HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotech BLD2006-00048 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 12/31/2006 f
sTgT MASON COUNTY
�P M o PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
r o T Shelton, Washington 98584
r2 N y
1W4
DATE: June 12, 2006
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Rebecca Hersha PARCEL # 12221-31-90141
FROM: John Sliva, Programs Engineer-PW BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: BLD2006-00048
SUBJECT: Geo-Tech Report Review NAME: McFarland Greg & Larisa
Rebecca,
The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed new single-family residence located at 351 E.
Victor Road near Belfair has been received and reviewed by Public Works.
The report appears to satisfactorily address County requirements for Geotechnical Reporting. The
author concludes the overall global stability of the ravine north of the proposed building area under
the present site conditions and post construction appears good. Slope stability was modeled in
both static and seismic conditions. As a result the building needs a set back of 50 feet from the top
portion of the steep slope. Prior to construction NL Olson & Associates recommends field
verification of the building setback from the top portion of the slope.
Drainage, erosion control, earthwork, and structural recommendations are addressed by the author
and should be followed.
Adequate erosion and sediment control features need to be implemented during land disturbing
activities to protect neighboring properties and State waters from adverse stormwater runoff
impacts. The migration or release of silty water or mud from the applicant's property will be
considered a violation of County and State water quality protection regulations.
Based on the contents of this report, I recommend accepting this report as satisfying the
County's requirements for stability investigation and geotechnical reporting. Recommendations
contained in the report should be incorporated into the site development plans and made
conditions for permit issuance.
Please feel free to contact me at 724 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if
you feel any features need further discussion or attention.
Sincerely,
John Sliva
Programs Engineer
TL CHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
351 EAST VICTOR ROAD
Prepared For:
Larisa and Greg McFarland
351 E. Victor Road -
Belfair, WA 98528
A� &14ad
H.L. Olson
& Associates
INC
Engineering, Planning
& Land Surveying
SINCE 1973
Prepared By:
N.L. Olson & Associates, Inc.
2453 Bethel Avenue
Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-2284 / Fax: (360) 876-1487
Email: i IJi�C;i Giw►„� � , ;. F
May 2006
I �
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
351 EAST VICTOR ROAD
BELFAIR, WA
CLIENT:
LARISA AND GREG MCFARLAND
351 E VICTOR ROAD
BELFAIR, WA 98528
BY:
N.L. OLSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2453 BETHEL AVE. SE
PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
(360) 876-2284
JOB NO. 6345-06
'P'. J p
J
39359
NAL EN
7ii?ES 5/7/
MAY 2006
N.L. OLSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Engineering, Planning and Surveying
May 19, 2006 Project Number: 6345-06
Attn: Larisa and Greg McFarland
351 E Victor Road
Belfair, WA 98528
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Proposed Single Family Development
351 E Victor Road
Belfair, WA
Dear Mrs. & Mr. McFarland;
This report presents our findings and recommendations for placement of the proposed structure
as well as other geotechnical engineering aspects to this site development.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of further
assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Wesley R. Johnson, P.E.
Project Engineer
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
CAProjects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland georepon doc
t i .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
SITE LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS...................................................................................... 1
SITECONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 1
PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 1
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................... 2
SubsurfaceInvestigation.................................................................................................... 2
SiteSoil Conditions............................................................................................................ 2
Groundwater...................................................................................................................... 2
WATERWELL LOG INFORMATION............................................................................................. 2
AVAILABLE GEOLOGIC AND SOILS INFORMATION........................................................................2
EROSIONCONCERNS............................................................................................................... 3
SEISMICCONCERNS................................................................................................................ 3
SLOPE RECONNAISSANCE AND HISTORICAL LANDSLIDE RESEARCH............................................ 3
SlopeReconnaissance....................................................................................................... 3
Coastal Zone Atlas Information.......................................................................................... 3
SLOPESTABILITY ANALYSIS..................................................................................................... 3
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................4
SITEPREPARATION AND GRADING............................................................................................4
Structuralfill....................................................................................................................... 5
PermanentCut and Fill Slopes........................................................................................... 5
SURFACEAND GROUND WATER............................................................................................... 5
FOUNDATIONSUPPORT ...........................................................................................................6
FootingDrainage................................................................................................................ 7
FLOORSLABS.........................................................................................................................7
CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING AND SUBSURFACE WALLS ..............................................................7
Staticand Vehicle Loading................................................................................................. 7
EarthquakeLoading........................................................................................................... 8
Retaining Wall Subsurface Drainage.................................................................................. 8
RetainingWall Backfill........................................................................................................ 8
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................................9
SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS...........................................................9
SETBACKREQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................... 10
REPORTLIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................10
VICINITYMAP............................................................................................................FIGURE 1
SITEPLAN.................................................................................................................FIGURE 2
SOILSURVEY MAP...................................................................................................FIGURE 3
SLOPESTABILITY MAP ...........................................................................................FIGURE 4
CROSSSECTION (A-A).............................................................................................FIGURE 5
APPENDIX A—TEST PIT LOGS
APPENDIX B —SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
i
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
351 EAST VICTOR ROAD
BELFAIR, WA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
investigation for the referenced project. The geotechnical engineering investigation was done
in general accordance to Mason County Resource Ordinance, Ordinance Number 77-93, dated
February 28, 2006. In the following, we present our findings, conclusions and recommendations
for the proposed development.
