HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2009-00037 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 3/30/2009 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: W"
Permit# `iw ac l '31 Parcel
Date(s)of the Document(s) reviewed: 3 I -�,U I
(1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK�,1 Comment: Qc .
(b) A discussion of specific kil types
OK? --,,I_Comment:
(c) A discussion of ground er conditions
OK? "r Comment:
(d) A discussion of the upsl geomorphology
OK? '� Comment: % a .3
(e) A discussion of the Fo-cat& of u land waterbodies and wetlands
OK? Comment: ' (,'v
(f) A discussion of history o la dslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the
referenced maps and records
OK? " Comment: U�k 25
(2) A site plan which identifies He important develo ment and geologic features.
OK? Comment: , 4� W Nc•1n,Tk.J t-n vv� 3
(3) Locations and logs of explo a y holes o probe
OK?��Comment: VQ Cie. -
(4) The area of the proposed d— eeWapmen, the bdundarie o th azard, and associated buffers and
setbacks shall be delineated top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site. -
OK? '\ � Comment:
(5) A minimum of one cross sec on a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and
which incorporates the details of proposed gr a ch4m es.
OK?�,�Comment: r `
(6) A description and results of s op stability analy s performe 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 uasi-s tic analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15.
OK? Comment: t�
(7) (a)A ropriate restrictions on p cement of d a—mage features
OK?KZ Comment: da- 3 ( I
(b) Appropriate restrictions od pl ement of e is drain fields
OK?_--,�L Comment: 3 1
(c) Appropriate restrictions on pl ement of co pacted fills and footings
OK? --- L Comment: ?
(d) Recommended buffers frotj 64 landslide zard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other
slopes on the property.
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
r
OK? Comment:
(e) Recommended setbac s ffbm the I dslide Ilazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes on the property.
OK?_ -,, )_Comment: P a,
(8) Recommendations for the prepariatibin 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.
OK?-N4--Comment: l
(9) Recommendations for the prep rat n 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?---,-,f Comment: (&
(10) An analysis of both on-sit a off-site impacts of the proposed development.
OK?-_Comment:
(11) Specifications of final cleve p6iellt conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths.
OK? _Comment:
(12) Recommendations for the p p&ation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation.
OK?g J_Comment: C*.)
(13) A site map drawn to scale s ing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location
an ature of existing and proposed developrrienton the site. (; 3
OK? Comment:
Are the Documents signed and stamped? `� �9 .
Type and #of License�Y'0 � �G 'g-ar 3
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action?
Reviewed by ,do
Time spent in review:
SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE:
r ,
Reviewed by on
Time spent in second rev kw:
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
CTeb
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 Masan County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable,the report should explain
the basis for the conclusion.
Applicant/Owner CAQKjd AYc S¢ Parcel# ,3Z23S-7S- 90//G
Site Address 7'swder9d'SQZ-
(1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
Located on page(s) .3 e-l= 3 (/ )
(b) A discussion of specific soil types
Located on page(s) / n 3
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions
Located on page(s) -3 54-1
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology
Located on page(s) 7 es i I C I
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
Located on page(s) .? 0 f '? C (
(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) e-f C t ) C A�=EA <J NoT o�u SG.(OF /YtAPs oQ ,eo�Os]
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
Located on Map(s) 3 0J- J C 2)
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Located on Map(s) 3 a F C 3)
(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) 3 6 1 -7 C 'i-)
(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) _? a f CS)
(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 on page(s) .3 ( 4 )10 Z tr�_ 3
(7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features
Located on page(s) 3 o 4 3 (7 )
(b) Appropriate restrictions on pl cement of septic drain fields
Located on page(s) q a �71
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings
Located on page(s) a 3 C 7
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaime • Mason County does not certi
fy 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 property.
Located on page(s)
3
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes on the property. c
Located on page(s) ? of J C 4)
(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) 3 o-F 3
(g) 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 co gtruction methods.
Located on page(s) ? 6 -7
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) e,-�- _? CIO
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths.
