The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEO2014-00053 for BLD2014-00985 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 10/29/2014 �wv'�rotech �wg%weer�wg �z. �c�zv,� - ooGg42 61e0te0hw%caL o E NVM.rOKMeWUL o DrQ%"Oe a RoadwA� October 24,2012 PLANNING RECEIVED Jerry Vermillion PO Box 594 OCT 2 9 2014 Union,Washington 98592 426 W. f5*kR ST. RE: Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 for Vermillion Single Family Residence,*394 State Route 106,Parcel 32234 44 00000,Mason County,Washington Dear Mr.Vermillion, Yl W 3 2 2 3 L4--4L4—C&)n 1 report Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this geotechnical p rt addendum for the above referenced single family residence. The original report, dated July 23, 2008, was prepared by Envirotech (Project #0875). This addendum was prepared in order to provide additional information with relation to the Project and the aforementioned geotechnical report. Specifically, this addendum was prepared in order to confirm that development and existing site conditions were similar with respect to the original geotechnical report, and include the development on a single family residence near the toe of slope. Envirotech conducted multiple site visits with the latest on October 16, 2014. Surface conditions were similar and new geological hazards were not present since conducting our initial geotechnical investigation in 2008. We conclude that the previously proposed development on Lot 1 may proceed per the original geotechnical report. A recently proposed residential development is located at the base of the critical slope. See the attached site plan for the house and septic drainfield locations. For this particular development, there are few geotechnical constraints. This includes provisions for foundations, slope stability, drainage,and septic systems as provided below. Foundations Foundations and fill shall be constructed per the original geotechnical report. However, foundation depth may be reduced to 12 inches below grade. When cutting into the hillside, foundation elevation shall be level with the downslope side of the house unless controlled compaction of the road embankment is achieved. Slope Stability The immediate upslope area is deemed unstable. This shall be mitigated by a foundation retaining wall to hold back the roadway embankment. In addition, a setback of 10 feet is required from the ascending hillside beyond the roadway.The roadway width will satisfy this setback requirement. Drainage Standard foundation perimeter drains are required for this development, and should have a Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 PO Box 984 Page 1 of 2 Vermillion Single Family Residences Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32234 44 00000 Ph.360-275-9374 October 24,2014 Fax.360-275-4789 backflow preventer so that roof water does not inundate foundations. Roof drains shall have an outlet beyond the slope toe. A curtain drain is designed to intercept subsurface water from the hillside and outlet beyond the slope toe. See the drainage details attached to this addendum. Septic Systems Septic drainfield locations are shown on the attached site plan. In order to prevent the possibility of adverse impacts,the drainfield shall be at least 30 feet from the top of local slope. In addition, the curtain drain will remove groundwater to mitigate the addition of effluent. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Best Regards, Envirotech Engineering y CLYDe WA sy c�ITt� P � 43045w� �CISTER� sSICNAL �� Michael Staten,P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 PO Box 984 Page 2 of 2 Vermillion Single Family Residences Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32234 44 00000 Ph.360-275-9374 October 24,2014 Fax.360-275-4789 ATTACHMENTS 1. SITE PLAN 2. DRAINAGE DETAILS SCALE: 1 INCH = 60 FEET 0 EXIST G HOUS \ HOOD CANAL i SILT FENCE 60 exIST` N� FCNCc x x X. _ _ _ TO DECK � SLOPE E�-- EXISTING CULVERT ACTYP) 1013sfnp � - 115' SHORELINE BUFFER HOUSE EXISTING CURTAIN DRAIN 10' SETBACK FROM TOE OF \`` LOCAL SLOPE J � EX1SjING /SLOPE 1 iu 80� TOP OF C � m TOE ❑F EXISTING SE ER LINE LOCAL SLOPE CD 115' STREAM SETBAC 10 0 PROPOSE T 2BD DRAINFIELEXISTI r 120 PROPOSED 4° DIA EXISTIN \ WATER NLINE CORRUGATED DRAI F LD IGHTLINEEN SE DRAIN PR POSED\INTERCEPOR 1 PIPE THI 19 S E DETAIL FEET OF SEWER LINES WITH GROUT OR LARGER DIA. 145, OWNER/ LOCATION: PIPE. / / JERRY VERMILLION 8371 E STATE ;HIGHWAY 106 o ` APPROXIMATE SPRING UNION, WAIN rpN PARCEL 32234-44-90002 HEAD FOR WATER SOURCE / ENGINEER \ EPO BOX NV[ROT984 ENGINEERING 140 DEVE / BELFAR9WASHINGTON 98528 LOT 1 LOPOMENT 360-9975-9374 PER DEVEORIGINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SITE PLAN Geotechnical Report for Vermillion Single Family Residence 8371 State Highway 106 Parcel 32234 44 00000, Lot 1 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 Project#0875 Prepared For: Jerry Vermillion PO Box 594 �wA D tiTgT� Union, Washington 98592 Prepared By: Envirotech Engineering 5�oA �F s ``o 74 NE Hurd Road FSS'O 'AIL Belfair, Washington 98528 Phone: 360-275-9374 EXPIRES JAN 10,2009 Fax: 360-275-4789 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................ 1 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................3 2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................3 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................I......... 3 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology....................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Downslope Geomorphology.................................................................................................. 3 2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE..................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS...........................................................................................4 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION.............»..................................................................................5 3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING........................................................................ 5 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 5 3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................6 3.3.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 SOILS TESTING.............................................................................................................................6 3.4.1 risual Classification............................................................................................•................ 7 3.4.2 Bulk Density......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 3 Direct Shear.......................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................8 4.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Bearing Capacity.................................................................................................................. 8 4.1.2 Settlement...............................................................•••........................................................... 9 4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade...................................................................................................... 9 4.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES........................................................................................................ 9 4.3 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 10 4.3.1 Excavation.......................................................................................................................... 10 4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill........................................ 10 4.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill....................................................................................................... 11 4.3.4 Wet Weather Considerations............................................................................................... 11 4.4 SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL................................................................................ 11 4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts.................................................................................................... 14 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks...............................................••.......................................... 14 4.4.3 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control....................................................................... 15 4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage...... ............................................................................... 16 4.4.5 Vegetation Considerations.................................................................................................. 16 4.4 6 On-site and Off-site Impacts............................................................................................... 16 4.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION......................................................................... 17 5.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A- Site Plan Appendix B -Geologic Map Appendix C -Soil Information Soil Profile, Soil Logs snd Well Reports Appendix D - Slope Stability Input& Output Appendix E—Erosion Control Appendix F—Drainage Details 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a property located at 8371 State Highway 106, identified as parcel number 32234 44 00000, Lot 1, Mason County, Washington(Project). 