SITE LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located at the address of 351 E Victor Road in Belfair, WA. The site is situated in
the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 1
West, in Mason County, Washington. The Vicinity Map for the property has been illustrated on
Figure 1.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is bordered to the east by East Victor Road, to the north by a steep downward trending
ravine, to the south by a single family residence and by undeveloped land to the west. The
property is rectangular in shape, roughly one acre in size and previously developed with a
single-family residence.
The area of proposed development consists of a slope, which ascends down from the east to
the west with gradients of about 516 1t'percent. Beyond the proposed building area to the
west the slope increases downward in steepness with gradients of about 16°to 24D percent.
Beyond the proposed building area to the north a ravine was observed along the north side of
the property. The slope along the ravine increases in steepness as the slope descends down
to bottom portion of a draw with gradients less than 40 to 56 pereent-,`The ravine's vertical
slope height was on the order of 40 to 50 feet.'
The developed portions of the site and areas west of the proposed building area have been
cleared. In the undeveloped ravine area of the site, a secondary re-growth of cedar, Douglas
fir, alder and large leaf maple was observed.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As presently conceived, a portion of the site is proposed for development with a single family
residence. The building footprint will be roughly 1,900 square feet. The structure will be one to
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C\Projects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report doc
Project No. 6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 2
two-stories and of light wood frame construction, daylight basement, floor slab and attached
garage. The building's footing loads are anticipated to be light to moderate. We have shown
the approximate building layout on the Site Plan - Figure 2.
L
cipate the cuts along the north, south and east side of the proposed structure-wilkbe-'e of 5 to 10 feet and daylight to the west. Minimal cuts are anticipated along the west
he building.
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Subsurface Investigation
The test pits were excavated using a track-hoe prove e y the client, and extended down 2 to
13 feet below current site grades. The approximate test pit locations are shown on shown on
the Site Plan, Figure 2.
Site Soil Conditions
In general, our test pits revealed the site is underlain by silty sand, poorly graded sand and silt.
Glacial till was encountered in ades ands
e glacial till was underlain by dense to very dense
silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and cobble. In test pit TP-2, loose to medium dense
silty sand with gravel was encountered in the mil horizon. The silty sand
with gravel was underlain by medium dense to dense well graded gravel with silt. Glacial till
was not encountered in the test pit TP-2. For a more detailed description of the subsurface
conditions, please refer to our test pit logs presented in Appendix A.
Groundwater
I FORMATION
Based on the water well log information for this area, we anticipate a static around water_Jevel
of about 200 feet below current site grades. At this time, NLO was unable to find water well log
information for the well located along t e south side of the property.
AVAILABLE GEOLOGIC AND SOILS INFORMATION
The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resource (WDGER), Geologic Map of
Washington — Northwest Quadrant, dated 2002, has mapped the site as Quanternary
sediments, dominantly glacial drift and includes alluvium. Glacial till consists of an unsorted,
unstratified, highly compacted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders deposited by
glacial ice.
The Soil Survey, Mason County, Washington 1960 indicates the site is underlain k�
j 15% slopes and Everett Gravely sandy loam, Eh and Ek, 5% to 15%
and 15% to 30% slopes, respectively. T
P.O. Box 637.2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C iProjeclsl6345 McFarlandUcFarlandlMCFarland geo report.doc
f 7 ,
Project No. 6345-06
May 19,2006
Page No. 3
EROSION CONCERNS
opinion that the proposed residence should have a minor influence on the present
p�oten'a( for erosion and should not create a significant environmental impact during
construction or post construction.
The erosion risk can be mitigated through normal landscaping and the control of surface runoff.
During construction and until fully surfaced and/or landscaped, the exposed site soils may be
subject to minor erosio . n of the e is would be most noticeable during periods
of intense raanfall ands al erosion control measures, i.e., silt
" ces, hay bales, mule thing, and contour furrowing.
SEISMIC CONCERNS
NLO has reviewed the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) for seismic design criteria for the
proposed construction. The UBC seismic design parameters for this site include a seismic
zone soil profile type of (SD), in the u er 100 feet of the rofile. ed on the encountered
nt appears low.
The site's ground acceleration was determined from the 2002 USGS Earthquake Hazard
Program. The interpolated probabilistic ground motion values (PGA), in %g, for the 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years was PGA=32.88%. The PGA was based on the following
location 47.3816 Latitude and 122.8123 Longitude. The maximum horizontal ground
acceleration (Kh= 0.16) was determined by dividing the PGA by 2.
SLOPE RECONNAISSANCE AND HISTORICAL LANDSLIDE RESEARCH
Slope Reconnaissance
As part of our fieldwork, the slope areas were examined for indications of slope instability during
our reconnaissance performed May 12, 2006. Indications of slope instability include head
scarps, hummocky terrain, inconsistent patterns of vegetation, tension cracks, _seep.
ge zones
and course grain_material overlaying silt and cla� soils. t , Wnee, no
-ems-or erosion s ine and the ravin
Coastal Zone Atlas Information
A review of Department of Ecology, Slope Stability Maps — Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 9, 1979
(Mason County)" indicates the area has been classified as stable, and intermediate stability.
Slopes _classified as intermediate stability (1) are generally steeper than 15 percent except
where conditions such as weaker material and/or abundan groundwater exist. Identified areas
include slopes of sand and gravel, till, or thin soils over bedrock, which have no known failures.
