HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2008-01310 GeoTech Report - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 12/15/2008 �en,vil'otecl� ��n,��weeYiw�
ceotectivuLao.° EvwLrov,,vwt.mtal,°proLvwage ° Roadway
C �
F� 1 7
December 15, 2008
Dave Kamin
PO Box 2491
Shelton, Washington 98584
RE: Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 for Kamin Properties Single Family
Residences, Parcel 32234 44 00010,Mason County, Washington
INTORDUCTION
Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this geotechnical report addendum
for the above referenced single family residences. The original report, dated August 4,
2008, was prepared by Envirotech(Project #0878). This addendum was prepared in order
to provide additional information with relation to the Project and the aforementioned
geotechnical report. The following sections include Project Information; Earthwork and
Retaining Structures; and, Conclusions. These sections correspond to comments by the
Mason County Department of Community Development in a review letter dated
December 2, 2008.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The development of this Project may include retaining walls and substantial earth moving
activities. Retaining walls are expected to comprise of nearly 240 linear feet of gravity
(rock) wall. See the revised Geologic Map attached with this addendum depicting the
retaining wall location. Wall heights will be variable, but not exceed 12 feet. Excavation
into the upslope soils may be required for wall placement. According to the owner, less
than 200 cubic feet of soil excavation will be completed in conjunction with the retaining
wall construction.
EARTHWORK AND RETAINING STRUCTURES
It is our opinion that retaining structures are not detrimental to the geotechnical design of
this Project. The unprotected bank may slowly unravel over a long period of time to the
angle of repose. The angle of repose for this material is probably between 38 and 42
degrees. The retaining structure, if constructed, is expected to prevent this process.
Likewise, excavation into the backfill soils would not be detrimental to this Project if all
design parameters are adhered to in both the original geotechnical report and rock wall
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 1 of 2 Kamin Single Family Residences
Fax 360-275-4789 Parcel 32234 44 00010
December 15,2008
design. This includes the maximum wall height of 12 feet, and building setbacks of at
least 50 feet from the top of slopes exceeding 40%.
Although structures at anticipated locations are not expected to incur adverse impacts due
to the planned retaining wall, additional recommendations are provided in this addendum
for instances when expected structure locations are changed. Foundations for the single
family residences should have a setback between the back of the retaining wall to the
front of the residence that is equal to or greater than the wall height. For the current
retaining wall design, this setback should not exceed 12 feet.
In addition, drainage collected from the single family residences should provide an outlet
that will not influence the rock wall. Drainage outlets should be located at least 50 feet
upslope from the top of the wall, or placed in an upslope location beyond the extents of
the retaining wall. This may be within a break in the wall such as the east side of Lot 2, or
beyond the wall ends.
CONSLUSION
Envirotech is pleased to submit this addendum for the Kamin single family residences.
This addendum provided additional information, conclusions and recommendations
concerning the project. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any
questions, comments, or require additional information.
Best Regards,
Envirotech Engineering
CLYDE S
WAS y 'I)tt
0�+ 43045 Q k�
�FCIST6R4 <v
�SSrDNAL��G`
Michael Staten, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 2 of 2 Kamin Single Family Residences
Fax 360-275-4789 Parcel 32234 44 00010
December 15,2008
r
ATTACHMENTS
1. GEOLOGIC MAP
G AOt.
HOOD CANAL bd �� SCALE, 1 INCH = 150 FEET
a p 0 75
PROPOSED RETAINING SjATE-HIA 1
WALLS (TYP) pe
C
1�''1 iJnl lrl c�-`f� '� ►J f7 ;
20- PE TOP �1VI.y ��'�1 2 ` I�
EXCEEDING 0% /
SOFT BUILDING AND ROPOSED SINGLE
VEGETATION B FFER AMILY RESIDENCE— _5,n
40---- POSED,SI E
/ 'RESIDENCE µ
60 P OSED S
FAM Y-RESIDENCE
RP1
BO
100—
LOT
120 - LOT 3
C�r.E n
140
t
160
1so,
200 la
=L
TO DbiSE WELL 41
GRADED GRAVEL VITH
SAND AND',
220 M> OVER..ZfING DENS ..
DENSE_TO VERY�.at
V-AND qP-GM
24
260 _i TM
280
300
3
360 LEGEND
390
� BUFFER/SET BACK
400
—� SLOPE DIRECTION
420 _-eo EXISTING CONTOUR
440- TPI TEST PIT
460
JECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIONr
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
480 GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC
PARCEL 32234 44 00010
j SLO E TOP MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
EXC EDING 40%
300 ENGINEER-
ENVD20TECH ENGINEERING
74 NE HURD ROAD
BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 99529
360-275-9374
GEOLOGIC MAP
' GEO 202) -�1 l
Mason County Review Checklist
for a Geotechnical Report
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed
for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should
explain the basis for the conclusion. The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings,
discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally
consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If
resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
Applicant's Name: KAM) 'V
Permit#: &co202) 1 Parcel#: Z 2 3 y —Ll yf COO 1 D
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed:
1. (a) A discussio .of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK? Comment:
(b) A discussi of specific soil types
OK? Comment:
(c) A discussio/of ground water conditions
OK? Z Comment:
(d) A discussion f the upslope geomorphology
OK? Comment:
(e) A discussio of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
OK? Comment:
(f) A discussio of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records
OK? Comment:
2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features.
1 Comment:
3. Locationsiand logs of exploratory holes or probes.
OK? , Comment:
4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall
be delin7/11d (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site.
OK? Comment:
5. A minimum f one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which
incorporat s the details of proposed grade changes.
OK? Comment:
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 co ffients should be a value of 0.15.
OK? Co ment:
7. (a) Appropria restrictions on placement of drainage features
OK? Comment:
(b) Appropriate estrictions on placement of septic drain fields
OK? Comment:
(c) Appropriate istrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings.
OK? Comment:
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? Comment:
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? !; Comment:
8. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies
vegetation o be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation
removal.
OK? Comment:
9. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific
mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and
harmful c struction methods.
OK? Comment:
10. An analy�is of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
OK? Comment:
11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widths.
OK? I Comment:
12. Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
OK? Comment:
13. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of
existing a d proposed development on the site.
OK? Comment:
Are the Documents signed and stamped?_ By whom? )C.E V L �+t'U
License#: l 3 0`j 15 License type: �t
FIRST REVIEW Approved ❑ Need more info.
dati activrr?
2661 IiLt
Reviewed by on t'J L Time spent in review:
SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by on . Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by , on . Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer.- Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
1
MASON COUNTY Submittal Checklist
COMMUNITY SERVICES Geotechnical Report
iwnwrmq rinm M.i nnmrne,u cram cm,mumbiaam
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 Kamin Properties, LLC Parcel# 32234-44-00010
Site Address E State Route 106, Union
(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) 6
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology,
Located on page(s) 3
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands,
Located on page(s) 3
(� A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity,as available in the referenced maps and
records.
