA), Limited Depth Soils(G002XF303WA),Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Hydric soil rating No Minor Components Everett Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Karnes,eskers,moraines Landform position(two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: No Indianola Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Eskers,kames,terraces Landform position(three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Shalcar Percent of map unit. 3 percent Landform: Depressions Landform position(three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Norma Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions,drainageways Landform position(three-dimensional): Dip Down-scope shape: Concave,linear Across-slope shape: Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington Survey Area Data: Version 14,Sep 10,2018 0 A Natural Resources Web Sal Survey 12110r2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 or 2 WATER WELL REPORT CURRENT ::s-)a.r':, r3rlte.elR1'trq•F.tMp•7�uq-wa...Y'.yy-Miew NotieeeflstestNo.W237312 c /•c, Unique Ecology Well I D Tag No.ALN035 oestrttetba/DeeotRlaisslen("a"in cirde) (ECORstnKtion �� A pp Water Right Ptcmit No.EXEMFT WELL ❑Decommission ORIGINAL lbVALI,ITIO��oTt3 O Property Own=Name DAVIDSTwx oyflnrcnl Awmber LINDA VISTA COURT Well Street Address 231 t�-_,_ "O os"I" tA..aa» serew rdrayel City uNION County MASON O oewerw I.nOrutw r«Wra Opar.___..__ Loealion St I/4-IJ4 N%%IJO Sec 32 Two 2n R 3W raw 13env TY�corlaoeN, MMe1ae/atver+wt.rwcwdu.prl — — — — wiw 0- �ts w-a ORS Sk"8orals a" Osered Bow t rs+••a O� )out La t-4(s,It.r Lai Deg-_: La Min/Sec tMMEVWNs:Oiaeew..fwtR�._eed.w,atsW 2!0 _ a Still REQUIRED) Lonj Dc8 gYm..s.I.ORg MirvSec Gya.rwwylw..)wrR-�---a C1n3TRLCTION MIMS � �� T�aR Parocl No.322321500900 �-.......>...._.,...a. .-. Gew pJw.ha 6 M-a--2 w2f_ a Irerer�: 8 Lrnr 0,u1M1 Gun iwn 2. R CONSTRUCTION OR DECOMMISSION MOCEDURE _ TUN" ra 6- a fa.w+o.0~4.Yfali•.diwb,wsdrnitl�l�rwaw/daUMI.4 MarYlr: Ya "o eiw yrdr wMww.wa rer.awywwra.I wA w lraa e..r Nrf lrr adr•I••P el T)K efpwWwawa.. - �.b.rewaa(USEADDITIONALUMEETS IF R SrZF tfpfi—__e GYM-m W.o dp.fi�-iet. a.is--! MA7611114 FROM T So Ye. Mhc N Lauax_-- _-_-_ DROWN SILTY SANDANDGRAVEI. 0 16 rAar•fuwwr'sNaar BROWN SILT s10lLNOSANDANDGRAVEL 16 42 0: 'ra%ie___ hs....I.trdM-+o'Ra a GRAY CLAY 42 47 GRAY SILT BOUND SAND AND GRAVEL e7 40 GrawYlMwrwMt Ye .w QSurerp.atyp _..,�__ REOISII BROWN SILTY SAND ANDGRAWL 60 M I dssNard�°- —4w--- R GRAY SILTY CLAY AND GRAVEL a 110 sa.swrs"Loves ONO BROWN SILT MIND SAND AND GRAVEL too M Mw.id awworal j m-MNITF CHIPS RFD SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL 135 NS Oda WMM an.aw wkgAk.WO QYes Qvc RFD SILTY SAND,GRAVt1,WET 145 it? Typofwaa.?_ _0"ofeawa OLUECtAY It? 1% INedddsedwa,faeaeM GRAYCLAY 116 213 rMt-MrPV(4kMP'.We_ �- RFD SILT,GRAVEL-COMPACT.WtT 213 361 Tyw Ht GRAVCLANDWATER 2" 200 WATMLEMS ta.bwrraeNvwnhe.ewsw..I.wl_--a Sk"htl.lam .. _ _ a 6daw.ea.rwdl Orw ansnei Aweiw.war _ .IPA Kf W Wt Kh GM _ p Behr ur WULMM'rr drw•wawsw.rawIwAkM.wNM)ewwMlevel Wore a pap".owe?O Y" 0 10-iy Yd�t_—leFRw.,.N -....�.. a InwrJew.dler M vww- etl4r me "a tra.lowe saw_._.._.--M Yaae Reawwy Awfl.•e•ae►w.ari..4w�..-.w✓vlD/„we.4.�R we�,.MAw.�X i1M M Mwn/In,t/ � Tia.e *r Level ire wow L" 7.rr. M w le•A -- S.A.wi_.-._.Sam",Wes A iMa:,vn saw_Ir, •) Ainwejyl,_-..adlrN.wr.rerwwerL_ . _ i.1 r. An uollow_ _ __.__ •a.Gar ___ lom"owogwaw.,__.....W.stwmtdwloyA•awar•OYe.taw• am Dew anal Co III oats 41"7 WELL CONSTTM MOX(:I:RTTI ICATION: I consuunod sndror tccepl responsiNlii)for owwodW ofUlis well,MW k%complimoe with all N'ashingw wdl eoraroction standards Maleriatl used and Iht infwrmslion reported ahore are true la my lust knowkdpr red I.dief. rOnR.r O C.arww O srww s..wth:+ F0 NF1.cON_ _ _.