Stable (S) is defined as having slopes of less than 15 percent. Slope stability mapping for the
site has been illustrated on Figure 4.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Slope stability analysis was performed on cross section A-A, utilizing a 2 ft contour map
developed from LIDAR. The analysis was preformed with (PCSTABL7-Version 2.0), a slope
stomputer program using the Modified Bishop Method of Slices. This method of analysis
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C\Projects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report doc
r ,
Project No. 6345-06
May 19,2006
Page No. 4
provides a number failure surfaces to determine the critical surface and associated factor-of-
safety (FS). The FS is determined from the ratio of shear strength (the frictional resistance and
soil cohesion resisting the down slope movement) to shear stress - (gravitational forces that
initiate slope movement) or FS = Shear Strength/Shear Stress. A FS equal to 1.0 is considered
e�m and n 1.0 indicates failure. Based on general slope stability guidelines
- _ - and FS of 1.1 or greater for seismic is considered adequate.
The building setback was determined by extending the critical failure surface from the toe of
slope uphill toward the structure until an adequate factor of safety for static and seismic loading
was achieved. The soil parameters utilized for our slope stability analysis and discussion of our
slope stability analysis methodology can be found in Appendix B. The proposed slope
configuration and soil conditions utilized in our analysis are shown in Cross Section A-A', Figure
5.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Following our review of Mason County Resource Ordinance, Ordinance Number 77-93, we
`ne that
nstro`n appears
T
glstabt n' ed building area under
„ itions I bPost constri bn a We understand that the
proposed_residence will utilize the_existing septic _drainfield area, which previously has not 6
exhibited signs of slope instabilitor erosion. We recommend vegetation removal only in areas
- ` proposed for grading, paved areas and building placement. NLO has provided the o owing
recommendations for the project. ---
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
pavement, fill and/or building areas should be stripped of all sod, organic soil, existing fill and
bris. In most areas, a minimal stripping depth should be anticipated. However, deeper
avations will be required to remove large tree root-balls, existing fill, foundations, septic
t ks and associated drainfields, or pockets of unsuitable soils. Stripped soils, contaminated
I t rth organics or debris, should be wasted off site or used in landscape areas.
Following site stripping, and prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade should be proof rolled
and compacted to a firm, unyielding condition using vibratory equipment of appropriate size and
e
type capable of developing a minimum dynamic compaction effort rating of at least 25,000
pounds with a static drum weight of 13,000 pounds. Compaction of the stripped subgrade
should be continued until field density tests show that a minimum compaction of 95% of the
maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM method D-1557, has been achieved in all fill,
building, roadway, and parking areas, or NLO indicates a firm unyielding subgrade has been
obtained. Any soft or weaving areas disclosed during proof rolling should be excavated and
replaced with compacted structural fill. We recommend that all site grading and preparation be
undertaken and completed during dry weather. If grading in building or pavement areas is
necessary during wet weather, and time does not permit allowing the on-site soils to drain, we
recommend that all excavated soil be removed from the site or set aside in covered stockpiles,
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C\Projects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report.doc
Project No.6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 5
and imported materials for structural fill. The structural fill must meet the requirements
presented below.
Structural fill
n Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings or pavement that consist of
free draining grave Ty saMr-I`faving-a maximum size of 1-1/2 inches and with not more than 5.0%
fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. All imported fill material should conform to the above
recommendation regardless of present weather conditions. All structural fill should be placed
on a firm, properly prepared subgrade. Fill materials should be placed in approximately 8 inch
thick layers, moisture conditioned, and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM D-1557.
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes
Permanent cut slopes and structural fill slopes shall not exce nt of 2HAV (50%).
Permanent fill slopes should be placed in accordanceNMMWe
TM pp" resented in this report. In areas where
c u
steeper slopes are required, retaining strures s ould be provided.
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER
Only minor storm water related problems are anticipated if grading operations and site
preparation work are undertaken during the normally drier portions of the year, May 1 through
Nov 1. However, if site work is undertaken during wet weather, typically Nov 1 through May 1, it
should be anticipated that the near surface fine-grained soil will become over-saturated and
unworkable. If the contractor should undertake the site work during wet weather, they should be
fully prepared to deal with wet soil conditions and water problems associated with wet weather
work, including the filtering of runoff, as needed to prevent the siltation of down slope areas
miniaziing potential erosion concerns, `''is recom d that to should'no e
Whpped and left without erosion protection for an extend Yiod of time` prior to the actual
start of construction and/or landscaping. Silt fencing and other erosion control devices and
megWres may be req _" rol AWer runoff and sedirtnt transport off the site.
It should be anticipated that perched water flows or water flows developed during periods of wet
weather may occur in excavations as shallow as one to two feet below current site grades or
atop siltier zones at deeper depths. In that we are unable to predict where or when groundwater
seepage might occur, we recommend that any development of seeps or flows be treated as a
construction/maintenance problem.
aft� W ht lining o runoff to th-
arty would be"
Q� u� However, such disposal sydwms should comply with all appficabl' ions and the pipes
should discharge into a manifold-type structure or into an energy dissipater such as a pad of
crushed rock to minimize erosion. If an energy dissipater pad is used it should be a minimum
of three feet on a side and one foot thick, and comprised of two to four inch crushed roi k inside
a stacked from to prevent down slope migration of the rock.
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C\Projects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report.doc
t
Project No. 6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 6
iag provided at convenient locations along the length of the storm
drainage system for maintenance. Tight lines trending down to the base of the slope should be
monitored annually or after significant precipitation events. If the tight lines are found faulty or
inoperative they should be replaced immediately.