Located on page(s) 12
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan&Geologic Map—Appendix A&Appendix B
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan and Soil Loos(Appendix C)
(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/Geologic Map
(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 C)
(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) 13 Page 1 of4
I
(7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features,
Located on page(s) 17
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields,
Located on page(s) 15
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings,
Located on page(s) 9 and 11
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) 17
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) 15
(8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies
vegetation to be removed,a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting,and the method of vegetation
removal.
Located on page(s) 17
(9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific
mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and
harmful construction methods.
Located on page(s) 16
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) 18
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management,drainage,erosion control,and
buffer widths.
Located on page(s) 15-18
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
Located on page(s) NA-not required
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries,scale,north arrow,and the location and nature
of existing and proposed development on the site.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan
I, Michael Staten, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington
with specialized knowledge of geotechnicalVgeological 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
PEV CLYDF ST Report,dated August 4,2008, and entitled Kamin Propeties
0 WAS i't q��2 Three Single Family Residences,meets all the requirements
4 w of the Mason County Resource Ordinance,Geologically
Hazardous Areas Section,is complete and true,that the
43045 �, assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by
ISTI- the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included
6/29/21 geotechnical design recommendations,and that all hazards
Disclaimer:Mason County does not are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property
certify the quality of the work done in and public health and safety.
this Geotechnical Report.
Page 2 0l 2
/J. r L
Geotechnical Report
for
Kamin Properties Three Single Family Residences
State Highway 106
Parcel 32234 44 00040 10O 13
Mason County, Washington
August 4, 2008
Project #0878
Prepared For:
Kamin Properties, LLC
p. �,CLYDg
PO Box 2491 WASy�s�9T
Shelton, Washington 98584 �
Prepared By:
Envirotech Engineering �p1,�'��Gis°45 w4 74 NE Hurd Road SIONAIL
Belfair, Washington 98528
Phone: 360-275-9374 r 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...............................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology....................................................................................................... 3
2.Z.2 Downslope Geomorphology.................................................................................................. 3
2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE.....................................................................................................................
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 Visual Classification............................................................................................................. 6
3.4.2 Bulk Density......................................................................................................................... 7
3.4.3 Direct Shear..........................................................................................................................
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................8
4.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................9
4.1.1 Bearing Capacity.................................................................................................................. 9
4.1.2 Settlement............................................................................................................................. 9
4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade.................................................................................................... 10
4.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES...................................................................................................... 10
4.3 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 10
4.3.1 Excavation.......................................................................................................................... 10
4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill........................................ 11
4.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill....................................................................................................... 11
4.3.4 Wet Weather Considerations............................................................................................... 12
4.4 SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL................................................................................ 12
4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts.................................................................................................... 15
4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks........................................................................................... 15
4.4.3 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control....................................................................... 16
4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage...................................................................................... 17
4.4.5 Vegetation Considerations.................................................................................................. 17
4.4.6 On-site and Off-site Impacts............................................................................................... 18
4.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION......................................................................... 18
5.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix A- Site Plan
Appendix B -Geologic Map
Appendix C -Soil Information
Soil Profile, Soil Logs
and 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 on State Highway 106, identified as parcel number 32234 44 00010, 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, David Kamin, on July 21, 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 property is
anticipated to be divided into three separate lots. 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 three 1- or 2-story single family
residences which may include daylight basements. Foundation construction is expected to consist
of continuous strip footings and concrete slabs-on-grade or stem walls. Anticipated construction
other than the residences will include on-site septic systems, driveway approaches 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, and neighboring geotechnical
investigations. This included previous geotechnical studies completed by Geotechnical
Testing Laboratory in a report dated November 2, 2007, and by Envirotech Engineering
in a report dated July 21, 2008;
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 1 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
• Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction
and performance of the proposed improvements;
• Define the general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils extending to a
depth of up to 15 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 4
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.
/ NAceler La kc L-- '
4
25 30
ODD CANAL
— rC WARREN OR i22NR2W
NR3W r 33 3-0 35 36
Y
EOA B R_p C .1
O G=
� E HYLAND OR
5
rv� + �' 3 1 9
E MANZANIrA OR T21NRSW T21NRZW
Project
Trask=a kc
Q'• W Caes n Lake
\ 0 7y8fl
Vicinity Map from Mason County Website
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 2 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
� Y
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on July 21,
and July 24, 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 within the northern portion of the property. Beyond the property lines,
rural residential development exists. Vegetation on and near the Project consists primarily of
alders, firs, maples, and other trees and shrubbery common to this area of the Pacific Northwest.
An aerial photo of the project and immediate vicinity is provided on the following page.
2.2 Topography
The Project is situated within and near moderate to very steep sloping terrain. The location of the
planned building envelopes are on moderately sloping terrain ranging from approximately 18%to
32%. These grades increase from east to west. 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 averages 47%. Grades of up to 66% are located on a
portion of the upslope terrain. There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located
upslope from the planned development.
2.2.2 Downslope Geomorphology
Descending grades on Lot 3 is 104%with a vertical relief of approximately 37 feet, and
exist to the north of the planned development. This slope grade decreases towards the
west to about 65%on Lot 1.
2.3 Surface Drainage
Stormwater runoff originating upslope from the anticipated development is expected to be
minimal to moderate. Sheet flow down the sloping grades towards the north is the primary runoff
mechanism before it reaches the proposed residences. However, a convergence on Lot 2 indicates
a small stream flow. See the following Slope and Erosion Observations Section for more
information. Although minor scour and stream erosion was observed, other indications of past
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 3 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
August 4,2008
excessive drainage problems were not observed at or near the planned development.
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.
However, a small amount of stream erosion was observed on Lot 2 due to the convergence in the
topography in conjunction with a storm event exceeding a 100yr-24hr storm. Significant outwash
was not observed at the end of the convergence zone.
HOOD CANAL
,1
4
i
Aerial Photo from Mason County Website
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 4 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
August 4,2008
> r
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered on July 21, and July
24, 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 15 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 studies
completed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory and Envirotech.
One bulk sample was collected at the Project site at approximately 2 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 medium
dense to dense soils in the upper 36 inches and dense to very dense soils from 36 inches to the
depth of terminous.
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, %, 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
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 5 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
August 4,2008
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 no indications of borrowed fill. For engineering
purposes,these native soils consist of distinguishable layers, as presented below.