Located on page(s) a-C 3 C /1)
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation.
Located on page(s)
(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) / o-- 3 16 Z� /3)
S?'EIIEN Imo. MOvQ.7,4 hereby certify under penalty of
perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of
g eotech ni ca[/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 R,4 R- 3v 20Oct, and entitled _6!5,'o-1e46w;cu/
y►1�r�/M� �ehe ��iar meets all the requirements of the Mason
County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is c mplete 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 such a manner as
to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp)
a*4%a*,3Ft3 P. Af 3'Jed- 200
O'P5: 04 WASH �,9 40
� F �
.g 30758
O�FC;IS iti'R�
SIGNAL
EXPIRES f
Page 2. of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Slope Stability Calculations (Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles)
79'
30 ft p5 Potential
Rotational Failure
Plane Not to scale(NTS)
Alpha=38.66 deg
(80%slope)
1. Compute factor of safety(FS)against sliding-Static Case(Ref: "Stability Charts for Uniform Slopes"by
Radoslaw L. Michalowski, F.ASCE) - "Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering",April 2002.
From Figure 3"Stability charts for uniform slopes"the following parameters are known for native silty glacial
outwash soils:
c(cohesion)=300 psf, gamma(insitu unit density)= 147 pcf, H(height of slope)=30 ft,
phi(internal friction angle)=35 deg, then
c/[gamma x H x tan(phi)]=300/(147 x 30 x tan 35)=0.0972
Then for a 38.66 deg(80%)slope from Fig. 3:
FS/tan(phi)=FS/tan(35)=2.45 or, FS=Factor of Safety Against Sliding= 1.716>1.500 OKAY
2. Compute factor of safety(FS)against sliding-Quasi-Static(Seismic)Case(Ref: "Stability Charts for Uniform Slopes"
by Radoslaw L. Michalowski, F.ASCE) - "Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering",April 2002.
From Figure 4"Stability charts for uniform slopes"the following parameters are known for native silty glacial till
soils(GW-SM):
c(cohesion)=300 psf, gamma(insitu unit density)= 147 pcf, H(height of slope)=30 ft,
phi(internal friction angle)=35 deg, then
c/[gamma x H x tan(phi)]=300/(147 x 30 x tan 35)=0.0972
Then for a 38.7 deg slope(80%)slope from Fig. 4 for a quasi-static analysis coefficient of 0.1:
F/tan(35)=2.20 or FS=Factor of Safety= 1.541
For a quasi-static analysis coefficient of 02.
F/tan(35)= 1.85 or FS=Factor of Safety= 1.295
As a result,for a quasi static analysis coefficient of 0.15,the Factor of Safety. FS=(1.541 + 1.295)/2= 1.418> 1.100 OKAY
Slope Stability Analysis for property located
at 961 E.Timber Tides Dr., Union,WA 98592 Prepared by: Morta Engineering&Testing,PLLC,1018 E.Wishkah St,Aberdeen,WA 98520
Parcel#32235-75-90110 (360)289-0958, (800)590-0958,(360)289-9682 fax,Smorta@,AOL.com
Prepared for:Bill and Jane Meneray,7314 Zimple St.