Note:
IV 9
_ wl, disch walls, or
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
Support for the planned residences can be provided using daylight basements in conjunction
with conventional shallow foundation systems bearing on competent native soils or on structural
fill used to modify site grades.
For the residence's continuous and column footing system bearing on properly compacted
structural fill or dense undisturbed native granular soils an allowable soil bearing pressure of
2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used. For frost protections, footings should have a
minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below adjacent grade. A base friction coefficient of
0.30 is considered appropriate for the expected dense site foundation support soils. An ultimate
passive equivalent fluid earth pressure for retaining structures, considering a horizontal ground
surface, of 250 pcf is available to develop additional resistance to lateral pressures. Passive
pressures should be ignored or appropriately reduced in areas where the ground slopes
downward on the resisting side of the wall within 4 times the footing embedment depth of the
wall. The upper two feet of soil should be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. A
1/3 increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind, and seismic loads.
NLO recommends a footing subgrade inspection to verify if adequate foundation subgrade soils
have been achieved. NLO may require additional overexcavation below the planned bottom
level of footing if soft, loose, or organic laden soils are encountered. Prior to fill placement, all
material intended for structural fill use will require verification and approval by a representative
of our firm. Structural fill placement should be done in accordance to the structural fill section
discussed in Site Preparation and Grading Section of this report.
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C\Projects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report.doc
r ,
Project No. 6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 7
Footing Drainage
To preclude the possible build-up of ground water or storm runoff in the soils adjacent to the
structure, it is recommended that a four-inch diameter, SDR 35 (ASTM 3034), perforated, rigid
pipe placed perforations down, around the perimeter of the building foundation at the footing
subgrade elevation. The entire foundation drainage system should be bedded in gravel, drain
rock) and designed to carry any accumulated water away from the structure to an appropriate
discharge area.
onnected to the footing drains but may use the same outfall
rom the building such that roof water will not backup into the
FLOOR SLABS
Floor slabs may be supported on properly placed and compacted structural fill or on the
medium dense to very dense in-situ native soils following preparation as outlined above. A
capillary break/drainage layer consisting of six inches of pea gravel, or clean crushed rock
should be placed below the floor slab. The capillary break material should contain less than
1.0% material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve and less than 4.0% material passing a U.S. No. 10
sieve. A visqueen vapor barrier having a minimum thickness of 6-mils should be placed
between the capillary break and the floor slab. We understand that a sand cushion between the
vapor barrier and the base of the slab may improve the curing of the slab concrete. If a sand
cushion is placed between the capillary break material or the vapor barrier and the slab, it
should not contain free moisture when the slab is constructed. Excess moisture in the cushion
could cause impervious floor coverings to bubble.
CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING AND SUBSURFACE WALLS
The following earth pressures and design values are provided for cast-in-place retaining and
subsurface walls up to 15 feet in height. We recommend that all foundations be designed as
outlined above and bear on the dense native soils or structural fill placed and compacted as
previously described.
Static and Vehicle Loading
Retaining and subsurface walls should be designed for an active equivalent fluid pressure of�5
.10 i, if the top of the wall is allowed to deflect, assuming a horizontal ground surface behind the
wall. If the top of the wall is restrained an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf is recommended.
Active or at rest pressures will need to be increased for sloping ground or surcharge loads
(such as vehicle traffic) behind the wall.
Resistance to sliding can be developed by a combination of passive pressure and base friction.
A base friction coefficient of 0.30 is considered appropriate for the anticipated dense foundation
subgrade soils. For traffic surcharge loads near retaining structures an ultimate passive
equivalent fluid earth pressure, considering a horizontal ground surface, of 300 pcf should be
used. Passive pressures should be ignored or appropriately reduced in areas where the ground
slopes downward on the resisting side of the wall within 4 times the wall footing embedment
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C\Prolects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report doc
Project No. 6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 8
depth. Appropriate safety factors should be applied to the recommended base friction and
ultimate passive pressure values.
Earthquake Loading
Earthquake loadings are also expected to increase the lateral pressures indicated above. The
increases for most basement walls have historically been expected to be within limits that are
generally compensated for with a reduced safety factor (Seed, H. B. & Whitman, R. V., Design
ifoff Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads, 1970 Specialty Conference on Lateral
Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1970). However, the increases in lateral loadings from earthquake forces are
expected to provide a slightly increased component of the lateral pressures to be taken into
consideration in the structural design of buried walls. Seed and Whitman discuss a procedure
for determination of lateral loading following an approach suggested by Mononobe and Okabe.
As input to the Mononobe-Okabe evaluation, a friction angle of 35 degrees for the backfill soils
was used along with a horizontal and vertical earthquake acceleration of 0.16g (half of the peak
ground acceleration for the 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, as suggested by the
USGS).
Based on this input and some assumptions on wall friction, an earthquake loading surcharge of
7H (equivalent active fluid pressure), and 5.5H, for at-rest. This loading is additive to the static
"active" and "at-rest" pressures indicated above. The application of this loading depends on the
wall type chosen. The earthquake surcharge loading should be applied as a rectangular loading
condition with the resultant loading pressure within the rectangular loading.
The above-recommended pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressure on the
wall as they assume a drained condition exists. The maintenance of a dewatered/drained
condition behind all retaining structures is required for the above values to be valid. The
following drain system and backfill requirements are recommended.