Soils within the upper 3 feet of natural ground were observed to be moist, brown well graded
gravel with sand(GW)and few silts, or silty gravel with sand(GM). The relative densities of this
soil are provided in Section 3.1 of this report. Gravels are primarily subrounded to subangular
near the anticipated building location. Sand content was primarily fine and medium. The fines
content was non plastic.
Soils below the upper 3 feet layer to a depth of at least 15 feet consisted of moist,brown, dense to
very dense well graded gravel (GW). According to the well reports, deeper excavations on
neighboring properties, geologic maps and knowledge of the general area, soils below the
observed 15 feet in depth to at least 100 feet are dense to very dense advance outwash (primarily
GM or 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 locations. Seepage was
observed on the west portion of Lot 1. Perched groundwater was indicated at a depth of
about 90 feet on one of the water 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:
4 Visual Classifications (ASTM D2488);
1 Bulk Density(ASTM C-29);and
1 Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions(AASHTO T236-92)
3.4.1 Visual Classification
The results from the visual classification are presented above in the Subsurface
Conditions Section at depths of up to 15 feet below the natural ground surface.
Specifically, soils originating on Lot 2 consisted of approximately 55% gravel, 35%
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 6 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
sand-sized soils, and less than 10% silt. 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 on the neighboring
property, revealed a dry density of 129 pcf.
3.4.3 Direct Shear
Direct shear testing was performed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory from soils
originating from the neighboring property. 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 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
August 4,2008
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 geotechnica.l 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.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 8 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
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 classifying 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.
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 2000 psf, a minimum footing width
of 16 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 18 inches below the natural ground surface.
Reduction in footing requirements may be reduced per the recommendations of a
qualified engineer after a site inspection of the foundation excavation. Foundation
recommendations are made available based on adherence to the remaining
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.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 9 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
August 4,2008
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 may be suitable for use as the material directly
beneath concrete slabs if the material meets the requirements of engineered fill as
explained later in this report.The top 4 to 8 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 65 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.
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
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 10 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
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
i
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 Fill
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
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 foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill beneath the foundation. See the
illustration below.
FO❑TING
COMPACTED
NATIVE S❑ILS
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
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
Emrirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 11 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
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 -,vall 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
Although the subsoil characteristics do not pose a great risk in regards to saturation,
additional provisions may be required during prolonged wet weather. Every precaution
should be made in order to prevent free moisture from saturating and ponding within
excavations. If the bottom of excavations used for footing placement changes from a
moist and dense characteristic as presented in this report to loose, saturated conditions,
then these soils become unsuitable for foundation bearing material. If this situation
occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be notified, or these soils should be completely
removed and replaced with suitable compacted material as presented above.
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'
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.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 12 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
August 4,2008
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 later in 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
values were used in the slope stability analysis in regards to topography, surcharges, water
content, 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,
published parameters, and laboratory testing:
Top 4 feet of weathered soils
• Soil unit weight: 134 pcf
• Angle of internal friction: 34 degrees
• Cohesion: 100 psf
Soils below 4 feet
• Soil unit weight: 140 pcf
• Angle of internal friction: 38 degrees
• Cohesion: 200 psf
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.
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, minimum factor of safeties for static and
dynamic conditions were estimated to be 1.6 and 1.1,respectively.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechiucal Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 13 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
*74K1tl0 70.LWN 7UJ 1B0 4704182
s r.a.t a...a
s P.y.t a...e
17040ee Project ±70"1°0 +704182
r \
3 2
# ; 1704120 17w122
Frt -
Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph 360-275-9374 page 14 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Waslvngton
August 4,2008
I r
1
Tahuya ke To h.
� / _
Scale 1:24,000
S 3UQ IS00 15M md-
Sisters Pt S
Proj ect _
Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Website
4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts
The approximate location of the proposed septic drainfields are presented on the Site Plan
in Appendix A of this report. Based on the septic drainfield locations with relation to the
existing and proposed topography,the drainfields are not expected to adversely influence
i also based on compliance with the
the structures near the critical slopes. This s p
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
slope 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 15 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4, 2008
STRUCTURE
TOP OF
SLOPE SLOPE
FACE _
I I-I I
�-- 50 FT MIN — FOOTING
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
moderately erodible. DNR labeled the property as a high erodibilty potential, and
therefore 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. 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. 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 is necessary if substantial vegetation has not been established
of the Project. Temporary within disturbed areas upon completion ) p as3'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
PIL 360-275-9374 page 16 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
controls with the degree of care as expected from a licensed contractor. Erosion control
information and specifications in addition to what is provided in this report may be found
in the current "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by
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
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. This may
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.
Both footing perimeter drains and roof drains are required for this Project. Subsurface
water intercepted in the footing perimeter drains, and stormwater collected from roof
drains shall be tight-lined to an appropriate infiltration location beyond the building
setback and vegetation buffer of the steep descending slopes. In addition, the outlets
should be placed at least 10 feet from structures, and not be placed directly downslope
from each residence. If subsurface infiltration is not utilized, an energy dissipater is
required at the outlet. Subsurface infiliation shall not be utilized if the outfall is placed
within the stream convergence. Recommended drainage details are provided in Appendix
F of this report.
Due to seepage and stream erosion observations, additional recommendations are
provided for house locations. Although these drainage characteristics of the Project were
not problematic after the recent 100yr 24hr storm event, successive intense precipitation
could cause future problems. A residence should be located at least 15 feet away from the
stream-line on Lot 2. In addition,the house on Lot 1 should not be located on the western
quarter of the property where seepage was observed.
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 on the descending slopes and within the 50 feet
setback/ buffer, or on the face of the ascending slopes exceeding 40%. Other 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. See the Geologic Map
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph 360-275-9374 page 17 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
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
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.
Emirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph 360-275-9374 page 18 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
August 4,2008
5.0 CLOSURE
Based on the project information and site conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's
geotechnical studies are not
opinion that additional 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
Envirotech is promptly notified if
qualified engineer observes and documents the construction, or E p p y
q
are not as resented in this report so that we can
conditions found on-site P
project and subsurface coP
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
Michael Staten, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph 360-275-9374 page 19 Parcel 32234 44 00010
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County.Washington
August 4,2008
APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN
t
SCALE- 1 INCH = 150 FEET
PROPOSED
S 0 75 150
ENCE
HOOD CANAL
IT WAY
20�f *TP2
OTP4 �
OPOSED SINGLE
T MD_Y RESIDENCE
P OPOSED S2.00LE
4 MIL SIDENCE w
P➢o SED SING
60/ FAM Y RE CI NCE PROPOSED
PROPgIELD - AINFI\ ELD µ PROPOSE
BO NFIEID \ / AINF LD
100 LOT 2
LOT 1
1P0 LOT 3
14
gyp// 165F
1 1 FT*
200
r
0
M�
24 N
b
260 ROP5 TY L W
28
300
320
N ESs
34 ER, ON Cj1NTROL C RE `RED FOR "i3-S=T , GFNV AL L GEND
LOCg•1IONS�ANDIiLTER NATIVE S~'� SILT FENCES NAY BE
360 UT IIZED AS EXPLAINED D.,THE G�Cr,-IICAL REPOR
2 CONTOURS WERE NG� PRERARED BY A LIcc&SED AND SILT FENCE
380 URV OR. �ONTLryJRS W" E EXTR-AF OCRTFZD FROM A PUBLIC
LIDA SOURCE, ANDNINCIWORATED FIELD MEQCUREMENJS-AS SLOPE DIRECTION
400 EX AIN IN THE GE!' CHNItAL�l T. 8D EXISTING CONTOUR
42 TPI e TEST PIT
440
P JECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION-
460 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC
490 PARCEL 32234 44 00010
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ENGINEER-
ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
74 NE HURD ROAD
500 1 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 9B528
360-275-9374
520 42F t SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
GEOLOGIC MAP
A I•
� �9SNG N
SCALE- 1 INCH = 150 FEET
HOOD CANAL bd /
c
P2
20 DTP
SLOPE TOP
EXCEEDING 40%
3� ROPOSED SINGLE
5OFT BUILDING AND AMILY RESIDENCE7-
VEGETATION BUFFER
4 P OPOSED�NGLE
NF MIL SIDENCE µ
OSED
60��FA SIDENCE
so
I LO
LOT 1
1111EEEE0000���� � LOT 3
I IN ACn
9
160
\ 165E t
180 16 T
200 w
OIL MEDI
TO DENSE WELL F
GRADED'GRAVEL WITH
22 �SAND AND'SILT r^o
(GW GM) OVERLYING
DENS TO VERY DENS
-AN P-GM
c+f
24
260 ROP TY LINE
300
LE END
N TES,
3� COy�3JRS W F N 1—FRG ED BUFFER/SET BACK
HY /A LICE�:$ED L 7� SURVEYOR.
CON, OURS WE E EXTRAROLATED
400 FR13M A PUBLIC AR SOl7RLn ND SLOPE DIRECTION
NCORP.kATED FIE I
El reo— ExISTING CONTOUR
MEAOREMEN AS EXPL
T EE GEOTECHNIC'Ai EPORT. TP1 0 TEST PIT
440
460 PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
4
KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC
PARCEL 32234 44 00010
SLO E TOP MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
EXC EDING 40%
ENGINEER
500 ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
74 NE HURD ROAD
BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98526
360-275-9374
5,o 42 T* f GEOLOGIC MAP
APPENDIX C
SOIL INFORMATION
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SCALE, 2
SCALE, 1 INCH 60 FEET
1 0 Qa�
MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH fpbj
SAND (GW)
52� DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL
GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND
AND SILT (GW-GM)
PROPOSED HOUSE
3
6�
SECTION A-A
HIGHWAY 106
All)
MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH
SAND AND SILT (GM) q
PROPOSED HOUSE Z
DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL
GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND
AND SILT (GW-GM)
3
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION-
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
SECTION B-B KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC
PARCEL 32234 44 00010
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
HIGHWAY 106 NOTES-
1) MINOR GRADE CHANGES WILL BE COMPLETED IN ORDER ENGINEER,
TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
2) CUTS MAY BE COMPLETED FOR DAYLIGHT BASEMENTS. 74 NE HURD ROAD
3) THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528
THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS 360-275-9374
LOWER DEPTHS ARE BASED ON SITE GEOLOGY,
WELL LOG(S), AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL AREA SOIL PROFILE
VERTICAL. AND HDRIZONTAL SCALE, '
SCALE, I INCH 60 FEET
0 0
MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH
SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
1
3
6�
PROPOSED HOUSE 3
1 DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL
GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND
AND SILT (GW-GM)
p X/i
ti
Y
HIGHWAY 106
SECTION C-C
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION,
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC
PARCEL 32234 44 00010
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NOTES-
1) MINOR GRADE CHANGES WILL BE COMPLETED IN ORDER ENGINEER
TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. E HURDTECH ENGINEERING
74 N
2) CUTS MAY BE COMPLETED FOR DAYLIGHT BASEMENTS. NE URD ROAD
3) THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528
THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS. 360-275-9374
LOWER DEPTHS ARE BASED ON SITE GEOLOGY, SOIL PROFILE
WELL LOG(S), AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL AREA
TEST PIT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1
PROJECT: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/14/2008
PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A
LOCATION: Parcel 3223444 00010 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SO L STRATA,
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
GM Brown, moist, medium dense to dense
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND. Gravel is
coarse and subrounded. Sand is
1 primarily well-graded. Low plasticity.
2
3 Light brownish grey, low moisture,very
dense, medium to strong cementation.
Few cobbles.
4
5
6 ID
7
8
9
10
Excavation terminated at approximately
10.0 feet
No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
This information pertains only to this boring and shouid not be Geotechnical Engineering
interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site.
TEST PIT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2
PROJECT: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/24/2008
PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A
LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00010 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
GM Light brown, moist, medium dense to
dense SILTY GRAVEL with SAND.
Gravel is coarse and subrounded. Sand
2 is primarily well-graded. Low plasticity.
Very dense. Weak to moderate
cementation.
4
6
8
10
12 Excavation terminated at approximately
12.0 feet
14
16
18
20
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-3
PROJECT: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/24/2008
PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A
LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00010 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SO L STRATA,
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
0 ...... ........ ............. .........I.............
W-GIVI Brown, moist, medium dense to dense
0 WELL GRADED SILTY GRAVEL. Gravel
0 0 is mostly subrounded and subangular.
1 00 Sand is fine and medium. Non plastic.
00
z pp
0 0 Dense to very dense.
3 0 Increasing coarse.
00
00
a 0
00
00
5 0
0
00
6 Excavation terminated at approximately
6.0 feet
7
8
9
10
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-4
PROJECT: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/24/2008
PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A
LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00010 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
W-G M Brown, moist, medium dense to dense
O WELL GRADED SILTY GRAVEL. Gravel
a O is subrounded and subangular. Sand is
2 Q d fine and medium. Non plastic.
00
4 O p
O Q Dense to very dense.
O
6 O
o0
o0
8 O
O0
o0
10 O o
a
O0
12 00
00 (
a
14
o �
Excavation terminated at approximately
18 15.0 feet
18
20
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.
WATER WELL REPORT CURRENT W 178504
Original&I"copy-Ecology,2nd copy-owner,3'r copy-driller Notice of intent No.
Cnnstruction/Decommission ("x"in circle) Unique Ecology Well 1D Tag No.
Q Construction Water Right Permit No.