New Orleans,LA 70118 Mar.30,2009 Site Visit:Wed.3-23-2009 Sheet 2 of 3
(504)491-9352 cell
r
ELEV 190' F—yid Y MAP
N
ELEV.200' To:
ELEV 210' _ HOOD CANAL Belfair,VWA
— Union, NA N
ELEV 220' \ X
961 E.Timber Tides
'-- Union,WA98592
L0
CD 04
Shelton,VA n o
_ _ - 1 N
A_
1 o
-- ---- i Of Approximate
Timber Tides Dri road:
I
I o
,
---------------------------------------------
- 70 TO 80% --
_ DOWNWARD SLOPE NO SIGNS OF SLOPE INStABILITY SUCH AS
TOP OF 70 TO 80%SLOPES LEANING OR PISTOL-BUl',TED TREE TRUNKS,
THIS AREA OKAY FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS GROUND FISSURES,OLD,OR NEW SLIDES,
TO NORTH SIDE OF RESIDENCE DURING NO GROUND SEEPS,OR�PRINGS. E
CONSTRUCTION. — $ o
I I
A 79' A % _ O
J f0
IL
_o O
cin E �rn
2 TO 6"DIA.SMOOTH COBBLES IN A COARSE TO FINE GRAINED SAND 'gg A
04
MATRIX(GW-WP)WITH AN ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING CAPACITY OF v 5 A
2000 PSF AS DETERMINED WITH A POCKET PENETROMETER. 5 TO 7% c� c
MOISTURE CONTENT. (Alderwood gravelly sandy loam)
SOIL LOG#1 e LIGHT BROWN COARSE DENSE,COMPACTED SANDS WITH GRAVELS rn<CDrn
SOIL LOG#2 5
° C, (GW-SW)WITH AN ALLOWABLE SOILB BEARING CAPACITY OF 2500 PSF c
W a:
70 TO 80%
AND A 4 TO 6/°MOISTURE CONTENT. Sr- _ -
DOWNWARD SLOPE x
PRIMARY AND RESERVE
L
DRAINFIELD LOCATION BROWN COARSE DENSE,COMPACTED GRAVELS AND SANDS
IN STABLE AREA LOCATED 50'SET BACK&50'BUFFER DELINEATION (GV�SW)WITH AN ALLOWABLE SOILB BEARING CAPACITY OF 2700 PSF a w�n
— —_
40'BACK FROM RESIDENCE. AREA IS CONSIDERED SATISFACTORY. PRESERVE ALL TREES AND VEGETATION AND A 4 TO 6%MOISTURE CONTENT. 0-°O o rn
- - - --- -- - - ON SLOPE TO INCREASE SLOPE STABILITY W o o
�13d N
�o'y
- — =- - -- _ BOTTOM(LE.,ROAD BENCH) o v
T
OF 70 TO 80%SLOPES. _2
CL
NVAs���c
Q' p
— ; 70 TO 80% ; ELEVATION,FT
- - - `h
r, I'DOWNWARD SLOPE , ti
50 TO 79'SET BACK CONSIDERED SATISFACTORY I
30758 3'x 3'x 8'infiltration trench — -
+Q c: for the downspouts. Filled
with 1-1/2"to 3"dla.smooth i i p0 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 o DO DO O o0 mg-oc
°O o pNO
o p0 0 00 °O p0 0 O o --j 220' E
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. dean drain rock andcom- 00 00 00 o 0letel wra in eotextile o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
filter fabric.wrapped
9 O o 00 p0 / o O O o O O o p o d n CO
EXPIRES 1,e011 ; —210' IL�1 o
0--2 mg
i i J 2 C �
% c 2
11�1=II—II—II�JI�II�II=III.III-1I IFII II11-111E1�F�IC� IF IITIIIII�iC- bI�IIII�LI��—WWII—�CI-11=Il�l�llll-mil I I II Illl--I�IILII�EIIF III II 0111
— 200' �o
Q II�III10 —91 rl L1 II II�I IIIi�ILII TI�I—IIIEI�bI�rI I T�ItI�II �fJ� lllllll III I I� I III 1 1�11=1 —II�ICII�1��1�1� CI III
�l E C E I V E ® ; ;r MITI-IIr-1C)I I�I�II�TI-II�IT-TWIT II I-11-1�1�11_��=III � I�II�I —ICI �ICI I=1 I�III�I II_T� � IL—II I� �1:E, I �� �=Z�
m
190, ..