Retaining Wall Subsurface Drainage
A longitudinal subdrain with a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be constructed at the base
{ of the footing elevation behind the walls. This drain should be constructed of Winch diameter
"perforate n; bedded in an eighteen-inch envelope of free-draining
sand and gravel. This system should be sloped to drain and the water disposed of in the storm
drainage system. Clean-outs should be provided at bends and convenient intervals, so that the
drainage system can be maintained in a well-functioning condition. Flexible plastic piping (such
corrugated ADS-type piping) should not be used behind the wall.
Retaining Wall Backfill
All wall backfill over the gravel envelope should consist of clean, free-draining, well-graded sand
and gravel containing less than 2.0% fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This
material should extend out from the rear wall face a minimum of eighteen inches. The free-
draining backfill should be placed to the surface in paved areas or to within eighteen inches of
the surface in non-paved areas. Backfill should be compacted as recommended above for fills.
P.O Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax. (360) 876-1487
C\Projects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report doc
+ r
Project No. 6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 9
In non-paved areas, the final eighteen inches of backfill should consist of topsoil or native
materials firmly tamped into place.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
eline for temporary cut than 10 feet in height; dd
tib-�rnade no steeper than 1HA1mtr the dense granular soils and no s eeper
than 2HA V in medium dense soils or structural fill plac IQ
nd compacted as outlined above.
For tempor in existing fill, topsoil, or loose nica
r tempora77M 1010he full height of the cut.
Temporary slopes or excavations should be benched as required by safety regulations in effect
at the time of construction. The provided temporary slope recommendations are for native soils
and fill materials; flatter slopes may be required in wet weather or if soil conditions other than
those previously described are encountered. The contractor should be aware that slope height,
slope inclination, and excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case
exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations; e.g., OSHA Health and
Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations. Such
regulations are strictly enforced and, if not followed, the owner, the contractor, or the earthwork
or utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor should be made
responsible for the stability of all excavations and slopes during construction because they are
continually on site and can observe the stability of the exposed soils. In addition, the contractor
should be prepared to shore any unstable slope area and provide shoring as required by local,
state, or federal laws or codes. The provision of shoring design recommendations is beyond the
authorized scope of this report.
In a disturbed condition the site soils may be eroded by channelized water or sheet flow storm
runoff. Therefore, it is recommended that all site preparation and excavation work be completed
during the normally drier portion of the year. During periods of heavy rainfall, ditching should be
used to divert water away from stripped areas and visqueen should be used to cover the slopes
® and soil stockpiles to aid in preventing excessive surface erosion. This covering also aids in
preventing infiltration of water into the unprotected soils. All disturbed soil areas and slopes
should be replanted with fast-growing, deep-rooted grass, shrubs and other ground cover as
soon after final grading as possible. If the vegetation is not fully established prior to the on set
of wet weather, the slopes should be covered with visqueen to aid in preventing excessive
erosion and water infiltration.
It should be anticipated that there could be a number of additional site development or
construction problems, particularly if the earthwork has not been completed and the site
properly protected at the onset of wet weather. It is recommended that a qualified
representative of the architect or engineer make periodic inspections of all excavations and
slopes to provide early recognition and recommendations.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
NLO should observe the site prior to project completion to determine if the present erosion
control, and re vegetation plan is adequate. We anticipate that areas outside the proposed
�v building area will consist of lawn and landscapin .
I �
P.O. Box 637e 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C Trolects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland georepon.doc
+ Project No. 6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 10
• Exposed soil areas should be hydroseeded or covered with straw or mulch.
Footing drains and downspout tightlines, and graded areas will be observed after
completion of the residence for potential surface runoff and erosion issues.
Vegetation in the building setback and the creek buffer/setbacks should not be
disturbed.
Disturbed areas associated with this development should be seeded with grass and
covered with 2 to 3 inch thick layer of straw.
Mulch can also be used in lieu of straw in non-seeded areas.
• The sites permanent erosion control measures, lawn and landscaping should be
completed prior to November 1.
• `Verify°footing subgrade area and building setbacks prior to placement of footing forms
and rebar.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
At this time, we ave utilized slope stability analysis to determine the building's setback,
distance of 50 feet from the top portion of the steep slope for the proposed residence. The
setback distance shall be determined by measuring between the furthest projecting footing
element to the top portion of slope identified on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Prio[ ,ction,
NLO recommends field verification of the building setback from the top portion of the slope.
1 �J Per Mason County's comments (2/17/06) case number, BLD2006-00048, NLO has provided as
a LIDAR map illustrating buffer and setback requirements for the propped building.area near
the inte ittent stream. The stream buffer requirements are 75 feet with ;a' 5 ee M ng
ufr. a buffers and setbacks for the intermittent stream have been defined on the Site flan
igure 2.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the client regarding the subject project. Information
presented in this report has been collected and interpreted in a manner consistent with the level
of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under
similar conditions, and in accordance with sound and generally accepted principles consistent
with normal consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, including (but not
limited to) any warranty or merchantability or fitness for a particular use has been made.
In the event that change in the nature, design, or location of the proposed construction is made,
or any physical changes to the site occur, recommendations are not be considenless
the changes are reviewed by NLO and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in
writing.
NLO should be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to
observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow
design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from anticipate for to the start of
construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance o e oundation or
earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to
provide construction observation.
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax (360) 876-1487
C.1Projects�6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland geo report doc
Project No. 6345-06
May 19, 2006
Page No. 11
Any site involving sloping terrain has inherent risk of earth movement. As a result, the CLIENT
agrees to accept full responsibility for all risks associated with steep slopes. The CLIENT
acknowledges that this risk cannot be completely eliminated and that engineering and geologic
analysis is intended to reduce the inherent risk associated with slopes. No amount of
geotechnical engineering and geologic analysis can provide a guarantee of stable slopes.