0 Decommission ORIGINAL INSTALLATION Notice Property Owner Name Tim T usk_Vand rbeck
COL[c,r7 of Intent Number Well Street Address 8301 EHW 106
PROPOSED USE: Domestic ❑ Industrial ❑ Municipal City Union County Mason
❑ De Water O Irrigation ❑ Tat Well ❑ Other
Location NWl/4-1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 34 Twn 22 R 3W EN, elide
TYPE OF WORK: Owner's number of well(if more than one) WWM one
30 New well ❑ Reconditioned .Method:❑ Dug ❑ Bored ❑ Driven Lat/Lon , r Lat Deg_ Lat Min/Sec
❑ Deepened IN Cable ❑ Rotary ❑ Jetted gS
DIMENSIONS: Diameter of welt_ inches,drilled Still REQUIRED) Long Deg Long Min/See
Depth of completed well ft.
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Tax Parcel No. 32234-34-00101
Casing QCWelded 6 Diam.from+—ft.to_ 10-4 ft.
Installed: ❑ Liner installed Diam,from It.to ft CONSTRUCTION OR DECOMMISSION PROCEDURE
❑ Threaded Dunn.from ft,to ft.
Perforations: ❑ Yes I�No Formation: Describe by color,character,sizeoCmatcrird and structure,and the kind and
nature of the material in each stratum penetrated,with at least one entry for each change of
Type of perforator used information. USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY,
SIZE of perfs in.by in.and no.orperfc,_from_ft.to n. MATERIAL FROM
Screens: R Yes ❑ No K-Pac Location 141
Manufacturer's Name Johnson Brown crravel 0
Type ci ai nl pe q Model No.
Main Slot siu 25 from 1 n 2 ft.to 1 Cl ft. BraWn S 18 '7C
Diam. Slot siu r-fromrft to��—ft.
GravelfFilter packed: ❑ Yes 5t No ❑ Size of gravel/sand
Materials placed from ft.to ft. clavwith grave
Surface Seat: Ot Yes ❑ No To what depth? ft. 1�8
Material used in seal ,�f rani f P Sand & avelwith water 96
Did any strata contain unusable water? ❑ Yes fR No
Type of water? Depth of strata
Method of scaling sum off
PUMP: Manufacturer's Name
Type: auh H.P.
WATER LEVELS: Land-surface elevation above mean sea level ft
Static level _ ft,below top of well Date
Artesian pressure tbs.per square inch Date
Artesian water is controlled by
(cap,valve etc.
WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered below static level
Was a pump test made? ❑ Yes I2�No If yes,by whom?
Yield: gal-lmift with ft.dmwdown after his.
Yield: Rd lrnin,with ft.drowdown after hre,
Yield. gal./min.with ft.dawdown after hrs.
Recovery data(time token as zero when pump fumed of)(water level measured from welt
top in water level) •4��•/, �1 S.:K�#q �..-" -"f
Time Water Level Tirne Water Level Time Water Level
Date of test
Bailer test3�gal./min.with 65 ft.lowdown after hrs. ;�.•;•-:t . ' . .-
Atnest gaUrnin.with stem set at—ft.for
.VG4t:ftl:ICiiilJ: l::!"ll��t_,Y
Artesian flow g.p.m. Date
Temperature of water Was a chemical analysis trade? ❑ Yes Q No
Start Date_ 2/30/2004 completes Date 11 10 20 5
WELL CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION: 1 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.
—
QLDriller❑Engineer❑Trainee Name DrillinCom an(Print} k g p y Dayi c;F,--ilri 1 1 i II
Driller/Engineer/Tminee Signature 11 Vim- Address NE 340 r rayi et Farm Rd
Driller or trainee LicenseNo.
797 �— City,State,Zip Belfaj r, WA 98528
Contractor's NOV. 05
IfTRA[NEE, DAVISDI1100A Date
t Driller's Licensed No. Registration No
l Driller's Signature Ecology is an Equal Opporruniry 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
Start Card No.
FIN Original ind First Copy with
Oaparinaant of Ecology WATER WELL REPORT UfiouE WELL I.D..�c� <i g
oio
Second copy—Owners Copy STATE OF WASHINGTQN
Third Copy—Drlllar's Copt Walter r4gillif Poinsrt No,
LO (1) OWNER: (fame __• Aft— er
CL
N (Z) L(?G11T10N OP WELL: cm,ray, r __ _ -_iM_S rC Sec��T_JjN•R ' .M.
1=i �) STREET ADDRESS OF WELL for.-W alktreea) &V !0 6I1Wd. Z
Qi
(3) PROPOSED USE. t7 Domestic Nustrial O Municipal p (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION
O Irrigation -
1A �l DaWater Teat WeH ❑ Other ❑ Formation:Descnibe by color,character.size of material and stnxture.and show tfiftlueas of i nti"
and the WW and nature of me mamial in each wants penetrated.with at kart one entry for oath
(4) TYPE OF WORK: owner's number of oral charge of information.
(it more than one) MATEF"L FROM TO
O Abandoned C New well IN Method. Dug p Bored❑
Deapaned 0 C 0O BS DrW*n❑ A d4
C Reconditioned C Rotary D Jew O N
(5) DIMENSIONS: Diameter of wen
r 1n maws. J d,< .. .:
Drraed Loa feet. Depth of Completed well !f 1 y/ tt.
G (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: � �r t L s c E Sr f7
�. i ��
Casing Instaged: lJ Diem.fromrtS t1.ro�I_-it. /e
W~ - Diem.from ft.ro ft.
N Liner nstalledI
= Ttreaded ❑ Diem.from h.to _ft.
�+
L Per foratfona: Yes ❑ No t�r err a•7• V q
0 Type of perforator used
j� SIZE of perforations in.by In.
pertoratbns from 11 to ft.
R perforalions from ft.to ft.
it perforations from ft.to fl.
Screens: Yes C9 No❑ --
Manufactilarar'sNaarne C po 9
�t>o CIS Cb IC ear.., T"' Modal No.�—
Diem. _Stet size 1 ! b from )/d it.to/07.q p•
z Diam. Sfol size from ft,to ft.
Gravel packed: Yea❑ No J9 Site of gravel
L
Casvei placed hom ft.to 7G,
sudoceseal: Yes A No❑ To what depth?_ 2 6
P v
OMew"used in seal a. -ti.-l'-r� 1'T 1 D i
0 Did any,strata Domain muse water? Yes ❑ N.X
>r•O/ ' .