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; and, recommendations for foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, lateral earth pressures, slope stability, erosion control, drainage and vegetation considerations in the Engineering Analysis and Recommendations Section. An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech with the property owner, Jerry Vermillion, on July 14, 2008. 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. Consequently, the proposed development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.100. During the site visit by Envirotech, surface and subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable Project research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report. 1.1 Project Information Information pertaining to the Project was provided by the property owner with general assumptions by Envirotech that are typical of this type of development. The Project is accessed from an existing gravel surfaced driveway linking State Highway 106. See the vicinity map on the following page of this report.The property is currently vacant land. Logging on this property has occurred at least once or twice in the past. The planned development consists of a 1- or 2- story single family residence which may include a daylight basement. Foundation construction is expected to consist of continuous strip footings and concrete slab-on-grade or stem walls. Anticipated construction other than the residence will include an on-site septic system, and possible ancillary features typical of this type of development. Approximate building footprint with relation to site features are illustrated in the Site Map in Appendix A. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the Project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations relating to the development of the property. The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site activities. 1.3 Scope of Work 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. This included a previous geotechnical study completed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory in a report dated November 2, 2007; • Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements; Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 1 Lot 1.Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23,2008 • Define the general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils extending to a depth of up to 10 feet below the natural ground surface, review geological maps for the general area, research published references concerning slope stability, and review water well reports from existing wells near the Project; • Collect bulk samples at various depths and locations; • Perform soils testing to determine selected index properties of the soils that include 2 visual classifications; • 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. �4� 2; 0 IEwARRER O DCANa -- �� 122r+R2w gyD11 � � 722NR]MI 38 3f 32 EBiRAOUE AYE 1 c� i- E DALBY Rp 33 3D I J 3q 35 � E W►YP�•- �Qi c 1 t E HY AND DR p¢ i S 1Z1Mi3W T21NR2W r OE YMQAIIITA DR 3)( AWNA POIIMR AC.M RD Project Sv� 7rasake 3 t Lks 5697ft q Vicinity Map from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 2 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 II - 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on July 14, and July 21, 2008 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. During the site visits, the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed, site features were documented that may influence construction and slope stability, soil samples were collected from selected locations, and near-surface soils were visually classified. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and slope/ erosion conditions for the Project and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. 2.1 General Observations The Project is currently undeveloped land as previously mentioned. State Highway 106 and the Hood Canal are located beyond the north property line. Beyond the property lines, rural residential development exists. Vegetation on and near the Project consists primarily of alder, fir, maple, 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 Project is situated within and near moderate to steep sloping terrain. The planned building envelope location appears to be primarily on sloping terrain of approximately 14%. The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from the Mason County GIS Department utilizing a lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements. Slope verification included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site Map in Appendix A and the Geological Map in Appendix B in this report for an illustration of general topography with respect to the planned development. 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology Ascending grades are located to the south of the planned development. The slope directly above the planned development is primarily 41%. Grades of up to 65% are depicted on the survey, but are located away from the direct upslope conditions of the future residence. There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned development. 2.2.2 Downslope Geomorphology Descending grades of approximately 29% exist to the north of the planned development with a vertical relief of approximately 37 feet. A steeper grade of about 104% with a vertical relief of up to about 30 feet is located over 150 feet from the proposed residence. An approximate 2:1 fill slope, with a vertical relief of less than 10 feet, is also located to the north of the planned residence. 2.3 Surface Drainage Stormwater runoff originating upslope from the anticipated development is expected to be minimal. Sheet flow down the sloping grades towards the north is expected before it reaches the proposed residence. Most of the runoff is diverted towards the east or west property line. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 3 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington July 23, 2008 Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past drainage problems were not observed at or near the planned development. A convergence zone with a 2 to 3 feet wide stream is located on the neighboring lot. This stream does not appear to influence the subject property or building site. 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations The existing steep slopes 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 or naturally 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. Significant mass wasting on the property or within the general vicinity of the Project were not observed or discovered during research. Indications of past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems,or surficial slope failures were not observed during the site visit. - _� H000 CANAL ��1oe E�pSE _ 4 5 Aerial Photo from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 4 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 ` I 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered on July 14, and July 21, 2008 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. Specific information on field methods, sampling, field testing, subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. Appendix C of this report includes pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the Project, such as subsoil cross-sections, test pit log(s) representative of the bearing soils of the planned building, and water well report(s). Applicable test pit and well log locations are depicted on the Site Plan and Geologic Map 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 extending to depths of up to 10 feet below the existing ground surface, which included existing cuts. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing water well reports originating from nearby properties, geological maps, and the aforementioned geotechnical study completed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory. One bulk sample was collected at the Project site at approximately 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface near the anticipated building location. The soil sample collected was secured and transported for possible laboratory testing. 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 dense soils in the upper 48 inches and very dense soils from 48 inches to the depth of terminus. 3.2 General Geologic Conditions In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster, 2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qg. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated deposits, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation."as revealed in the Geologic Map. Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers. During the Quaternary period, the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets, with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits. According to the "Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington," by Robert L. Logan, 2003, the site soils are grouped as Continental Glacial Deposits from the Fraser glaciation, Vashon Stade. Specific units for this Project include advance outwash, late Wisconsinan (Pleistocene), Qga. From this geologic map, Qga is "glaciological sand and gravel and latchstring clay, silt, and sand deposited during the advance of glaciers; sandy units commonly thick, well sorted,and fine grained,with interlayered coarser sand,gravel, and cobbles and silt rip-up lag deposits at their base; may contain no glacial sediments; generally overlain by till." Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Pb_ 360-275-9374 page 5 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington July 23, 2008 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 described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Using the USCS in conjunction with estimated relative densities and other anticipated engineering properties of the soil, susceptibility for potential landslides, erosion and seismic hazards may be assessed. The Project is composed of native soils with indications of native fill in an isolated area near the proposed building site. For engineering purposes, these native soils consist of distinguishable layers, as presented below. The fill soils are located immediately downslope from the planned residence, and consists of silty sand with gravel (SM). This fill is apparently from cuts during construction of the driveway. The fill is basicallv loose to medium dense, and is estimated to be up to 6 feet in depth. Soils within the upper 4 feet of natural ground were observed to be moist, brown silty sand with gravel (SW. The relative densities of this soil are provided in Section 3.1 of this report. Gravels are primarily fine and subrounded to subangular near the anticipated building location. Sand content was primarily well-graded. The fines content exhibited low plasticity. Soils below the upper 4 feet layer to a depth of at least 10 feet consisted of light brownish grey, dense to very dense silty sand with gravel (SM). According to the well reports, deeper excavations on neighboring properties, geologic maps and knowledge of the general area, soils below the observed 10 feet in depth to at least 100 feet are dense to very dense advance outwash (primarily SM). 3.3.1 Groundwater From the water well report and knowledge of the general area, permanent groundwater is over 100 feet directly below the property at the building pad location. Perched groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on-site, but indicated at a depth of about 90 feet on one of the well reports. 3.4 Soils Testing The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved and transported for possible laboratory testing. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory performed density and a direct shear tests in their laboratory. Visual classification of soils was performed in the field by Envirotech. The following soil tests were performed in accordance with the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM)and AASHTO: 2 Visual Classifications (ASTM D2488); 1 Bulk Density(ASTM C-29);and 1 Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions(AASHTO T236-92) Emvirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 6 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington July 23,2008 3.4.1 Visual Classification The results from the visual classification are presented above in the Subsurface Conditions Section at depths of up to 10 feet below the natural ground surface. Specifically, soils consisted of approximately 15%gravel, 60%sand-sized soils, and 25% silt. Increasing gravel and decreasing silt was observed at greater depths. Minor variations observed during the visual classification of particle size content (i.e. gravel, sand, fines), or isolated pockets within the soil stratification were insignificant in relation to the overall engineering properties of the soil. 3.4.2 Bulk Density Native soil density, determined by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory, revealed a dry density of 129 pcf 3.4.3 Direct Shear Direct shear testing was performed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory. The direct shear test was prepared by remolding a sample into a shear box. Utilizing Mohr's Circle, maximum shear stresses are plotted in conjunction with the normal stress. The apparent strength parameters from the direct shear test indicated soil cohesion of 200 psf, and an angle of internal friction of 39 degrees. These values are consistent with published standards for Advance Outwash. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 7 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington July 23, 2008 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present engineering analysis and 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; and, soil conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in the Subsurface Investigation Section. Engineering analysis and recommendations for the Project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for building foundations, earthwork construction, slope stability/erosion control,drainage,vegetation and seismic considerations. 4.1 Building Foundation Recommendations Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one- or two-story, single family residential structure. Below the upper 12 inches of Project soils,there are apparently two distinguishable layers of soil that will influence the bearing capacity and settlement of the structures. 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 classif`,ing site soils, and deriving probable relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils based on observed field conditions and soil testing for this Project. 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. The soils on-site have low to moderate frost susceptible characteristics and should be used only to the extents provided in this report. Building foundations should not be established in the existing fill soils located within the vicinity of the proposed building pad. For building on the existing fill, foundations should extend at least 12 inches below the bottom of the fill. Alternatively, the fill may be removed and replaced as engineered fill per the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. 4.1.1 Bearing Capacity For the existing site conditions, bearing values should increase with depth. 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. 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. Footing width and depth recommendations shall be adhered to,and are based on 1500 pounds per square feet (psf) maximum structural bearing pressure. For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 1500 psf, a minimum footing width of 16 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 18 inches below the natural ground surface. Foundation recommendations are made available based on adherence to the remaining Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 8 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington July 23, 2008 recommendations that are provided in this report. 4.1.2 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. 4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of compacted coarse, granular material that is placed over undisturbed native subgrade or engineered fill_ Native soils found at the Project site are not suitable for use as the material directly beneath concrete slabs. The top 6 to 12 inches of native soil should be removed prior to the placement and compaction of the aforementioned 6-inch coarse, granular material. Although not required for the structural integrity of the concrete slab-on-grade, a vapor barrier is usually used for damp-proofing. If vapor barriers are used, it is suggested to utilize a barrier that is sufficiently thick to resist puncturing during construction, or place a 2 inch layer of sand above the barrier prior to placing the concrete slab. 4.2 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 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 70 pcf for backfill consisting of engineered fill and native soils, respectively. See the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section for details concerning the use of native soils, engineered fill and placement of backfill. Lateral earth pressure recommendations are based on retaining structures with relatively flat or descending sloping backfill, and the backfill conforming to the recommendations outlined in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. For instances when it is necessary to consider ascending sloping backfill or structures will induce passive earth pressures, additional design parameters must be accounted for in the retaining wall analysis. For these cases, recommendations should only be provided by a qualified engineer after the type of backfill is specified,inclination of backfill slope is estimated, and the final wall height is determined. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 9 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23,2008 4.3 Earthwork Construction Recommendations Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed native soils. 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. 4.3.1 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, 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. It is suggested that foundation excavations are inspected by a geotechnical engineer or qualified professional in order to assess the bearing material prior to the placement of structural footings. 4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fi ll Ili For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is recommended prior to foundation construction_ The following placement and compaction requirements are II necessary. For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath foundations, limits of compacted or h bottom e of the foundation at a rate of edge re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the b g one foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill beneath the foundation. See the illustration below. FOOTING COMPACTED NATIVE SOILS OR ENGINEERED t FILL 1 UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Engineered Envirotech EngineeringGeotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 10 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 fill should consist of 60%to 100%gravel-sized material(particles between 3/16-inch and 3 inches), and less than 10%fines(particles passing#200 standard sieve)by weight. Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 8 inches and 12 inches for 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. 4.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill Native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this Project. Backfill may also 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 to 24 inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to no more than 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density(ASTM D 1557). Over-compaction should be prevented since this will cause lateral earth pressures to increase, which may be detrimental to the retaining structure. If clean, coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, compaction may be achieved from by reasonably densifying granular soils with construction equipment. Backfill for the retaining wall should extend vertically from the top of the footing to the proposed ground surface. At the ground surface, backfill should extend horizontally from the face of the retaining wall to at least 2 feet in back of the wall. Perforated drains for retaining walls should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches and direct water to an appropriate outfall as recommended in the Surface and Subsurface Drainage Section of this report. Coarse, clean gravel is recommended to be placed at least 12 inches around the drain pipe in order to provide increased drainage capabilities. Non-woven geotextile filter fabric should be wrapped around the aforementioned coarse gravel for reducing the potential of silt migration and clogging of the drain pipe. 4.3.4 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. 4.4 Slope Stability and Erosion Control 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' Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 11 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping terrain. 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, excessive and/or repeated surficial slope movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. With appropriate drainage and erosion control provisions for this Project during and after construction, it is unlikely that this Project will experience excessive surficial movements. However, maintenance of the slope must be completed if the situation does arise 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. Stable slopes are generally not prone to landslides due to small grades and accommodating geology. Historically, intermediate terrains have no known landslides. However, this site is considered inherently hazardous due the existing geology and/ or topography, and additional analyses and recommendations concerning the slopes are presented herein. A Stability Map from the Coastal Zone Atlas for the general area of this Project may be found on the following page of this report. According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Project is within terrain labeled `highly unstable' and `highly erodible' relating to soils. In addition, DNR did not indicate previous landslide activity near the Project. DNR also labeled portions of this project as medium and high slope instability with relation to slopes. See the DNR map on the following page of this report. The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing `STABLE' software, was used to analyze the static stability of the site slopes. Various radii's and center points of the circle were automatically selected, and produced factor of safeties in a graphical and tabular format. Worst case scenario in the sloe stability analysis in regards to topography, surcharges, water values were used tY Y g v P content, and cohesion of the site i soils. STABLE software has been repeatedly checked with conservative program. The following manual calculations, and consistently proved to be a very cons p gr g soil properties were used in the analysis, and are based on observed conditions, known geology, and/or published parameters: Top 4 feet of weathered soils • Soil unit weight: 130 pcf • Angle of internal friction: 32 degrees • Cohesion: 50 psf Soils below 4 feet • Soil unit weight: 14 0 pef • Angle of internal friction: 3 8 degrees sf Cohesion: 100 P Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case scenario values from the static analysis, a Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 12 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-2 75-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 quasi-static analysis coefficient of at least 0.15, and applying the applicable values to STABLE software. Anticipated building loads, building pad cuts, or impacts from septic drainfields are not expected to have any detrimental influence on the global stability of the slopes, provided that the setback requirements, drainage and all other recommendations in this report are adhered to. Based on the aforementioned Project criteria, observations, slope stability analysis, and the recommendations in this report, the Project has an acceptable factor of safety of over 1.5 relative to deep-seated, static slope failures. Furthermore, an acceptable factor of safety of over 1.1 for seismic conditions was also concluded for this Project. See the slope stability information in Appendix D for input parameters and example of outputs. For this project, near the planned building site, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic conditions were estimated to be 1.7 and 1.1,respectively. Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources i7a�oea ;�asoea 17w180 7w182 a F.o.e 9 ..a a P.y.1 se..e II Project ,,a.1� +7M 162 / 1 L II( 0 y J ; �.4Y 2 i-' I i 1704120 1704122 Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 13 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23,2008 r , 2 i .� % "• r i n = i 1111�.�. ��]'+� J• e Tah. �Tahuya f-: 1 Sisters Pt 5 -S J _ _ ,4-1 - Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Website 4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts The approximate location of the proposed septic drainfield is presented on the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report. Based on the septic drainfield location with relation to the existing and proposed topography, the drainfields are not expected to adversely influence the structures near the critical slopes. This is also based on compliance with the recommendations in this report. 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks Conservative surcharges from the anticipated site development were used in the slope stability analysis. 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 Geologic Map in Appendix B for an illustration of the setbacks. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 14 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 STRUCTURE TOP OF SLOPE SLOPE FACE 1 1-1 1 1 rFOOTING' �-- 50 FT MIN --� Building Setbacks are not required for the adjacent ascending slopes for this Project. This is based on the slope stability analysis. The analysis provided adequate factors of safety for upslope conditions when utilizing conservative soil strength parameters. 4.4.3 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Based on the USCS description of the Project soils, the surface soils are considered moderate-highly erodible. Temporary and/ or permanent erosion control measures may be 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. Erosion control measures may need to be employed if excessive erosion occurs or required by the County or other prevailing agencies. Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the least extent possible. If necessary, erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales,berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls. 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 E for sketches and general notes regarding selected erosion control measures. The Site Map in Appendix A depicts the recommended locations for erosion control facilities to be installed, if necessary. Permanent erosion control may also be 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 E. 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. Sedimentation control should be adequate when utilizing the erosion control recommendations as presented herein together with implementing appropriate erosion Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 15 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-2754789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 controls with the degree of care as expected from a licensed contractor. Erosion control information ands specifications in addition to what is provided in this report may be found p r ared b in the current "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared y the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 4 4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential loping the ground surface, driveways and sidewalks buildings. Drainage shall include s op g gr 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 mitt will be required. This may or after construction, additional engineered water mitigation q include a combination of swales,berms,drain pipes, or outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structures to an appropriate protected discharge area. required for this Project. Subsurface roof drains are re r � Both footing perimeter drains and q II water intercepted in the footing perimeter drains, and sormwater collected from roof drains shall be tight-lined to an appropriate infiltration location beyond the toe of the steep slope exceeding 100%. Alternatively, roof runoff may be directed towards the f theproperty. If subsurface infiltration is not stream convergence located to the east o � utilized, an energy dissipater is required at the outlet. Subsurface uifilrtration shall not be selected if the outfall is placed within the stream convergence. Recommended infiltration locations are delineated on the Geologic Map in Appendix B, and drainage details are provided in Appendix F of this report. 