Geotechnical engineering and geologic analysis are based heavily on subjective interpretation,
professional judgment, and opinion regarding the physical conditions at a specific site.
Subsurface conditions are only documented at those points where samples were taken and
interpolation and extrapolation is necessary between and around sample locations. Conditions
can vary between samples and can change over time due to natural processes and/or human
activity. Analyses and recommendations provided in this report are based in part upon the data
obtained from the subsurface explorations.
P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487
C:\Projects\6345 McFarland\McFarland\McFarland georeport.doc
Y
� 1^
d
a 144TH ST
O _BAY_:.,
- TOR RD
SITE
J
3
a
a
m
E
VICINITY MAP
�U
'
C
(0
C
(0
LL
U
f0
N
U
N
O
a`
v I
• t
o
LIDAR INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY ALKAI
CONSULTING LLC
/50 -
6°
TEST PIT LOCATION
Uc nnoN uC 1
4
o
c i
I �
ID
5
4•
REVISIONS BY DATE A FOR: ATTN: LARISA A
DATE I BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED .k,N1.,01 GREG MCFARLA
DRAYM Enginee
CHECKED 351 E. VICTOR RI
APPROVED BELFAIR, WA 98
ACCEPTED 2453 8"k w
' c +
r
�aF
- v .� t n ,y�i,. v k•§ tin:
Xm
4- 2-
ILA#
NY
t i• :.°o�+'i ' ,fir�'�! Y�d ;;�,,}} � .htr.,
fh r xtkr�. a a'+p 0
i5
,
It
i � #
x
- -
•. y • ••- • • •.
0 Mm
s
A review of Department of Ecology,
GlopoStability Maps - Coastal Zone
atlas, Volume 9, 1979 (Mason County)" �
ndicates the area has been classified as
-,table, and intermediate stability.
31s classified as intermediate
stability (1) are generally steeper than 15 n'
-)ercent except where conditions such as
Neaker material and/or abundant
groundwater exist. Identified areas
nclude slopes of sand and gravel, till, or
hin soils over bedrock which have no
known failures. Stable (S) is defined as K. q
'laving slopes of less than 15 percent. , f
for
w f
$ o V� Y
£14 p
�� yx
Site x
,
A� ,uw.x,ir: r
# � §
v.
"q
4�
,. Figure 4
Slope Stability Mapping l ,�
A'-`A N.L.Olson&Associates,Inc.
Engineering.Planning and Surveying McFarland
2453 BETHEL AVENUE 351 E Victor Road
P.O.BOX 637
PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfair, WA
I '
i
Building Setback
I
50 ft
I i
Proposed esidence i
i
I
l
60
Total Saturated Friction
Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Angle i
47.5 ft (pct) (pco (deg)
135.0 145.0 35.0 f
30
I Suctace Silty Sand with Gravel
1\ure
I I
i
i
0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
i
I
Cross Section A-A
k-`AN.L.Olson&Associates,Inc. McFarland
Engineering,Planning and Surveying
351 E Victor Road
2413 BETHEL AVENUE
I P.O.Box 637 — Belfair, WA — — —
PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637
APPENDIX A
TEST PIT LOGS
The site soil conditions were explored on the site July 22, 2005 by excavating eight test pits
throughout the site. The test pit excavation were excavated using a track-hoe provided by the
client, and were extended to depths of 2 to 12 feet. The approximate test pits locations are
shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. the test pits soil logs are presented in this Appendix.
Stratification lines designating the interface between soil types in subsurface exploration logs
represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The test
pit logs and related information depicts conditions only at the specific locations and at the
particular time designated on the logs. The depths represented on our test pits logs were
referenced to present site grades encountered during our subsurface exploration work.
AZ-,'A N L.Olson&Associates,Inc. Test Pit
Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland
1411 BETHEL AVENUE
351 E Victor Road
P.O.BOX 637
PORT ORCHARD,`•NASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfalr, WA
Job Number. Logged By: Subsurface Exploration Ground Surface Elevation Page
6345 WRJ Start Date:Mar 14,2006 1 End Date: Mar 14,2006 154 TP-3 1 of 1
General Surface
Notes Conditions:
Grab samples
Area Cleared Test Pit Below Rock Wall Area
"— �
Moist
taken at following n E USCS L Coisture
SYMBOL mert
Depths C (%
TOPSOIL upper 2 to 4 inches
Brown Silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, moist
2 ft sM - Contains cobbles
2-
4-
5- Test Pit terminated at 2 feet.
6-
7-
8-
9
10
11
12
13
I
14
15
16
17
18
Contractor Operators Name Sampling Method Drawn By: Date Hole Completion
grab WRJ Dec 19,2005 ❑
Monitoring Well
Equipment Groundwater Elevation Checked By: Date Piezometer
Not Encountered ® Abanonded and backfilled
Notes: Revision By: Date Inclinometer
El
Test Pit
&!--'A N.L.Olson&Associates,Inc.
Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland
2453 BETHEL AVENUE
351 E Victor Road
P.O.BOX 637
PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfair, WA
Joo Number. Logged By. Subsurface Exploration Ground Surface Elevation Page
6345 WRJ Start Date:Mar 14,2006 1 End Date: Mar 14,2006 141 TP-1 1 of 1
Surf
General ace
Notes Conditions:
Grab samples a z Drive Area cleared of Vegitation j
E a USCSt Moisture
taken at following m E SYMBOL m Content
9 N p ��
Depths j
I
Brown Silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, j
1 ft 1 moist
sM 2 - Contains cobbles
i
3
3 to 4 It SP Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel and trace silt,
4 medium dense, moist
4 to 5 It ML - Contains cobbles
5--
6-
Dark Gray Silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense
7 - Contains cobbles
aft j
- Appears to be a layer of glacial till 5 to 8 ft below current i
8 site grades between el 133 to el 136
SM I
Becomes yellowish brown at roughly 8 feet and dense
9 - Cobbles not encountered below 8 feet
Contains trace gravel
10 - At roughly 12 to 13 feet becomes dense to very dense
11 -Observed silt content 15 to 20 percent
12ft
12
13It
13
Test Pit terminated at 13 feet.
14
15
16
17
18
Contractor Operators Name Sampling Method Drawn By: Date Hole Completion
grab WRJ Dec 19,2005 ❑
Monitoring Well
Equipment Date ❑ Piezometer
Groundwater Elevation Checked By:
Not Encountered ® Abanonded and backfilled
Notes: Revision By Date ❑ Inclinometer
(
t
Test Pit
A'=`�N.L.Olson&Associates Inc.
Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland
2453 BETHEL AVENUE 351 E Victor Road
I
P.O.BOX 637
PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfalr, VVA
Job Number Logged By: Subsurface Exploration Ground Surface Elevation Page I
6345 WRJ Start Date:Mar 14.2006 End Date: Mar 14.2006 112 TP-2 1 of 1
Surface
General Conditions: I
Notes
Area cleared along slope surface
Grab samples -�$ USCS t Moisture
taken at following E SYMBOL m Content
Depths
Brown Silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense,
2 ft 1 moist
sM 2 - Contains cobbles
3
4 Yellowish brown well graded gravel with sand and silt,
medium dense to dense, moist
5 - Contains cobbles
I
6
7
ft GW-GM 8
I
g
I,
10
11
12
13ft
13
Test Pit terminated at 13 feet.
14
15
16
17
18
Contractor Operators Name Sampling Method Drawn By: Date Hole Completion
grab WRJ Dec 19.2005 ❑ Monitoring Well
Equipment Groundwater Elevation Checked By: Date ❑ Piezometer
Not Encountered ® Abanonded and backfilled
Notes:
Revision By: Date ❑ Inclinometer
El
❑ I
APPENDIX B
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION & RESULTS
For the purposes of our slope stability analysis, we have assumed a pore pressure ratio (ru) of
.25 for the groundwater water build up within the slope, which may occur with a typical 100 year
24 hour storm event for this area. The cross section illustrating the slope is shown on (Cross
Section A-A' in Figure 5. The soil strength parameters utilized in the analysis are presented
below.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SOIL PARAMETERS
Soil Type Density Cohesion Friction
YP (Ref) (Psf) (degrees)
1 Silty Sand with Gravel&Silty Sand 135(m) /145(s) 0 35
Soil strength parameters were developed based on our experience with similar soil conditions -
and published values. The site soils consist of medium dense to dense soils in the upper 6 to 8
feet of the soil horizon becoming dense at roughly 8 to 12 feet. Based on the encountered soil
conditions, we have provided a cons8R 35 degrees for our analysis of
the entire slope profile detailed in Cross Section A-A.
Note: y Therefore, the s went
occurring- .,�y cad be �msidered. oil conditions encountered at
the time of our subsurface exploration were utilized for our seismic analysis. The site's ground
acceleration was determined from the 2002 USGS Earthquake Hazard Program. The
interpolated probabilistic ground motion values (PGA), in %g, for the 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years was PGA=32.88%. The PGA was based on the following location
47.3816 Latitude and 122.8123 Longitude. The maximum horizontal ground acceleration (Kh=
0.16) was determined by dividing the PGA by 2.
The building setback was determined by extending the slope failure planes from the toe of
slope uphill toward the structure until an adequate factor of safety for static and seismic loading
was achieved.` on a 50 feet setback d the anticipated soil conditions, we
In e stability results in the following_
Slope Stability Results of Existing Slope Condition
Cross Section Slope Wet ru=.25 Slope Wet ru=0.0 Seismic FS
Static FS Static FS
Existing/Proposed 1.514 2.097 1.336
A-A'
Required FS 1.5 (okay)
,Our Analysis indicates and adequate factor of safety for static and seismic ioadi
I%Le isc his report with a 50 feet building setback. Note: the por"ROM
yj9;y
ratio (ru), governed e °etback distance for the proposed project. Slope Stability Graphical
results are presented in this appendix.
I
pit! �
f
a
a�
_ o '
^�o
T22NR1W
ro, .:
Mir
f, N^
r
M
�. 12p NN of
..
i
4. Conten'of the Geoiogcal Assessrient
A Geological Assessment shai nclude but not be limited to the fcli(xw ng:
;1) A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed
development,with geologic unit designation consistent with terminology used in
the Coastal Zone Atlas ;'Aash.ington Deparmen:of Natural Resources. 19A0)or
in applicable U.S. Geologic Survey maps(e.g. Geological Map of North Central
Mason County,by R.J. Carson, 1976, U.S. Geologic Survey GFR 76-2). Use of
Soil Conservation Service soil layer terminology is considerea mopropriate`a
,his assessrnert:.
(2) A discussion of the ground water conditions at the s::e,incud=ng the depth to
water and the quan,N of surface seepage.