Type of water? Depth of strata
Molhod of Sealing srala oft _
O
'0 (7) PUMP: Manufacturer's Name
Type: _H.P
p (8) WATER LEVELS-• Land vu, aw,61,0n warn Stamehr � .aIiJ�t .19
above mean eel level ft
VState level D R.below top of weN Dale WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION:
Artas,an pressure L the.per square neh Dina
Uj
4 AImo, wal*r,s con"lled ray I constructed anwor accept responsibility for Consp•uction of ft&well,and its
(cap,valve.sfC. compliance with all Washingmn well cons(ruction standards.Materials used and
.w (9) WELL TESTS: Dra b wdown is amount water level is wered below static ravel the information reported above are true tom/y tee knowledge and belief.Was a pump fast mode?Yes[INo❑ II yes,by whom? NAME V Gr C L/l/ (,/ner f!
EYaiid g -)min.with ft.drawdown seer his. tau,ors ail
,. ,. n A ���ID Cl �v� �
L c��rt
0 Recovery data(tune taken as zero when pump turned off)(water ravel measured from well (Signed) (WELLLiCertse No. /0
top to water level) IV
Time Water Level Time Water Laval Time Water Level cof"Wor'd
Reg{siratton 7-
Date �� ,19
- —— — (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
Rue or tell
salter last-7-C� gal rmin,with ft.drawdown affair 7— tn.
AM" gal./mift with stem set at ft.for firs. Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and AtfirmHGve Action employer,For itpft-
Aneslan flow g.p.m. Data cial accommodation needs,contact the Water Resources Program at(205)
Temperature of water was a chamrral anarysie made? Yes❑ No❑ 407-6600.The TDD numb$r is(206)407.6006.
ECV V4-i-20 iww)••t
File Onginal and First COPY wrih WATER WELL REPORT Start Card"° 034806
Department of Ecology
Second Copy—Owner'a Copy STATE of WASHINGTON
Third Copy—Orillar's Copy
y Water Rlprt Permit No. �
O (1) OWNER: Ram* Day Address E8050 Hwy 106 Union 98592
W (2) LOCATION OF WELL: County Mason _..-._- Gov. Lot 3 %SE 11 Sea 34 T.-2-2--M..R 3 W.M.
(2s) STREET ADODRESS OF WELL(or nearest address)
3: (3) PROPOSEb USE: ® DomestlC Industrial ❑ Municipal❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION
❑ Irrigation
0 ❑ D*Wster Tent Well ❑ Olh*r ❑ Formation: Describe by cola. character. alis of material and Wrsclum, mad show
7 lhkkrwos of swAWt and the kW and nolare of tote material in each stratum paierholsd.
4-1 (4) TYPE OF WORK:Oamer't number of well stet at lust one retry for each change of Wonflation.
(if more than one) YATERLLL RflOs1 TO
0 Abandoned❑ New well ❑C Method: Dug ❑ Bored ❑
Deepened ❑ Cable Z Driven ❑
O Reconditioned❑ Rotary❑ Jatfad ❑
(5) DIMENSIONS: Diameter of well 6 inches.
E Dritied 99• feet. Depth of completod well 99 fI.
!_
10 (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: gravel with water 45 94
!= Casing Installed: _ 6 Dism.from 0 tt.to pp//��h.
QI Welded Q Diam.from tt.to a.
Linwiaatakil❑
Tlhraaded ❑ DIEM.from
Perforations: Y*a_-. Nor
0 d
Type of pertoralor used
= SIZE of perforations In.by in.
perforations from ft.to tt.
perforallonafrom ft.to Il.
0 p*rfora(fon*trom ft.lo fl_ 5
Screens: Yaa NO
Manufacturer's Nam* Cook
Type S1 AT n�PRS Mod*(No.f..r- Diam. 511 Slot size SO irom�h.t0 (y�-39 it.
Diam, Slot six* from ft.to—ft.
f3ra»I packed: Yen Ll No Size of 1a1161
SGrove placed from tr�� R.to
Surfaces iai: Yoola No❑ Towhotdepth?
Q Material used in teal Rewni to
Z Did any alrala contain unuasble water? Yu❑ Nor��
(/) Type of wat*r? Depth Of strals
OMethod of aealing strata off
(7) PUMP: Manufacturer'sNems Myers
Tyw sub. NY-
WATER LEVELS'. Land•eurfeceato (ion
(8) Op above fa*ae e*a lev*1 fl.
VSlaliclevel 33 ft.below top otwail Data
LU Artasianpressurs bs,per square inch Date
4— Artesian well-le oonlroaed by .p•vah..ell.
C Work s(aAed 19. Completed 18LL1
ar (9) WELL TESTS: Dmurdown is amount water level Is lowered below static level
Was a pump tact made?Yee❑ Noo u yea,bywhom?
QJ WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION:
Yield: pal.rmnh.withft.dr■wdown after tis. I construcled 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
(Z Racoverydat*(timetaken as zero when pump turned off)(water level meseared knowledge and belief.
4) from well top to water level)
T.— W.WL-1 Ti.. Ww.rt—1 Time WNw Le.N
NAME Davis. ri 1 in�
COnPORAntkti rrYPE as PIaNT)
4) (PERSON,FlnN,
Address—BElf2jX—ML t 8 9 2 8
Date of test 0797
(Signed)[. License No.
Suilertest 8 gal.rmm_wfth 50 ft.drowdown after D.__but. CiOhifaClOr�! (WELL MIER)
AiAeal gal.lmin.wffh atom set at ft•IOf lets- Regis on
No.��16%X Date
Artufan flow g.p.m. Dot* RR
Temperature of water—Wet a chemical analysis made? Yee❑ Ko L-A (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
ECY050-120 (1047) -1326- a1ow7
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY
STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System
New User
Project : Kamin
Datafile: downslope dynamic Bishop
STABLE Version 9.03.0Ou
Bishop
TITLE
downslope dynamic
tW+W+Wttit++44WWW*ttt++ttW#i+WWWtit+itWtt#+4+WWtWt#++a+W++
UNITS (Metric/Imperial) - I
t+Wtti#tWa+++i*i#*+atit*ia+++it*atW+Wt##i++it*i+aa+W+WWaa+
GEOMETRY DEFINITION
POINTS
NO. X Y
1 0.000 0.000
2 0.000 -4.000
3 52.000 54.000
4 52.000 50.000
5 178.000 94.000
6 178.000 90.000
7 17.800 18.480
8 25.290 26.270
9 32.790 34.050
10 40.280 41.830
it 47.780 49.620
12 55.270 55.040
13 62.770 57.420
14 70.260 59.800
15 77.760 62.180
16 85.250 64.560
17 92.750 66.940
16 100.240 69.310
19 107.740 71.690
20 115.230 74.070
21 122.730 76.450
22 130.220 78.830
23 137.720 81.210
24 145.210 83.590
25 152.710 85.970
26 160.200 88.350
LINES
Lo X Hi X SOIL
1 3 1
3 5 1
2 4 2
4 6 2
SOILS
SOIL NAME LINETYPE-PEN COHESION FRICTION UNIT WT.