�- p .ARCADIA DRILLMO1NC OnR.M.Orwilm"M 3l{Me.t D.Wrwar.re t.rct.r No 111116 C1ey,See.;zq SHCLTOK WA"M ' Ir txuvtc, t1/drs.n', OrYeP.LktAw1 N► -- _ Ileymw+.r b ARCADDW0O:1 _naa V%W bier•.Seaerw ft.MTy..r Ygwl Ly1Pwr,n•0►aplvyn tCY owlao(R..vas) The Department of Ecology does NOT warranty the Data andlor Information on this Well Report II I APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ICI I i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 ♦ f f •ti .i '+ .�i .i ri rt ei r! � N d u 0 rl all 09 194 go SJ � A`• ft Y YI F ;l r{VUx ci a.1 * 0% M ntrl a a 4 �E as 1 _ 00 1 _ 1 O 1 _ 20 1 _ 30 1 _ 40 1 _ so s 1 _ 60 1 _ 70 1 _ so 1 _ 90 =2 _ O 3.6 Project _ Pctric2� Report Datafilc Static Araalyai� Araalyaia = BiaYaop APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL i I GE07EXTILE FABRIC WRAP AROUND TRENCH TO AT LEAST ENTIRE BOTTOM OF TRENCH BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR 12' DEEP, 8' WIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 112' WASHED GRAVEL OR VEGETATION DIRECTION OF zs n WATER FLOW EXISTING u. GROUND SURFACE �� ea rt SILT FENCE — CROSS SECTION N.T.S. 2'x2' WOOD POST (TYP) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH @ 6 FT MAX. O.C. 1I- 6R ----1 45FT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE e 12' DEEP, 8' WIDE TRENCH FILLED WITH US IFl 3/4' TO 1 112' 26 FT WASHED GRAVEL OR VEG Ti BOTTOM EXTENTS OF GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SILT FENCE — DETAIL N.T.S. PROVIDE FULL WIDTH 3/4 IN TO 1 1/Z.FN60 INGRESS/EGRESS CRUSHED GRAVEL PLACED AT 6 IN MINIMUM DEPTH WELL—DRAINED SOILS —0.02 IN/MIN FULL LENM R=25 FT MIN •ccett Roae STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N.T.S. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES NERRAL NOTES, SEEDING FOR RAW SLOPES SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON HE-SE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION,THE CONTRACTOR L BEFORE SEEDING,INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUINOM CONTROL HALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES, MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES,INTERCEPTOR BIKES, .ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SMALL BE SVALES,LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS. NSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED,IF NECESSARY. 2.THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE, 3.ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE LEFT IN FO.L13VING SURFACE ROUGHENING.PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS ACCROS LACE UNTIL THE UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED, OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. 3.SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS,AS SHOWN BELJ3V,AND SHOULD BE PORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES. APPLIED AT THE RATE ff 120 POUNDS PER ACRE 4,SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN MAY 1 AND 13CTMER 31 WILL R ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED Or VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED LAND REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO ISTURBING ACTIVITIES,AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A FOSTER AND PROTECT THE ROOT STRUCTURE. ,ERIOD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW,ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE 5.SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 30, MMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING. GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED ARMORING IF THE SEED BED WILL BE NECESSARY,cep, ROSIBN CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME I3F YEAR.GRASS SEEDING GEOTEXTILES, JUTE MAT,CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING). ME WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS 13F APRIL THROUGH 6,FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING TO SUPPLIERS' PTEMBER.HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED VHEWVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF RECOMMENDATIONS,AMOUNTS SHD.ULD BE MINIMIZED,ESPECIALLY OWNER/CONTRACTOR,BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS. R OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT. USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSION RY SEASON(MAY 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 30)-- THE CLEARING OF LAND,INCLUDING THE CONTROL,OR A COUNTY APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTURE. NAVAL IF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER, MUST BE LIMITED TO Y AS MUCH LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE PRGPDRTIWS PURITY GERMINA THERVISE STABILIZED,AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED NAME BY WEIGHT(X) tX> <X> Y NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 OF A GIVEN YEAR.UNLESS V0EDIATE TABILIZATION IS SPECIFIED W THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT C04TROL PLAN,ALL REOTOP (AGROSTIS ALGA) 10 92 90 AS CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED ANNUAL RYE(LOLIUM MLLTIF LORUM) 40 98 90 wpouGm THE USE OF MULLHDNG,NETTING,PLASTIC SHEETING,EROSION BLANKETS, CHEWING FESLE 40 97 80 FEE DRAINING MATERIAL,ETC.,BY SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED (FESTUCA RUBRA COMMUTATA) IDM AN OF ACT UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY.SEEDING, (JAHESTOWN,BANNER, SHADOW,KONET) RTLLIZING AND MULCHING O'CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 96 90 RFTIRWD DURING THE FOLLOWING PERIODS-MARCH 1 TO NAY 15,AND AUGUST 15 TO (TRIFIX"REPENS) TOBER L SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER 1 WILL BE DUNE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION THE PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVIRWENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE MULCHING SATISFACTORY GROWTH W THE EVENT THAT PERANETNT STABILIZATION IS NOT SSIBLE,AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF GROUND COVER,SUCH AS MULCHING,NETTING,L MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECO D40ED TO BE WOOD ASTIC SHEETING,EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED BY NO LATER THAN FIBER CELLULOSE,AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1000 PTEMBER 30. POUNDS PER ACRE 2.MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED SLOPES IbER/CGNTRACTOR THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT GREATER THAN 01(IDRIZONTAL)VERTICAU. TIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS,THE 3.MULCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN SWNLL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION W ALL EROSION AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON•ALL ND SEDIMENT CONTROL.FACILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORM EVENTS,AND AT AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SMALL BE COVERED BY NOVEMBER L AST ONCE EVERY WEEK. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR IF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. TOPSMING SEASON(OCTOBER I TNRU APRIL 30)--W SITES WHERE ININTERUPTED L TOPSOIL SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT DUE TO HIGHLY INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS,THE CLEARING OF LAND,INCLUDING THE DENSE EXPOSED SOILS. MOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER,SHALL BE LIMITED a TOPSOIL SHOULD BE PLACED W SLOPES NOT EXCEEDING aL AS MUCH LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS IN 3.STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING Ov-SITE SOB WAL L ALL ONLY NE IC EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/OR EROSION AND SEDDENT PERMITTED F TOPSOIL IS FRIABLE AND LOAMY (LOAM, SANDY LOAM, RANSPORT OFF-SITE IS OBSERVM SILT LOAM, SANDY CLAY LOAM,CLAY LOAM). CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE 4.STRIPPING SHALL BE CONFINED TO THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION VER DR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING,NETTING,PLASTIC DEPTH�S•A FOUR TO SIX INCH STRIPPING DEPTH 1S COMMON, BUT IEETING,EROSION BLANKETS,FREE DRAINING MATERIAL ETC. WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER SURFACE MAY VARY DEPENDING RU THE S SMALL SOIL ALL WING BEEN CLEARED IR OTHERWISE DISTURBED OF NOT BEING ACTIVELY VORKEL SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL STRUCTURES SMALL BE IN PLACE BEFORE LT FENCING,SEDIMENT TRAPS,SEDIMENT PONDS,ETC., VIL NOT BE VIEWED AS STRIPPING• DEOUATE COVER IN AND IF THEMSELVES,IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT NG ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY TABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED,ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON SITE,EXCEPT FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL MMEDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFORENETNTIIINED LAND AREA HAS BEEN PPROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED. STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT STOCKPILE SHALL DE STABILIZED(WITH PLASTIC COVERING OR OTHER APPROVED DEVICE)DAM BCTWUN tMVEMEM i AND MARCH 3L 2.IN ANY SEASON,SEDIMENT LEACHING FROM STOCK PILES MUST BE PREVENTED, 3.TOPSDIL SMALL NOT BE PLACED WHOLE IN A FROZEN W MUDDY CONDITION,VIER THE SUBGRADE IS EXCESSIVELY VET,OR WHEN CONDITOMS EXIST THAT MAY OTHERWISE BE 1ETRDENTAL TO PRIER GRADING OR PROPOSED SODDING OR SFEDDr- 4.PREVIOUSLY ESTABLIs ED GRADES CM THE AREAS TO 2E TOPSOO.ED SMALL E MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO TIE APPROVED PLANS. STABILIZED CWSTRLICTON ENTRANCE L MATERIAL SHALL BE 4 INCH TO 0 INCH QUARRY SPAILS (4 TO 6 INCH FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS)AND MAY BE TON-DRESSED WITH 1 INCH TO 3 INCH ROCK. (STATE STANDARD SPECFICATTDNS, SECTION B-15.) 2.THE ROCK PAD SHALL BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES THICK AND 50 FEET LONG (20 FEET FOR SITES WITH LESS THAN 1 ACRE OF DISTURBED SOIL).WIDTH SHALL BE FULL WIDTH OF THE VEHICLE INGRESS AND EGRESS AREA SMALLER PADS MAY BE APPROVED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL.SITES 3.ADDITIONAL ROCK SHALL BE ADDED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN PROPER FUNCTION OF THE PAD. 4.IF THE PAD DOES NOT ADEQUATELY REMOVE THE MUD FROM THE VEHICLE WHEELS,THE WHEELS SHALL BE HOSED OF BEFORE THE VEHICLE ENTERS A PAVED STREET.THE WASHING SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA COVERED WITH CRUSHED ROCK AND WASH WATER SHALL DRAIN TO A SEDIMENT RETENTION FACILITY OR THROUGH A SILT FENCE. ILT FENCE GE13TEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SWILL BE PER SPECIFIED IN THE 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL THE PUGET SOUND BASIN,' OR APPLICABLE COUNTY STANDARDS GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF H BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF.JONTS,F JOINTS ARE NECESSARY,FILTER FABRIC SMALL BE SPLICED ETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT OT OR H ENDS TO THE POST. .STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL L BE FASTENED USING V STAPLES OR TIE WIRES (HOG RINGS) P 4 IN PACING .POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS W THIS SHEET,AND IVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND. .WERE MESH SMALL BE 2'X2'X14 GAUGE OR EQUOVILENT,THE WIRE MESH MAY BE ELDNINATED F IRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC(MONO"ILAMENT),AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED. .A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON TICS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE OSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE SILT FENCE, .SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DOVNSLOPE FROM THE CLEARING LIMITS 0-THE PROJECT.