APR 0 12009 ELEV 220' ELEV 210' ELEV 200' ELEV 190'
E n
FOSTER&WILLIAMS w a
ELEV 230' ARCHITECTS _
�i
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
(1)General Geologic Conditions and Upland Geomorphology. During the (11)Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative
Quanternary period most of the Pacific Northwest experienced several glaciations (6)Description and results of a slope stability analyses for both the static management,drainage,erosion control,and buffer widths. All surface
with the most recent(Fraser)glaciation reaching its peak about 14,000 years ago. and seismic loading conditions and should examine worst case failures. water runoff from the roof shall be directed toward the 3'x 3'x 8'infiltraion trench
Maximum ice thickness during the Fraser Glaciation was approximately 1,000 feet The analysis should include the Simplified Bishops Method of Circles with located on the east side of the residence as indcated on sheet 1 of 3. All bare
at Olympia,3,000 feet at Seattle,and over 5,000 feet at Bellingham. The Fraser a quasi-static analysis coefficient of 0.15. areas after construction shall be revegetated or treed to prevent soil erosion
ice retreated quickly,leaving behind a landscape sculpted by glacial erosion and As indicated on engineering sheet 2 of 3 a detailed slope stability analysis has with plants that are indigenous to the area such as firs,madronas,and junnipers.
covered by newly deposited glacial drift, normally identified as glacial till. The been performed for both the static and quasi-static,i.e., seismic cases using a Since the slope on the north side of the residence is considered stable as
location of present-day waterways and river drainages were established by the modified form of the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The resulting factor determined from a detailed slope stability analysis then a 50'buffer from the
pattern of Fraser glacial erosion and deposition. The geologic map unit is a Qga, of safety for the static case was 1.716 which was greater than 1.500 and,therefore, slope on the north side is considered more than adequate for the overall safety
i.e., late Wisconsian(Pleistocene),sand and gravel and lacustrine day,silt,and the static slope stability factor of safety was considered satisfactory and that a 50' of the residence.
sand deposited during the advance of glaciers; sandy units commonly thick,well setback was considered satisfactory.
sorted,and fined grained,with intedayered coarser sand,gravel,and cobbles, Simlarly,for the dynamic or seismic case,the resulting factor of safety for a (12)Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or
and silt rip-rap deposits at their base; may contain nonglacial sediments; quasi-static analysis coefficient of 0.15 was computed to be 1.418. Since this is details of other proposed mitigation.
generally overlain by till. (Ref: Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, greater than 1.100,the factor of safety was considered satisfactory and,again,a 50' A footing drain shall be placed around the exterior perimeter of the foundation
by Robert L. Logan,2003.) setback was considered more than adequate. to intercept any groundwater that may have a tendency to undermine the bottom
--No signs of surface or subsurface waters was observed on the site such as of the concrete footing. Water from this footing drain and downspouts shall be
standing water,seeps,or springs. No wet areas were seen at or around the (7)Restrictions on placement of drainage features,septic drain fields and directed into the 3 x 3 x 8'infiltration trench on the east side of the structure.
building site. compacted fills and footings,and buffer and setbacks from landslide E
The upland geomorphology is relatively level with no wet areas and heavily hazard areas. It is recommended that all surface water runoff, especially from (13)A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries,scale, 8 1 M
vegetated with Douglas firs,cedars,and Madronas. downspouts be directed into the infiltration trench located on the east side of the residence north arrow,and the location and nature of existing and proposed ij o
There was no evidence of past or present slide events like pistol butted tree as indicated on Sheet 1 of 3. The drainfield area is located in a relatively flat area as development on the site. Refer to sheet 1 of 3 for the site plan. Note that J a
trunks,ground fissures,or hummocky areas at the toe of slope which would have indicated on Sheet 1 of 3 and,therefore, its location is considered satisfactory. the site plan and a typical topographical cross-section of the site and other a a a
indicated a past slide event. Since the footings and 8"concrete stemwalls are already existing,there will be no need geodata has been included on the same engineering drawing. 6C) 0
2 to specify them. a glacial
proposed sundedk support posts will need to rest on compacted and/or (14) The services described in this report were prepared under the < X C
( )Site Plan of the important development and geologic features. undisturbed native lacial outwash tills. `-a x o
The site plan on sheet 1 of 3 shows the proposed 40'x 60'residence with a C N N