1 Soil-1 CONTINUOUS-BLACK 100.00 34.0 134.000
2 Soil-2 CONTINUOUS-BLUE 200.00 38.0 140.000
iiW*WiWiiii+iiWWi*+iiii*+W*at+*a+***t*aW+WW+i**t*atW*t+*tt
STABLEID2002 MZ Associates Lid Printed on: 25/07/08 @13:33:20 Page: 1
STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System
New User
Project : Kamin
Datafile: downslope dynamic Bishop
PORE PRESSURE SPECIFICATION
SOIL PLEZO 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
SLIP DIRECTION (+/- X) - -
SLIP-CIRCLES
AUTOMATIC
Circle Centre Grid Extremities
236.400
+ a
17.800 + + 160.200
+ +
94.000
X spacing -- no. of cols (max 10)- 10
Y spacing -- no. of rows (max 20)= 20
Grid 1 Circles through point 7
Grid 2 Circles through point 8
Grid 3 Circles through point 9
Grid 4 Circles through point 10
Grid 5 Circles through point 11
Grid 6 Circles through point 12
Grid 7 Circles through point 13
Grid 8 Circles through point 14
Grid 9 Circles through point 15
Grid 10 Circles through point 16
Grid 11 Circles through point 17
Grid 12 Circles through point 18
Grid 13 Circles through point 19
Grid 14 Circles through point 20
Grid 15 Circles through point 21
Grid 16 Circles through point 22
Grid 17 Circles through point 23
Grid 18 Circles through point 24
STABLE®2002 MZ Associates Ltd Printed on: 25/07/08 @ 13:33:20 Page: 2
1 _ O 0
1 _ 2 0
1 _ 3 0
1 _ 40
7_ - 50
=:a: 1 - 60
`l - 7 0
1 _ 8 0
0 1 90
2 - O 0
Proj -a _ Kamirn
Datafile _ dowrislope dynamic
Arnalysis _ Bishop
3 T AHLEr-2 0 0 2 M2 Aa E oc 1 a C e a Lt d
1 _ O 0
1- 1- 0
1 _ 2 O
1 . 3 0
1 _ 4 O
1 _ 5 O
1 . 60
1 _ 7 0
1 _ 8 0
i; 1 _ 90
=2 _ 00
620
Proj ect _ Kamira
Datafile _ dowrislope static
An a 1 y--3�:L B i s h o p
STABLEr-2002 MZ AaaocinEea Ltcl
1 . 00
Z _ O
Z _ O
1 _ 0
1 _ 4 O
1 _ 5O
1 _ 6
1 _ 7
1 _ so
1 _ 90
2 - 0
1 0 7
Project _ Kamiri
Datafile dyrzamic
A n a l y s i s _ B i s h o p
S TABLE�2002 I�?Z A33ociaC e3 Ltd
1 . 00
1 _ O
1 _ O
1 O
1 _ 4 0
1 5 0
1 _ 6
e 1 7
— 1 _ 80
I— 90
2 _ O
. 625
P r o j e c t _ K a m i n
Datafile _ static
Analysis _ Bishop
SW—M—a O02 MZ Aaao�l ntea LCd
APPENDIX E
EROSION CONTROL
GEO
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 2'x2' WOOD POST (TYP) AND WIRE FABRIC
WRAP AROUND TRENCH OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH
TO AT LEAST ENTIRE e 6 FT MAX. O.C. 05 FT
BOTTOM OF TRENCH �.— 6 FT -�
BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR
12' DEEP, 8' VIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER EXISTING
FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2' _T GROUND SURFACE 2 T
WASHED GRAVEL
DIRECTION OF 23 FT DEEP, B' WIDE aI?-5F'T
VATER FLOV EXISTING T TRENCH FILLED WITH
GROUND SURFACE 3/4' TO 1 1/2' Mau
T 2S FT WASHED GRAVEL
�B, BOTTOM EXTENTS OF en T FENCE - DETAIL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
N.T.S.
SILT FENCE :1-mum
N.T.S. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
GENERAL NOTES: SOD PLACEMENT
1. SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON 1. SOD FOR GRASS SWALES SHALL BE MACHINE CUT AT A
THESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR 3/4-INCH UNIFORM THICKNESS AT THE TIME OF 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 UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. THEIR SIZE AND SHAPE WHEN SUSPENDED BY THE END OF A 3
FOOT SECTION,
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES, 3. SOD FOR GRASS SWALES 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 SWALES 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 OTTER APPROVED TREATMENT, SWALES, 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 WILL
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 WILL BE NECESSARY, (e.g.,
PLAN OF ACTION. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, GEOTEXTILES, JUTE MAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING).
FERTILIZING AND MULCHING OF 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 1, SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER 1 WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS.
13F THE PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVIROMENTAL 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 MIXTURE.
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 (X) (%)
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 ALBA) !0 92
LEAST ONCE EVERY WEEK. THE OWNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 90
THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. ANNUAL RYE (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) 40 98
90
WET SEASON (OCTOBER I THRU APRIL 30) -- ON SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED CHEWING FESUUE 40 97
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS, THE CLEARING OF 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 WITHIN 24 HOURS IN (JAMESTOWN, BANNER, SHADOW, KOKET)
THE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 96
TRANSPORT OFF-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 MATERIAL, 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 OF THEMSELVES. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT POUNDS PER ACRE,
BEING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY 2. MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED
STABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 2:1 (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 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN; OR APPLICABLE COUNTY STANDARDS
2. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
EACH BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS. IF JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC
TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST VITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT PARCEL 32234 44 OOD10
BOTH ENDS TO THE POST. MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
3, STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FASTENED USING V STAPLES OR TIE WIRES (HOG RINGS) e 4 IN
SPACING.
4. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET, AND ENGINEERi
DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND, ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
5. WIRE MESH SHALL BE 2'X2'X14 GAUGE OR EQUIVILENT. 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 DOWNSLOPE FROM THE CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. ER❑SI❑N CONTROL
APPENDIX F
DRAINAGE DETAILS
/ STEEL CLAMPS (TYP)
10 FT MIN SPACING 1/2 INCH DIAMETER
CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE SECURELY FASTENED TO PIPE
6-INCH MIN, DIAMETER
8-12 INCH QUARRY SPALL OR
APPROVED ENERGY DISSIPATOR
LEVEL SECTION
7W0 3-FOOT °o°o°o°o°o°o°o°
ANCHORS CTYP), o°o°o°o°o°o°o° 1 FT MIN.
#4 REBAR OR °o°o°o°o°o°o° ---777---
EQUIVALENT 3 FT MIN }
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
TIGHTLINE DETAILS - OPTION 1
N.T.S.