4.4.5 Vegetation Considerations Vegetation is an excellent measure to minimize surficial slope movements and erosion on slope faces and exposed surfaces. By removing trees, the root strength is decreased over time, thereby lowering the `apparent' cohesion of the soil. Transpiration is decreased, which results in additional groundwater, increased pore water pressure and less cohesion/ friction of the soil particles. Stormwater runoff also increases, and, fewer plants will create less absorption of the force from raindrops, thereby creating the potential for erosion hazards. Vegetation shall remain undisturbed as much as possible for this Project. 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. Previous logging does not appear to have caused detrimental impacts to this property, and therefore is allowed to the least extents possible for upslope development. See the Geologic Map in Appendix B of this report for a depiction of the vegetation buffer for the descending slopes. 4.4.6 On-site and Off-site Impacts From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the property and adjacent properties to the proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 16 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 recommendations in this report are followed. This is based on the expected site development, existing topography, land cover, and the recommendations presented in this report. 4.5 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction 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. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this property is the Tacoma Fault Zone, which lies about 4 miles to the northeast of this Project. This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. The potential for liquefaction and other earthquake induced hazards are believed to be low for this Project. This is based, in part, on the slope stability analysis utilizing seismic considerations in addition to 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. Although gravel- and silt-sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoil for this Project. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 17 Lot 1, Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington July 23, 2008 5.0 CLOSURE Based on the project information 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. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified engineer observes and documents the construction, or Envirotech is promptly notified if project and subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report so that we can re-evaluate our recommendations. 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 protect life and property. Semantics such as `suggested' or `optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed. 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 ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the 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 7841 C0.4) - Michael Staten,P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 18 Lot 1,Parcel 32234 44 00000 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington July 23, 2008 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN 120�, a` FILL •� N SCALE. 1 INCH = 80 FEET 145.00FTt SILT FENCE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILESIDEN( TP2 1 PROPOSED DRAINFIELD 180 OTP1 0 0 m m 0 0 ca o %D �D r r i 240 PROPERTY l_1NE i 2 i 300 PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 150UF�f GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT 340 - JERRY VERMILLION PARCEL 32234 44 000001 LOT 1 NOTES LEGEND MASON COUNTY, WASHDCTON L EROSION CONTROL MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE. GENERAL LOCATIONS, AND ALTERNATIVES TO SILT FENCES SILT FENCE ENGINEER MAY BE UTILIZED AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING REPORT. —a SLOE DIRECTION 74 NE HURD ROAD 2. CONTOURS WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED LAND BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 SURVEYOR. CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED FROM A PUBLIC Leo EXISTING CONTOUR 360-275-9374 LIDAR SOURCE, AND INCORPORATED FIELD MEASUREMENTS AS EXPLAINED IN THOWaTECHNICAL REPORT. TP1e TEST PIT SITE PLAN III . APPENDIX B GEOLOGIC MAP 20 STA HOOD CANAL �yl� yf✓RY 1p6 N SCALE, I INCH 100 FEET 00 40 60� TOE OF SLOPE \ T F 40%+ SL SOFT BUILDING AN /VEGETATION BUFFER 80-` ' 7 SEE RESTRICTIONS IN GE13TECHNICAL REPORT REGARDING EXISTING 100_ A FILL �N j APPROXIMATE AREA OF 120 �% _2,1 �i� TOE OF SLDPE— i THERE IS NO BUILDING 145.00F'Tt ` SETBACK OR VEGETATION BUFFERRESTRICTIONS FOR THE UPSLOPE APP OXIMATE CONDITIONS EXCEPT AS LOCA ION % STATED IN THE REPORT. PRUP SINGLE - FAMIL ESIDENCE 140 S ti 1 — rn� r SOILSi LOOSE TO DENSE SILTY SAND WITH 1� GRAVEL CSM> OVERLYING PROPOSED VERY DENSE SM DRAI FIELD 180`i o d APPENDIX C SOIL INFORMATION VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SCALE, SCALE, I INCH 60 FEET 0 LOOSE TO DENSE SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) ❑POSED HOUSE FILL 14%t 4, c'9%it VERY DENSE SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) F SECTION A-A PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT JERRY VERMILLION PARCEL 32234 44 000001 LOT l MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON NOTES, ENGINEER, ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 1) THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF 74 NE HURD ROAD THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS. BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 LOWER DEPTHS ARE BASED ON SITE GEOLOGY, 360-275-9374 WELL LOG(S), AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL AREA. SOIL PROFILE TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PROJECT: Vermillion SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/14/2008 PROJECT NO: 0875 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: Jerry Vermillion EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00000-1 Lot 1 DRILL RIG: None Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION ILL PI CURVE AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50 0 ............ ................. SM Brown, moist, loose to dense SILTY - SAND with GRAVEL- Gravel is well-graded, subangular and subrounded. 1 _ Sand is coarse. Low plasticity. 2 - 3 4 Light brownish grey, very dense. 5 6 7 8 9 L10 Excavation terminated at approximately 10.0 feet No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site. TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PROJECT: Vermillion SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/21/2008 PROJECT NO: 0875 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: Jerry Vermillion EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00000; Lot 1 DRILL RIG: None Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL STRATA, DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50 0 . ........................................ .......... SM Brown, moist, loose to dense SILTY SAND with GRAVEL. Gravel is well-graded, subangular and subrounded. 1 Sand is coarse. Low plasticity. 2 3 4 Light brownish grey, very dense. 5 6 7 j 8 Excavation terminated at approximately 8.0 feet 9 10 No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering interpreted as being indlcitive of the entire site. WATER WELL REPORT CURRENT W 178504 Original&I"copy-Ecology,Y"copy-owner,P copy-driller Notice of Intent No. E�C0 L 0 t�r Construction/Decommission ("x-in circle) Unique Ecology Well[D Tag No.T�C_�n�7 Q Construction Water Right Permit No. O Decommission ORIGINAL INSTALLATION Notice property Owner Name_Ti m T.tlsk—y nderherk of Intent Nrvnber C�4cI 7 Well Street Address 8301 EHwy 106 PROPOSED USE: Domestic ❑ Industrial ❑ Municipal ❑ Dewater 2Irrigacon ❑Test Well ❑ other City Union County Mason Location NWI/4-1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 34 Twn 22 R 3W Ems'" cmde TYPE OF WORK: Owner's number of well(if more than are) WwM we 30 New welt ❑ Peco ditiooed Method:❑ Dug ❑ Hared ❑ given aon Lot Deg_ Lat Min/Sec ❑ Deepened X cable ❑ Rotary ❑ Jend Lt/L g(s. r DIMENSIONS: Disructaofwetl_ inches,draled ft. Still REQUIRED) Long Deg Long Min/Sec Depth of completed well CorVMUCnON DETAILS Tax Parcel No. 32234-34-00101 Casing tk Welded —6 Diem 5om _ft.to 102 ft. Installed: ❑ Lineritstalled " Diam from it.to ft CONSTRUCTION OR DECOMMISSION PROCEDURE ❑ Threaded ^ Diam from ft.to R Formation: Describe by color,character,size of material and structure,and the kind and Perforations: ❑ Yes tb¢do mature ot'the ma>trial in each mum penetrated,with at least one entry for each change of Type ofperforarorused information- SE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY. SIZE of perfs in.by in.and no.of perfs_from ft to m. MATEMAL FROM lu Screens: IR Ya ❑No j? K-Pac Location 101 Manufacturers Name Johnson Brown =aVet 0 18 Type ' gi-;;i n 1 eSS Model No. Dism. r Slot stm 2� from 103 R to 1 18 76 m Dia Slot aim from—T-ft.