daylight basement is located on Lot 1 of short plat 1019 and is located in a responsible charge of Steven P Morta, P.E. Steven P Morta meets rn a co vs(8)Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and the qualifications contained in Title 18E, Section 18E.80.030 to prepare
relatively flat area and set back from 70 to 80%slopes by over 50'. An existing �,
concrete foundation and stem wall was already present at the site and the new grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a landslide hazard geological assessment. Steven P. Morta understands 2 N o
residence will be resting on this concrete structure. 70 to 80%slopes are a schedule of vegetation removal and replanting,and the method of the requirements of the current Landslide Hazard Area Chapter 18E.80 •c a o
indicated on sheet 1 of 3 on the north side of the proposed building site with vegetation removal. The lot has already been cleared off and ready to and the deifinitions of the applicable terms contained within Chapter 18.25. u,65
build on. Any remaining bare soil areas shall be replanted with indigenous Individuals under the responsible charge of Steven P. Morta have performed M,� y
no signs of past or recent slide activity. -1�
trees and vegetation such asjunnipers, ivy,ferns and vine maple and other a landslide hazard geological assessment,conducted a field investigation, I-L
(3)A log of exploratory test hole. On sheet 1 of 3 the two soil boring locations local plants that thrive in this cool,wet environment especially along the 70% and researched historic records on or in the vicinity of the above referenced _ C, ;-�'
05
embankment on the north side of the property. No clearing or grading is site. In my opinion,the scope of ices completed for this project is ui services
and the resulting slope cross-section indicating the soil types is also shown. a
anticipated on this property since it is already flat with no fill soils present. adequate to meet the requirements of the Department. g CD(4)Area of proposed development,hazard boundaries,buffers and As called out on sheet 1°of 3 no removal of trees or vegetation shall be N
setback delineated on a geologic map. The Hazardous Slope area has been allowed on the 70 to 80%slopes on the north side of the building site.
T CD
identified at both the top and bottom of the the 70 to 80%slope as indicated on (9)Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary
Sheet 1 of 3. There is no evidense of previous or current landslide indicators erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures fCL
0
such as pistol butted tree trunks, hummocky areas at the toe of the gulch, cracking to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, ED
or ground fissures at the top of the embankment,wet areas or seeps,or erosional landslides and harmful construction methods. EL
channels. Prior to construction activities on the site,geotextile siltation fencing shall be
placed on the downhill side of the building site to prevent soil erosion of the North
A detailed slope stabilty analysis was performed on the 70 to 80%slope just north embankment. It is recommended that initial construction take place during
of the proposed building site and indicated that the slope was stable for both the drier times of the year from mid May to late October and that the residence
the static and quasi-static cases. As a result,a 59 buffer north of the structure was be weathered in by the end of November. Otherwise,at other times of the year the in
considered satisfactory. Refer to the slope stability analysis section for additional contractor shall protect exposed, bare soils from erosion by covering with 6 mil J CL
d
details. visqueen. If rain is expected all bare ground is shall be protected with 6 mil visqueen � E
LO
to minimize soil erosion of the building site and the resulting water runoff to be 02 v
(5)A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts directed into the 3 x 3 x 8'infiltration trench located on the east side of the site. rl o M CO
the subsurface profile,and which incorporates the details of proposed ,o
grade changes. A detailed cross section is shown on sheet 1 of 3 that (10)An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed C:rn m¢ 8
indicates that the top layer consists of compacted sands and gravels(GW-SP) development Any surface water runoff shall be directed away from the slopes x:61 M
with an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2000 psf while the lower layer consists of a and into the 3'x 3'x 8'infiltration trench located on the east side of the property o; m o�
dense glacial outwash(GW=SW)with an allowable soil bearing capacity of as indicated on Sheet 1 of 3. It is recommended that indigenous trees and vegetation
2500 psf for the UNDISTURBED soil condition and 6 to 8%moisture. No grade be planted immediately in any bare areas within the 50'buffer once the main construction � 0%o v
changes are proposed since the site is relativley level. of the home has been completed,especially,along the 70 to 80%embankment tom m z
increase overall slope stability and reduce the likelyhood of a slide event since trees
and vegetation protect the soils from erosion,and hold the soils in place through their U9 o
extensive root system,and finally dewater the ground through the process of R o
evapotranspiration. t uJ n
CL
�� E
21 urs
I S -- _
Tal
_.' S S
♦♦
S �
Uos 17
Tahuya.