FINAL GROUND
SURFACE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAPPED
AROUND QUARRY SPALL
CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE 8-12 INCH QUARRY SPALL OR
6-INCH MIN. DIAMETER APPROVED INFILTRATION MEDIA
o O°O°O°O°O°OVI FT MIN
O�O0OQO20p
SLJRSLJRF6rF7 DRAINAGE DETAILS - OPTION 2 NOTEt
N.T.S. INFILTRATION FACILITY COMPONENTS
AND SIZE MAY NEED TO BE DETERMINED
BY A DRAINAGE ENGINEER AND/ OR
PREVAILING GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION-
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC
PARCEL 32234 44 00010
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ENGINEERi
ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
74 NE HURD ROAD
BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528
360-275-9374
DRAINAGE DETAILS
�vLvirotec�t �►n,�zln,eer�.rtig
ce0techwical0 eKVlYON ,ewtal Ara%wage R.oadwaU ' ~�
E3EC 17
December 15, 2008
Att. Pam Bennett-Cumming
Mason County Department of Community Development
Planning
PO Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584
RE: Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 for Kamin Single Family Residences
Parcel 32234 44 00010, Mason County, Washington,
Dear Ms. Bennett-Cumming,
Envirotech Engineering has addressed comments and provided the referenced
geotechnical addendum. Two original copies are enclosed as well as a revised submittal
checklist.
Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Yours Truly,
Envirote4 Engineering
Michael Staten, P.E.
Project Director
74 NE t+Urd Road
gdfatr, wa&K% Sgtow92528
Of : 360-2yt593':t4
Cell.: 360-689-6045
Fax: 360-275-4799
ewv%rotech@aeotechwicaliw fo.co�v�.
Mason County Department of Community Development
Submittal Checklist For a 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 found to be not applicable, the report should explain
the basis for the conclusion.
11
Applicant/Owner (, CA y& �kQ rl6n Parcel# 32 Z 3i 4" 00010
Site Address HI G1�,/ /0(- ��r1 r a n ,V Q
(1) (a)A discussion of generalgeologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
Located on page(s)--
(b) A discussion of specific soil types
Located on page(s) C
,(c) A discussion of ground water conditions
Located on page(s) G
�. (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology
Located on page(s)
(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 activity in the vicinity, as available in the
referenced maps and records
Located on page(s) I'Za 1'j; 0
(2) —A site plan which identifies the developmentimportan and geologic features.
Located on Map(s) 5, t Plate
(3) Locations and logs of explorato holes or pr bes.
Located on Map(s) �� �Un l A11
(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 geolo is map of the site.
Located on Map(s) bee
191c�_(Aaa,a )+ Pv�qc� ^ Addy �►� �
(5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and
which incorporates the details of proposed rad changes.
Located on Map(s) r'- ,
(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 coeffients should be a value of 0.15.
Located an page(s) IS
(7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features
Located bn page(s) ►7, 2 0+
�.(b) Appropriate restrictions ions on placement of septic drain fields
Located on pages) 15
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings
Located on page(s) 9, /
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other
slopes on the propert ..
Located on page(s) I I
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes on the property.
Located on page(s) 1 b, `Z ,2� lk fo`Unn
\� (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically
identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the
method of vegetation removal.
Located on page(s) l r7
�(9} Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which
identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the
slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods.
Located on page(s) ] E
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) i �
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths.
Located on page(s) I E 1 17
{12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation.
Located on page(s) N1A
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location
and nature of existing and pro osed development on the site.
Located on Map(s} ie ('u I 1
9 .
I, E1' hereby certify under penalty of
perjury that I am a civil en ineer 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
Report, dated - t d , and entitled el-;?j2c L12,cc,( '
t 7
e- y"I' I'/ P�S.-JL+tr—,_5 meets all the requirements of the Mason
County Resource Ordinan e, Landslide/Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment
demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the
included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in su maQger as
to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) ti CLYDF ��O
P�`' wtis T
�NAU
9SRES 01 1
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Mason County Review Checklist
For a Geotechnical Report
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report
is reviewed for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not
applicable, the Report should explain the basis for the conclusion.The Report is also reviewed for clarity
and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be
clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the application or observations on
site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should
refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
Applicant's Name: N i) )F
Permit#Vt-�oC rc�'-01 's J0 Parcel# 3a 33 4- 4 4-Nr)0V
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: -1—a
(1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK? Comment: , c
(b) A discussion of specific s t es
OK?_L /- Comment: Ct(
(c) A discussion of ground water 68nditions
OK?_ Comment: >
(d) A discussion of the upslo a 66
omor hology
OK? �Comment:
(e) A disc�,ssion of the locati o pland waterbodies and wetlands
OK? (- Comment: �p •_� --L;-
(f) A discussion of history of Ian tide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the
referenced maps and reco ds
OK? L/Comment: a", 3
(2) A site plan which identifies a tmko�,rtant development and geol0 is features.
OK? comment: 1�tJc.t;� i� 'r S ry r - Gt �I�l'�, S 1t C L_
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes
OK? Comment: �Jr� Pa il, a G—aFies*t_h±eLh"a_z
LE'�'��
(4) The area of the proposed develop ent, the oun a ies rd, and associated buffers and
setbacks shoo be delineated (top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site.
OK? j,,,_Comment:
(5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and
which incoporates the de ails of pr osed grade changes.
OK? y Comment: D � 'j-
(6) A description and results of Wpe 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., . and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15.
OK?_�Comment:d o_u I
(7) (a)Appropriate restrictions n cerngnt of drainage features.
OK? i/ Comment: • I
(b) Appropriate restriction on pikement 6f septic drairl0fields
OK? Comment: M cIQ IS
(c) Appropriate restriction on acerpent o f compacted fills and footings
OK? ,Comment: ��5. I
(d) Recommended buffers fro the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other
slopes on the property.
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
OK? Lz Comment: 1 ��
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard
��areas
�shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other s�o Co the propq .OK? �'� Comment:
(8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading pfan which specifically
identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the
method o vegetation removal.
OK? \ Comment:
(9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which
identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the
slope from erosion, landslides�and harmful construction methods.
OK? v,i` Comment: i�01_ V-i ! (�
(10) An analysis of both on-site anti off=silk impacts of the proposed development.
OK? L,�, Comment:
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths. �i
OK? L Comment: fi k((L
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation. ,
OK? Comment: {(, PXL)
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the loca idri
and nature of existing and pr posed development on the site. '1
OK?_� Comment:
Are the Documents signed and stamped? ✓.
Type and #of License:
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action?
Reviewed by , on
Time spent in review• _ - 115; R9 X
SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE:
Reviewed by on
Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE: //�)
Reviewed by on
Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008