(3) The appro'eiriate depth to hard or dense coniaetent soil,e.g.glac al till or
outwash sand.
(4) A discussion of any geomorphic expression of pas:slope instabil=:y(presence of
hummocky ground or ground cracks.terraced topography indicative of landslide
block movement. bowec or arched trees indicating clawnslooe moverie-t,etc.).
(5) A discussion of the history o`landsl Je activity in the vicinity, as availa.*le in:the
Coastal Zone Haas the ria�-. ..-"-: ,.ve Slooe Stability of the Southe^- Hood
Canal Area,Washington is- 5•�i:n and R..; Carson. 197T and the -andslide
records on file hith the Mascr, ::,:unty Department of Community;Development.
;6) An opinion on:he potential for landslide ac*iv=ty at the site in light of the proposed
development.
;7) A recommencation by the preparer whether a Geotechnical Report should be
required to fur-ner evaluate site conditions and'he proposed devetopment of the
subect property.
5. Content of a Geo-echnical Repor,
A G, chnica'Rep:,*t shall include but not be limited to the follow no:
(1)✓ A discussion of general geologic conditions,specific sri ty p--s gro end water
conditions and history of iandslide activity in fie v�cini:y as recl,irec for the
Geologic Assessu`—n?e nTe-Tl n, d a)ove.
P0111(2)✓ A si:e p:an vexh identifies the important development and geologic features. r 6
CZ
�`CL— (3) t_oca:ions and ogs of exploratory holes or probes.
(4) ✓A minimum of one cross section at a scale nhict;adequately depicts:he
subsurface profile. and which incorporates he details of proposed grade
changes.
�y N. (5) v A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for berth static and
seismic loading conditions.
(6)✓ Approonate restrictions on placement of drainage features,septic dra n fields and
compactec fills and footings,including recommended setbacks from shoreline bluffs ona
the t;,,,%s o`oth si Pe the property
A detailed ciea n i ai grad no p an r,h .h s_eci ically identifies vegetation to be
ren'c ec,a sche-Lil.,fu vegresa:on re noval an -eplanting,inc the method of vegetaac
removal
(6);/ A detailed en�aerary erosion control plan which identifi s th-specific mitigating measures
to be Implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and
�'�i II harriful cons:ruction methods.
PCr 49) ✓ An analysis of bob on-site and off-site iripa=of the proposed de; a.ri ent
(10)1/Specifications of final development cond':ions such as.vegela'uh i3"aa6ment.
drainage,erosion control, and buffer widths.
�—
� � I
1 \. 1 \� �, t t -� � .��.�4 � ��/ ,; ��- pip•--�� Q
00
LIDAR INFORMATION
� � � � � �/ � Q�� ... �� � / �/ 15 0 30 60
o s ,./ /
�—=`�� Q1 iJralr rn Frrl
PROVIDED BY ALKAI
CONSULTING LLC
ILQIN A K
— ET
g0zi
� � 1, � I '� � V `•'�
, Qr -
TEST PIT LOCATION
Y TP- 2 - - `Q
c 1 N C I C
tfULDINC TRACK �.
6ET,ATION UFFE CKBE
! 1 /
TO
0- / TH OF THIS O a
n C) ! r
t
/ Q `CD
NQ ��� �✓
AL TiLL
^\ J/ 7I I
1�� v `t C T 4THISS U�NEE ATED II 1 i
—TILL I To
W CURRENT S17Ea
co
N QQ r to
t
co
REVISIONS BY DATE A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION FOR: ATTN: LARISA AND SCALE: AS SVOW
DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED N.L.01son&Associates,lnc. PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT GREG McFARLAND DATE:May 16, 2006
DRAWN Engineering, Planning and Surveying 351 E. VICTOR ROAD DRAWING NUMBER
CHECKED (360) 876-2284 351 VICTOR ROAD 066245—
APPROVED BELFAIR, WA
BELFAIR, WA 98528 xxxxxx
ACCEPTED 2453 Be"km ,P.O.Box 637.Port Or&"d,WA m66 I I • •oa■a woa.m
H i 1
150 150
SW Soil Tool S—
Ftw P—
Soi Soii T S-1-41 FMb.P— -1
Dw TyM U-M U,I- Antpe S�ItaCe
cj. T�U.��U.,
N. (pollJP4 (.g) -
No. (pcf) (pd) (ftgl P— N.
1 135c 145.0 35.0 0
snd gry 1 135.0 145.0 35.0 0.25 0
120 120
90 90
Global stability based on present soil conditions Global stability 1)asad on ru value or.251
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
i Proposed kesidence
ZAsidence
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.097
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.514
60
le
30
30
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Note: Based on the propos ilU 0VLUC1%,rX L1 I
will have a minor effect on the analyzed slope a
150 P
The slope has been analyzed for static and seismic with an acceptable D Ty A141 s.� Peqk(A) 0.32ft)
i — (P'� (P�lo ) N. kh C-f. OJCA(g)<
snk!g�1 135.0 145.0 (3�ZO
factor of safety achieved with a 50 ft setback.
120
go
Global stability based on encountered oil conditions with d6sign acceleration
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method I
i Proposed Residence
GSTI-7 v.2 FSmin=1.336 iii
60
Slope Stability Results
3o
L.Olson&Associates,I nc.
Engineering,Planning and Surveying 0
2453 BETHEL AVENUE 0 30 60 90 120 ISO 180 210 240
P.O.BOX 637 Appendix
PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 B.1