[o ft. Br1 GnvoWlterpacked: ❑ Yes. R No ❑ Siaofgtavel/sand Materials placed from R to ft Redish Surface Seel: 2 Yes ❑ No To what depth? 30 ft. Material used in seal Betnni t e Sand & aVPlwith waiter 96 108 Did any strata contain unusable water- ❑ Yes EA No Type of water? Depth of strata Method of sealing strata off PUMP: Manafaeh rer's Name Type: %li H-P — WATER LEVELS: Land-surface elevation above mean sea level ft Static level 5 fL below top of well Date Artesian pressure lbs.per square inch Date Artesian water is controlled by valve etc WELL TEM: Dhawdown is amount water level is lowered below stark level Was a Pump test made? Cl Yes IN No If yes,by whom? Yield: itaUrma with fL drawdown after hrs. Yield: O lain.with ft.drawdown after Ica. Yield galAnin.with ft.drawdown after hrs. Recovery data(rime taken as zero when pump awned off)(water level measwed from welt top to water level) _Time Water Level Time Water Level Time Water Lever F r.9...- Dave of test �V A Hailer test_3.() galJmm.with 65 ft.drawdown after Airtest oJmin.with stem set at fl.for hrs. Lrrr i rr;�t Lii t?i L ?Ili%`Y Artesian flow gp-m. Dace Temperance of water Was a chemical analysis made? ❑ Yes Q No Start Date 2/30/2004 Com;t*(edDate 11/10/20 5 WELL CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION: I constructed and/or accept responsibility for construction of this well,and its compliance with all Washington well construction standards. Materials used and the information reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief. INDrilla❑Engineer❑Trainee N (Prime C Drifting Company nayic r'r'Dri 1 1 i nn Driuer/Enginearrraineesignature d Address NE 340 Ravi--, Farm Rd Driller or trainee License No. 791"f City.state,Tip Be]fair, WA 98528 1fTRAINEE, cooraaor•: 1]AVISDI1100A Nov. OS ( Ihflkr's Licensed No. Registration No Date Driller's Signature Ecology is an Equal Opportunity Employer ECY 050-1-20(Rev 3/05) The Department of Ecology does NOT warranty the Data and/or Information on this Well Report. 7 Me069wMl First Copy%a to 91Yt Card No. 11V QQ LO L V WATER WELL REPORT UNfOW WELL iD.a Acln s1 s $M0nd Copy—oamer a Cam STATE OF WASHINGTON Third Copy—Drlllm's Copy tfretw Rlght PX IN No. 4A L O (1) OWNER: Name r AAlrew - er CL (2) LOCATION OF WELL: Cowry 156^ �t" 1w_,!5jC-104 SKC_,.3 !!�/T_:=N_R W Re) STREET ADDRESS OF WELL 3 w /0 ,`6n ✓ a� (3) PROPOSED USE: it Domestic Industrial ❑ Murcdpal ❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION ❑ Inignit nn DoWa Test Wax en ❑ Cthw ❑ Formosan:oeeoe by oDW,marnew.site of a,eternr and micw a viols a.and slaw Wakns of N ❑ and the red and nature 01 me materiel In sect urahert pefwramo.With At tccat are erney 10f each y (4) TYPE OF WORK: owner's number of well dwelM M"1on"at4". (Ir more than ante) NATMAL FiiOY TO Abandoned❑ Now well 0 Mathod. Duo❑ Bored❑ 0 Dampened O Cable At Driven❑ A a e o tD Remrfdmoned❑ Rotary❑ J~❑ O dl = (5) DIMENSIONS: Dim wtw an wen Indtas. J 4S.,itiv. 1L to Dated 1 0 4 teat. Depth of conrtrieted wen f 1O k E �d (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: �. �� a J i. C R CWeskV Installed: Dime.from n.to /017.4 R Lc wet installed 7 - Diem.from n.to IL Linomended ❑ Diem.from n.to _(L ..t/rs !V. Paforstbnc Yen❑ No vis,4Al.wM7 r.. 0 Type of perforator used .L L SIZE of perforations in.by in. perforations from It.to R pMorations from N.to fL perforawns trap n.to JIL !Q 0 3aewl8: Yes ya ref No❑ Manuiwkxw'sName Ca0 k S IYpe 6 O I< 1 Ca ..1" M- No. S Diem �Slot sae f 0 from J I ft.to/O 7.9 iL DiaRl —Slot size rom n.to IL iGresef pecked: Yea❑ No Size of graven R Gravel placed from n.to IL C . 'S rqf devil+ a, $1RIew awl: Ye9 L7 No El To what ? a fa. Material used in seal O t? Did any strata contain wwssoie watw? Yes❑ No k rrr/ 41 L" z Type of water? Depth of strata n/y d Method of se*hv strafe of T O '0 (7) PUMP: Manufaeraer'a Name Type: _H.P. O (In WATER LEVELS: " ) n Work Sren ,e_ .19 r"tr is�$- O Steec beer Q n.trek.top t was Doe V Anawan oressure for.per square inch Date WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION: W — rf— Artae mn wow is controred by I rmnstrurled and/or apt responsibility for construction of brie welt and its 0 ve'valve ems' acceptcompliance with all Washrtgton wen construction stardards.Materials used and +•+ (9) WELL TESTS: Drawdown is aawuft water bvet is towered tariow, E.S.ravel the irdormatbn reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief. Was a pump Dist male?Yes❑ No❑ If yes.try whom? i �d , l // ,11` YeW gd.rfrrrr.with n,dra*doan ellor era. NAME �I�Crgffer-•r-t 1A`1r L,/rl"l lie./4 1 CC .. .. Address� 'Z/�l(�C1CL �ya!IVA-n 'g cY� W Q Recovery data{tines taken as zero when pump turned off)Iwatw ievel rtteasured iron well (Signed) License No. L/ tap 10*soar W.*) nrrni> t TWO WOW Level Tore Wow Lwat The mar Level Contractors t$! flag►stratbn zO 5r-� (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) an"test (,gal.rmtn.with fL drawdown after 7,tea. Aetest gal.rmin_with stern set at n.for Ma. Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affi mauve Action e1n~.For ape- Amman low g.pm_ Dam teal accommodation needs,contact the Water Resources Program at(206) Temperature of water Was a ctwrnrcel atetyso rues? Yes❑ No❑ 40143600.The TOO number is(206)407.6006. ECYQ.%t-W(tw)--t Fife Or4nal and Fiat "Card with WATER WELL REPORT St' "No 034806 D•parrmer of Ecology Second Copt—owner's Copy STATE OF WASHINGTON Third Copy—Drillers Copy � water Right Permit No. 0 (1) OWNER: Ms.�D Y „tee.. E$050 Hwy? 106 Union 98592 CL all � (2) LOCATION OF WELL: County Masan Gov. Lot 3 %SE ,< sew 34 T 22 M..R 3 W.M. (2e) STREET ADDDRESS OF WELL(or nsareat address) 40 (3) PROPOSED USE: ® Domestic Industrial ❑ Municipal❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION 11 Irrigation H ❑ Dowel" teat Wall ❑ Other ❑ froreollon: 0••crb by color. dwaetr, else of material all atactt.., and,af101r It•ctaoss of ateal•rs sad tits kind Bad oattare of ms omtww in each seeenea psashelad. (4) TYPE OF WORK Ohsesr•s 101041 or well wren at inset takes ovary,for each eunee a itnr•rmatSon '(it make Man one) MATERIAL iacrr TO 0 Abandoned❑ New well a Method: Dug ❑ Bored ❑ Deepened ❑ Cable W Driven ❑ 0 Reconditioned❑ Rotary❑ J461"d ❑ .0 (5) DIMENSIONS: Diameter of well 6 Inch". E Drilled 9-9 fast. Depth of completed well 99 ft. L t0 (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: Cemented sand & gravel with water 45 1 94 = Casino Instatled: 6 Dlam.from 0 ft.to 94 n. Welded ¢ Dlem.hate R.to n. L inm inatatlad LJ Threaded ❑ Dlam.from R.to R. Perforadons: ye*C W X O 0 Type of perforator used SIZE of perforations Is.by in. RI perforations from ft.to R. ponaratfoes imm n-to—"- perforations ham R.to R_ •-- Screens: r.s No t MA Nufactureea makes EA�k +a Type Stainless MONO .6.0 Diem. 'Slat alza 50 tram 94 n.to 99 ft. r— Diem. Slot aze -how R.to—it. LGravel packed: Yes No 84ie of grarat ' Gravel placed from l� h.to n_ ' Surface pal: yes Lb r,❑ To what depth4 is R- Q Metenal used in sea lietnni to Z Did any strata contain unusable water? Yea LJ Noll U) Type of water? Depth of*irate 0 Method of seallog strata off` (7) PUMP: Monutaefwr'sName MVPrC T 1 Type. sub.. H-P }Z 0 (Jj) WATER LEVELS: ib aorlikes os6ovoi 0 Static level 33 ft.below lep of well Dot. LU ArteoWnpresaurs fbs.pwaquareInch Dote fi— Artesian water Is controlled by 0 D-ww..ic. on Workstarted .19. Completed fain i.. (9) WELL TESTS: Drawdowais amount watat level is lowered below static)level Wass pump test made?Yso❑ tb ] R yea,br whwr? WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION: Ywld: gal./Mm.renh ft.drewdowe aver les- 1 constructed anchor accept responsibility for construction of ttdB wei, and Ns compliance with all Washington wall construction standards- ID Materials used snd the information reported above are true to my beat CL Recovery data(time taken assoro when pump tamed oft)(water level measured knowledge and belief. QI Irma WON top to water Somali Q Trite watwia.at Ti— Warert.a.al Tin. Water Lwel NAME OdV1S I3rillintz O'Eaw 9a ,ii CCWDRATIM rrrvE aR sawn t Address Date of tea 0797 (Signed) Liun n No. sailer tea 8 gal.I min.with. 0 n.drewdown often fee. (:pnfraetOt•e � VLLH1) Aisne gal.rmYL with stem eat ai ft.for (.ke_ Registration Artesiort flow g.p.m. Dote No. Date Tillam - Temparatreof water—Was a ehsmicat errtysia meder You❑ No L-][ (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) ELYOWO120 (10,67) -1321k- -01W3 ' APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project : Vermillion Datafile: dynamic = ENShoP STABLE Version 9.03.00u Bishop ++a+a++++ra++++a+++a++++++as++++++++++++++++++++a+a+++++++ TITLE dynamic UNITS (Metric/Imperial) I GEOMETRY DEFINITION POINTS NO. X Y 1 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 -4.000 3 50.000 7.000 4 50.000 3.000 5 98.000 27.000 6 98.000 23.000 7 174.000 47.000 8 174.000 43.000 9 236.000 67.000 10 236.000 63.000 11 283.000 87.000 12 283.000 83.000 13 318.000 107.000 14 318.000 103.000 15 368.000 127.000 16 368.000 123.000 17 411.000 147.000 18 411.000 143.000 19 447.000 167.000 20 447.000 163.000 21 493.000 167.000 22 493.000 183.000 23 543.000 196.000 24 543.000 193.000 25 54.300 8.790 26 77.160 18.320 27 100.030 27.530 28 122.890 33.550 29 145.750 39.570 30 168.620 45.580 31 191.480 52.640 32 214.340 60.010 33 237.210 67.510 34 260.070 77.240 35 282.930 86.970 36 305.790 100.030 37 328.660 111.260 38 351.520 120.410 39 374.380 129.970 40 397.250 140.600 41 420.110 152.060 42 442.970 164.760 43 465.840 175.190 STABL.E02002 MZ Associates Ltd Primped on: 17107= @ 08A3:31 Page: STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project : Vermillion Datafile: dynamic Bishop 44 488.700 185.130 LINES Lo X Hi X SOIL 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 7 1 7 9 1 9 11 1 11 13 1 13 15 1 15 17 1 17 19 1 19 21 1 21 23 1 2 4 2 4 6 2 6 8 2 8 10 2 10 12 2 12 14 2 14 16 2 16 18 2 18 20 2 20 22 2 22 24 2 +++++++++++a++++aa+++aaa+++++++++++++++++a+++++++++++++++a SOILS SOIL NAME LINETYPE-PEN COHESION FRICTION UNIT WT. 1 Soil-1 CONTINUOUS-BLACK 50.00 32.0 130.000 2 Soil-2 CONTINUOUS-BLUE 100.00 38.0 140.000 PORE PRESSURE SPECIFICATION SOIL PIEZO RU EXCESS Y/N/P Value Value 1 N 0.000 0.000 2 N 0.000 0.000 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE POINT POINT PORE PRESSURES POINT PRESSURE ++aa+++++++++++aa++++a++aa+++++++++a++a++++a++++++++++++++ SLIP DIRECTION (+/- X) STABLE02002 MZ Associates Ltd Printed on: 17107MO @ 08:43:31 Page: 2 1 . O O 1 _ 2 0 1 . 