Scale 1:24,000 _ - S
1 Miles
t000 ISOq Metres -
U
LEGE N L' otsturtvtlt:
ELW, ®uMa•C�.ftfcari tMM n•«f frf�tgwnJYA ev f Mf pw «?aR W
afbrfOM lH}!O lIVlf IlKfAIY IyWM G•[•YMt tly�,
5+(IFlLO YOt a ufft If•W011�hll tN Ytf fPlGt,t IfY01tl
!M4Af PM 1:: •,f0 O,Q It OvMIYC OfftfO•f!f M1f fM.^tYf. tM
... •• - •rtme..t a ttrnvr afwwn M wawtr te.rf.HU ����.
v 1„.,.� .. iw a"an..«n+«ta rf•�eeortw✓++�w•nfYon n.r«f to f
., n,.vtr sr.cprr a d t,aar. S I S l e r_] i- Z
S
I
e
Y f 7me e� 7�OFs
- .... _r!. *«.-. ,♦�r•'. � f``�.,_.,11� 4� ..�`�� Ir�`f -�.,. I !ram
i
♦ �f,/fir Y '..Y �r
SLO PZ STA R!U?Y 0?4,4
f ry Q/C4-r F_S -/NA?'
ryi When
g directly
directions
he
M AD Q V EST or P my not printriedly o�h Forrbeatrr uea ksytryrdkkhq
the 961 E Timber Tides Dr
Union,WA 98592
.m g
xem it
Tahuya
Ne North Shore Rdjg'S
L flaller AVe /� //I�•/.�G!'L L sQFf i��
E Wa-106
uftwolv w,,4
a
t,�a
aae.b.ow�
GoN i
Yacht Club
MAPQYEST a 2009 Mapouesl Inc.Map Data 020o9NXVTEO a TeleAaas
All rights reserved.Use subied to Ucense/Copyright Map Legend
Directions and maps are informational only.We make no warranties on the accuracy of their content,road conditions or
route usability or expeditiousness.You assume all risk of use.MapQuest and its suppliers shall not be liable to you for
any loss or delay resulting from your use of MapDuest,your use of MapDuest means you agree to our Tema,of Use
a{ W
Contact Us Download Soils Data Archived Soil Surveys Glossary Preferences Logout Help A A A
Area of Interest(AOI) Soil Map Soil Data Explorer Shopping Cart(Free)
Printable Var.1cm Add to Shopping Cart
Search Soil Map
® K NJ 1A®J .b' J J-0 J J Scale
Map Unit Legend
O I
Mason County,Washington(WA645) 0
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of .II
Symbol AOI AOI
Ab Al d 467.6 47.8% R
gravelly
sandy
loam,5 to 15 fi f i
percent slopes
AC Alderwood 52.5 5.4% "
gravelly sandy y •' ' - • »-.1
loam,15 to 30
percent slopes
Ad Alderwood 291.0 29.7% 1
gravelly sandy
loam,30 to 45 �) R i
percent slopes
Eg Everett gravelly 1.9 0.2% •���
sandy loam,0 to 5 j p ,
percent slopes ;! .
Eh Everett gravelly 9.9 1.0
sandy loam,5 to ----
15 percent slopes y jSty
Mg Mukilteo peat,0 to 8.5 0.9
2 percent slopes n•., t�li
W Water 1.3 0.1
Subtotals for Soil Survey 832.9 85.1% Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Area
Totals for Area of Interest 978.E 300.0% You have zoomed in beyond the scale at which the soil map for this area is intended to be used.Mapp r
done at a particular scale.The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:31,680.The de i.
and the level of detail shown in the resulting soil map are dependent on that map scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mappi
of soil line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been
detailed scale.
FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Policy I Non-Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA.gov I White House