3 0 1 _ 40 �y 1 _ 6O T _ 7 0 1 ` 1 _ 80 1 . 90 \ =2 _ 00 i / j 'r Proj act V� rm illi_aii Data .Eile static Aria-1ysi. s BisYz«p 9TAH2.n�200d N12 Am Aocia T.as LtcY :L . 00 1 _ 3- 0 1 _ 2 0 1 _ 3 0 1 _ 4 0 1 . 5 O 1 _ 60 ]_ _ 7O 1 . 80 1 _ 9 O 2 _ 0 i 97 L'roj r_milliori Datafilc _ dynamic Analysis Bist-iop 9TABLD•-1,OOZ hIZ A-cl Ce.m LCd APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 2'x2' WOOD POST (TYP) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAP AROUND TRENCH OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH TO AT LEAST ENTIRE 2 6 FT MAX. O.C. BOTTOM OF TRENCH Os Fr BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR 6 FT 12' DEEP, B' VIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER EXISTING FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2) T GROUND SURFACE Z WASHED GRAVEL i 2.5 FT I— DEEP, 8' WIDE DIRECTION IR ECRION OF EXISTING TRENCH FILLED WITH 1 T GROUND SURFACE 3/4' TO 1 1/2' 25 FT WASHED GRAVEL �8. BOTTOM EXTENTS OF GE13TEXTILE FABRIC SILT FENCE - DETAIL Sri _ C SS SECTION N.T.S. N.T.S. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES- GENERAL NOTES, SOD PLACEMENT 1. SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON 1. S13D FOR GRASS SVALES SHALL BE MACHINE CUT AT A THESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR 3/4-INCH UNIFORM THICKNESS AT THE TIME ON CURING. SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. MEASUREMENTS FOR THICKNESS SHALL EXCLUDE TOP GROWTH AND 2. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE THATCH. INSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED, IF NECESSARY. 2. STANDARD SIZE SECTIONS OF SOD FOR GRASS SWALES SHALL 3. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE LEFT IN BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN WEIGHT AND RETAIN PLACE UNTIL THE UPSL13PE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. THEIR SIZE AND SHAPE WHEN SUSPENDED BY THE END OF A 3 TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES FOOT SECTION 3. SOD FOR GRASS SVALES SHALL NOT BE HARVESTED OR TRANSPLANTED WHEN EXCESSIVELY DRY OR WET MOISTURE FOR ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED LAND CONTENT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS SURVIVAL. DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A 4. SOD FOR GRASS SVALES SHALL BE HARVESTED, DELIVERED PERIOD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE AND PLACED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 36 HOURS. IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR. GRASS SEEDING SEEDING FOR RAW SLOPES ALONE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER. HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF 1. BEFORE SEEDING, INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR, BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR DIKES, OR OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT. SVALES, LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS. 2. THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE, DRY SEASON (MAY 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 30) -- THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING SURFACE ROUGHENING. PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER, MUST BE LIMITED TO ACCROSS OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. ONLY AS MUCH LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE 3. SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS, AS SHOWN BELOW, AND SHOULD BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 120 POUNDS PER ACRE BY NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 OF A GIVEN YEAR. UNLESS IMMEDIATE 4. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN MAY 1 AND OCTOBER 31 VILL STABILIZATION IS SPECIFIED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, ALL REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO AREAS CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED FOSTER AND PROTECT THE ROOT STRUCTURE THROUGH THE USE OF MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, 5. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 30, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., BY SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED ARMORING OF THE SEED BED VILL BE NECESSARY, (eg., PLAN OF ACTION. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, GEOTEXTILES, JUTE MAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING). FERTILIZING AND MULCHING [IF CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE 6. FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING TO SUPPLIERS, PERFORMED DURING THE FOLLOWING PERIODS, MARCH 1 TO MAY 15, AND AUGUST 15 TO RECOMMENDATIONS. AMOUNTS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED, ESPECIALLY OCTOBER L SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER I WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COIPLETI13N ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS. OF THE PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVDROMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE TO SATISFACTORY GROWTH. IN THE EVENT THAT PERANENT STABILIZATION IS NOT USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSION POSSIBLE, AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF GROUND COVER, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, CONTROL, OR A COUNTY APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTUURE. PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED BY NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30. PROPORTIONS PURITY GERMINATION IN THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT NAME BY WEIGHT Go ACTIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE (X) OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORM EVENTS, AND AT REDTOP (AGROSTIS ALM 10 92 LEAST ONCE EVERY WEEK. THE OWNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FON 90 THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. ANNUAL RYE (LILIJM MULTIFLORUkD 40 98 90 WET SEASON (OCTOBER I TH9RU APRIL 30) -- ON SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED CHEWING FESUE 40 97 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS, THE CLEARING ON LAND, INCLUDING THE 80 REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER, SHALL BE LIMITED (FESTUCA RUBRA COMMUTATA) TO AS MUCH LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED VITHIN 24 HOURS IN (JAMESTOWN, BANNER, SHADOW, KO(ET) THE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 % TRANSPORT O-F-SITE IS OBSERVED 90 (TRIFOLIUM REPENS) ALL CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC MULCHING SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAINING MVATERIAL, ETC., WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED IF NOT BEING ACTIVELY WORKED. 1. MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE WOOD SILT FENCING, SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, ETC., WILL NOT BE VIEWED AS FIBER CELLULOSE, AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1000 ADEQUATE COVER IN AND [IF THEMSELVES. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT POUNDS PER ACRE BEING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY 2. MACH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED STABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 211 (HORIZONTAL.VERTICAL). THE SITE, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL 3. MULCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN IMMEDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFOREMENTIONED LAND AREA HAS BEEN AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON. ALL APPROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED. AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SHALL BE COVERED BY NOVEMBER 1. SILT FENCE PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIONi L GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SHALL BE PER SPECIFIED IN THE 'STORMVATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN; OR APPLICABLE COUNTY STANDARDS 2. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROB_ CUT TO THE LENGTH OF GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT EACH BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS. IF JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED JERRY VERMILLION TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT BOTH ENDS TO THE POST. 0O0 0 PARCEL 32234 44 01 LOT 1 3. STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FASTENED USING V STAPLES OR TIE WIRES WOG RINGS) @ 4 IN MASON COUNTY, 4 000 SPACING. 4. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET, AND ENGINEER+ DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 5. WIRE MESH SHALL BE 2X22 X14 GAUGE OR EQUIVALETNT. THE WIRE MESH MAY BE ELIMINATED IF 74 NE HURD ROAD EXTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC (MONOFILAMENT), AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED. BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 6. A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE 360-275-9374 POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE SILT FENCE 7. SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DOVNSLOPE FROM THE CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. ER❑SI❑N CONTROL STEEL CLAMPS (TYP) CORRUGATED TIGHTLIN7(TYP), 10 FT MIN SPACING 1/2 INCH DIAMETER 6-INCH MIN. DIAMETER SECURELY FASTENED TO PIPE 8-12 INCH QUARRY SPALL OR APPROVED ENERGY DISSIPATOR LEVEL SECTION 4' x 6' MINIMUM AREA TWO 000000000OpOpOp - ANC 00000000000o00 1 FT MIN. #4 REBAR OR o000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 EQUIVALENT 3 FT MIN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TIGHTLINE DETAILS N.T.S. NOTE: TIGHTLINE MAY BE PLACED UNDERGROUND IN LIEU OF ANCHORS. IF UNDERGROUND TIGHTLINE IS USED, PIPE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 1 FT COVER AND PLACED AWAY FROM TRAFFIC. OUTLET SHALL BE ABOVE GROUND FOR THIS PROJECT. PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT JERRY VERMILLION PARCEL 32234 44 000001 LOT 1 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ENGINEER: ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 96528 360-275-9374 DRAINAGE DETAILS DE3GRIPTIDN IUARNING: THAT POWILN OF GOVEPNPENT LOT 16ECTIGN!/,TOYNSIIIP 22 NORM,RA"3 KEST,YII•L LYNG Y 67ERLY OF THE FOLLL DEWMBED LIFE, C4Pf-V IFG AT TIE 6QR4EA1r COEER CF SAD OEGTKN S6 THE/CE N S9'S472'W ALONG THE SOUTH LNE TWMWE .,44UI FEET TO THE POW O B N,I G OF THE LINE FEREBY DESCRIBED'itEFCE N 411'09'4N'W,"w 1.RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPENSES FOR FEET,FLOW OR LEM,TO THE SOIRERLY Rk5NT-OF-I1447'LNE OF STATE MOUM 4 ,THENLE N M'29'GD'E 10 FEET MOM OR 1.E46,TO THE NORTH LME OF GOVEIPYENT LOT I AO THE iE IFUb O THE IEREM DESCRIBED BUILDING,IMPROVEMENTS,OR MAINTENANCE OF LIE. EASEMENTS AND PRIVATE ROADS LEADFG TO EXCEPTM TWE1EFROT RYMR-W-WAY FOR STATE IR01IfE AM,AND EXCEPTING THERBRCTI ANY TIDELADS CONVEYED BY THE STATE OF WANNIGTOy SII M N FT6'YIT OF ADJACENT TO,AND ABITI'M TFIETON OR SERVING LOTS WITHIN THIS SHORT SAID LAND BEND ALSO IONLVN AND DESOWI AS TIE MS(LTNG PARCEL I OF MOUNDARY LIFE ADAOTFENT NO.06-IF RECOIOED I1yKN 2-2XICS,AUOiI`R'6 FILE NO b3— SUBDIVISION(UNLESS SUCH ROADS HAVE II BEEN ACCEPTED INTO THE CO NI'Y'S ROAD TGY,17 ER—A FEIrE71AL EA1697 TIT FOR IIY•RE80 AND BMW"AS GR WIMP M MTF."N RECORDED AL Y 23,IWO AOIT0R9 FILE NO.442620,RERECORDED FF04H ARY 4,1991,AUDI,OR'3 FILE NO.I61p2Y. SYSTEM)SHALL REST 96TF1 THE LOT OWNERS. I 2.ANY FURTHER DIVISION OF LOTS WITHIN THIS TOGETHER 0114 A NCI-EXCLUSIVE EA6EI'ENT FOR ROAD AO UTILITY FU V-06FS,'OVER A ROAD TOM CON6TRCTED',AS RESERVED N MTIiYENT MCOI®EV HAY 3,—,-011`R'9 FILE NO Y36SK 'i SHORT SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUWECT TO THE T04ETIER WTH AND SUD.ECT TO EASEFIENTS.REOTRCTIOb,AND REWWATIO S OF REOOI®. �,`� REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 1636 OF MASON \ COUNTY CODE. 9�1 \ 3.DECLARATION OF$F1C)IFT SqD IVISICN cALOLArEv F�smav PER �' V AUDITOR'S FILE NO..��``11 29.11 1°lNFCOM�-CEDE.-PIPPEENOT �/ F �m�' DIRECTOR'S APPROvAL 5,¢!T> \ O - l \ ' 1,01 7A710h1 3 'SB9� (M°AIL \•\ J 1^vl z3s Q, n yE _ APPROVED FOR WCORDING PURSUANT To pIyiNB; ,VI MASON COUNTY TITLE 1636 �I�OT /LTus 1 ��s— NOTE$: t of croR OF corraiiiTi oEvELINT ccNCRETE[, .. FouND BLUIt't 6aR I CAI' \ 94 CLLYERT _—__/ •.. ..A DAT A VED..!.��lplv.. —4 IE51 OF LIE / SEE,SURVEY BY KEVIN BLUl M VOLUTE 24,PAGE 53. E FFRO BUILDING SEE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE ' UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.033820.. oR uEa,aT LIFE �.8+�/ IFlE I \ FEED FOR RECORD TN18... ...DAY OF SEE ONEILS PEBBLE COVE CONOOMINILM VOLUME 10 PAGE 149. , ��-1 MAR g � ) a'IOV ��--� $'9.ae IIOE MADE ILDING\ kIFF�.. 20.04.AT..4Y4...'Ri M O I _Bu IGs.eo ,m SEE UNRECORDED SURVEY OF PEBBLE COVE. VOLUME. OF SHORT PLATS,PAGE o TER TAMC vELOPE DANIEL F. MAN `] Fa+dD EY.IIFM GM.GAP ^ I EASEFENT FOR l�wA EN AT THE 'S FIIESi O. 1 ........ B26 KEbT OF LIFE I �_..".,� ^ / ALL RECORDS OF MASON COUNTY,WASFIINGTCN AUDITOR'S FILE NO.. g3 �I.Q...... NY#aS.FOR ' AND UTILITY 9FRVICE 25 WIDE �.FIO. TYPE 4 � \;-�........u a ACREAGE'S CALCULATED TO THE EDGE OF VEGETATION OF HOOD e sTI9EArI CANAL. C \ 3 \ 115� ��, nl n THE LOTS,PARCELS,OR TRACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS LAND MASON COUNTY A4mITOR ....... ... .. EASlP@If WDTH Nm D''4''07' -1..J < a SEGREGATION NAVE BEEN CREATED WITHOUT CREATING A LOT j AF NO.SO � .'It. I \yJ1 '$I LOT TI POTABLE WATER SUPPLY.NO BUILDING PERMIT NECESSITATING 25,VPLt 4VT 3i 2"AC I POTABLE WATER REQUIREMENTS AS REQUIRED BY TOE MASON tSURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE srRe•W I 1; `,I 2L10 AC I COUNTY WEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR Rc g DAYLIr;MIrA / I I I + THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRE8ENT8 A SURVEY BAR 4 0 \ `\? B,B I pb,E WATER OTWDRAWNLS FROM ANY AND ALL EXEMPT WELLS APPLY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN FOB 0»SEAT O'EW -!\ �1 TO PARCELS CREATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LOT,PARCEL NO. CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUILDING^' ----- BOG BN I � ry 32234-44-00000,AND ARE LIMITED TO 5~GALLONS PER DAY THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE REQUEST >;N E B J� I TOTAL UNLESS A WATER RIGHT 16 OBTAINED FOR TUNE ADDITIONAL OF.MQrNTA NA MAC'-H...................... i - VOLUME ABOVE THE EXEMPT GALLONS.THE AMOUNT OF / 1 IN...APRIL....20.0!. - . 'in•dAER FER 4Aelrar I I ; WATER THAT CAN BE WITHD FRCI'7 EACH LOT 19 SPECIFIED !•' n ' y"i' MANAGEFENT FT-AN BY LEE BELOW: �,... LOT 1.)?50 GALLONS,LOT 2•1,2"GALLONS,LOT 3•1.250 ''�T 'I•'' GALLON6,LOT 4.030 GALLONS -.- DANIEL F.WOLHAN Pi-S.NO.FS659 9 LOT 2 I RESULTING PARCEL 2 SELF y 15fl3AC �ATNS V+ BLA 05-010 f O NOTE: \ �\\. $_ I u r 1 ARC946M BIGg6 OR HISTORICAL RESOI/i.Ee,SICK AS BIRD GIULONW,ARFFACT6,F06611.6,OR DINER OBECTS OF ANrIOSTY LINE TABLE MAY 644e V 'T rofAT MAY NAVE AK FICANCE AWH A IMSTORCAL OR SCIENTIFIC 0.$ V= NO. 15EARNG DISTANCE /O`Y 1 I Sllm ,w MAY BE B MfflED BY TIE DEVELOPER A 2pN4L LANo+ CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE RRIHER DISTLRGED.F TIE Q=== $ LOT I ' LI N 09'79'45"W 101.41 I DEVELOPER/OORR R ACTO EICOU MW ANY ARFFAC78,HE C DHE SHALL"-EDIA1ELY STOP LLCIIC AND NOTIFY MASON CONTY Em'a 200 AC L2 N 01'06'25"E 61.46 AND TIE W4 MTON STATE DEPARRlNT OF AIE 4AEOLOSY AND 06-7151JUK �� 4 L3 N 62.53'11"E 54.03 I n HISTORIC PIC9EMATION FAILYE TO DO 60 MAY RESULT N CIVL 06-215bM1 t9S•ft' L4 N 40'56'43"W 3907 FENALnee. L6 N 11'55'05"W 2633 L6 N l4'ST89"E 9Sbl SNORT SUBDIVISION NO.�043.. .. I n 5 L1 N 12.34'31'E 1323 FOUND NORRIS SHORT' PLAT r�$Ii �9 Hemp o'E63 RESULTING I BAR FOR J LID N 13225 09'W 69b1 4� 1 .-�=o• � N 89.49'07'E LII N 57'1T3?'w 66.14 PARCEL 1 I LEGEND x MONTANA REACH 6 145. L12 N 34'55'41'W 36.11 BLA 05-010 I °' M 7�'00 LI3 N 41'' .45.W "to �W .b IRON BAR WITW YELLOW W DE 2 SE v4 LB N 14'S7'69"E 603 I PLASTIC CAP SET I SECTION S4,TOSNSWIP 22 NORTH RANGE!WEST,WM L16 N 158033'E 5336 0.FOUND 3/4"BAR 4 CAP, n PARCEL E A",4 ION W4,G E STATE IIEOUIE IG6,UNION 9L4 98692 SCALE: 1•••100 FEET I UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 8 f36EJ 79I-3360 ■ SOIL LOG HOLE FOUND OLD PIPE 4 CAP • FOUND 0.4N NOR H oTI WST NO� 0 50 100 200 I ® .PROPOSED WELL SITE NOLMAN t A650GIAtfiB �- _ —— —`/ F'ROFE6SICNAL LAID SUIFErEYOR1 — 287.59 52 CA&CI91M—' J PA BOX D 6L eu.n �u.e1 A 2-21 N WA ,(3TON 9aaSt N MID4'34'E 237.104 YEAS _ (bbG)4]6-2+lD PIOFl,(%O)tlI-2N0 FAX N e9I)SYe'E 2373.Te.OS RAND GLUM OAR. DATE JOB ND ■alum-DNi AND PROCEWRE6 CAP LM Nt7Rnl7b1.11wFOUND&TOO FlIcklu-mw WIN B RNS EOIIIFTENF LIETT 6 6E—THECOO-ITE (91ERNACKI FAMILY TRUST) IUS9'lI+EMCE T ON ILA 115 AFRIL,7001 06-218 px WTH EOFI 1-1 CAL IBRA,ED CRAM TREFS cwm BY aCALE I aEET F1KX.ECIAE:FIELD 1FW v£RSE DCW I'.100' I OF 1/4' - V CLEAN GRAVEL NOTES, O O O O O O 1) IF IMPERVIOUS SUBSURFACE LAYER IS GREATER THAN 6 FEET IN DEPTH, CURTAIN O O O O O O DRAINS SHOULD NOT BE USED. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC O O 0 2) SLOPES FOR CURTAIN DRAIN TRENCHES 000000 SHALL BE BETWEEN 1.0% AND 2.0%. 0 0 0 0 0 0 VARIABLE 3) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL MEET THE HARDPAN, CLAY OR 00 0 00 0 00 O FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS, OTHER IMPERVIOUS TYPE SURFACE 0 O 0 O PROPERTY REQUIREMENT TEST METHOD 6 IN C O GRAB STRENGTH 80 LBS ASTM D4632 0 O PUNCTURE STRENGTH 25 LBS ASTM C4833 0_0 T TRAPEZOID TEAR 25 LBS ASTM C4533 1I APPARENT OPENING SIZE > #50 US SIEVE ASTM D4751 �- 2 FT - PERMEABILITY 0.004 CM/SEC ASTM D4491 4-INCH PERFORATED PIPE CURTAIN DRAIN DETAILS N.T.S. STEEL CLAMPS (TYP) l0 FT MIN SPACING 1/2 INCH DIAMETER CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE SECURELY FASTENED TO PIPE SIZE PER PLAN TO CATCH BASIN NOTES: TWO 5-FOOT 1. IT IS SUGGESTED TO UTILIZE A ANCHORS CTYP), HEAT WELDED HIGH DENSITY A4 REBAR OR POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) PIPE IN LIEU EQUIVALENT OF CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE. PLASTIC PIPE MAY HAVE A LOWER LIFESPAN THAN HDPE. 2. INSPECT ALL CATCH BASINS, PIPES, GUTTERS AND ENERGY TIGHTLINE DETAILS DISSIPATORS EVERY 3 MONTHS, AND N.T.S. MAINTAIN AS NECESSARY. PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT JERRY VERMILLION �ENDUM PARCEL 32234 44 000001 LOT 1 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ENGINEER- ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING PO BOX 984 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 DRAINAGE DETAILS