Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFPA2002-00004 Project Inspection and Remarks - FPA Inspections - 8/20/2002 MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER Shehor,Wuhington 99594 DATE: Aug. 201h, 2002 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: Michael MacSems, DCD - Planner FROM: Alan A. Tahja, P/W - Co. Hydr. Engr. W09 PLG-02 -- SUBJ: Project Inspection & Remarks NAME: Broughton FPA near Lakeland Village FPA2002-00004 Following our site inspection, and my review of the project files for the Broughton Forest � Practice Act (Class IV conversion), I offer the following comments. The original application (SEPA Checklist) indicated the intention of constructing an access road, but dismissed it as an incidental activity to the timber han-est. The SEPA Checklist response to filling and grading indicated "does not apply". The road cut we observed was on the order of 20' � � 3 � vT' high with approximately 1/2:1 slopes. These steep of slopes typically do not support vegetation, � .7 are steeper then allowed under standard grading requirements, and will be a continuous source of debris to the ditches cut at their toe. Mr. Broughton has indicated that the ditches will be rock lined. The rock armoring still needs to be applied. 3 � 3 I am uneasy with the current condition of the subject property. My main concern is the stability � . • � of the fill slopes created in the road construction,and the potential of the site impacting -� downslope properties. The engineer who prepared the geotechnical report, indicates in his report the he A-ill "Inspect the road construction upon final completion for adequacy of the gravel � surface and side-ditch drainage". Since the engineer indicated that he will perform an in his original report, it should be required of him, and a copy of his findings delivered to the County. It is assumed he accept the project in its completed condition or make recommendations to bring it into compliance with his original intentions. In short, a final report from the geotechnical engineer should be required of the applicant, and Cs2Z. any recommendations made in that report executed. The engineer should be kept responsible for the designs and information he provided for this activity. Please feel free to contact me at County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any feafures need further discussion or attention. 9 _ 4 _ O .Z SDerely, L�' yyJJ A lLc-w s c e w. v1�-.�J�-eLJ u k S+ 7 4 J -Alan A. Tahja i c.� � .�-1�,►� .f'�-a a..� Y�o File: H:\WP\GEO\REVIEWS\Broughton-2.doc Rid . ap+. S 1,..►. d Cst 4-e-U P3,v b F. -f-t , c.Q d o cs to ek d 4-o 66 C, Nl P UN S-o o u Y• eu 1 S e" , DON- 44,e_ v,o +- < I ati.►��. -�c...c. w /o - P, ,+'s ( P S Lo P-�.0 ) � `�•�9► XS•9 3 �\ �� �` � � � . _�- -� ;- J ,�� ,' ` S /�,; 1 ``� F' �' .! . MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER Shelton,Washington 98584 DATE: Aug: 201h, 2002 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: Michael MacSems, DCD - Planner FROM: Alan A. Tahja, P/W- Co. Hydr. Engr. WO# PLG-02 SUBJ: Project Inspection & Remarks NAME: Broughton FPA near Lakeland Village FPA2002-00004 Following our site inspection, and my review of the project files for the Broughton Forest Practice Act(Class IV conversion), I offer the following comments. The original application(SEPA Checklist)indicated the intention of constructing an access road, but dismissed it as an incidental activity to the timber harvest. The SEPA Checklist response to filling and grading indicated"does not apply". The road cut we observed was on the order of 20' high with approximately 1'/2:1 slopes. These steep of slopes typically do not support vegetation, are steeper then allowed under standard grading requirements, and will be a continuous source of debris to the ditches cut at their toe. Mr. Broughton has indicated that the ditches will be rock lined. The rock armoring still needs to be applied. I am uneasy with the current condition of the subject property. My main concern is the stability of the fill slopes created in the road construction, and the potential of the site impacting downslope properties. The engineer who prepared the geotechnical report, indicates in his report the he will "inspect the road construction upon final completion for adequacy of the gravel surface and side-ditch drainage". Since the engineer indicated that he will perform an in his original report, it should be required of him, and a copy of his findings delivered to the County. It is assumed he accept the project in its completed condition or make recommendations to bring it into compliance with his original intentions. In short, a final report from the geotechnical engineer should be required of the applicant, and any recommendations made in that report executed. The engineer should be kept responsible for the designs and information he provided for this activity. Please feel free to contact me at County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any features need further discussion or attention. S' cerely, rim A I an A.4Tahja File: H:\WP\GEO\REVIEWS\Broughton-2 .doc tE7 VYock O+ .f 10 :. -z Numbe M"eded � Audiodzed by c Date: R 1• -:t •., Type of Wodc ;e", i CHARGE TO: NAME VI c AGENCW/COMPANY BMIJNG ADDRESS PHONE Pub. Works Person in Charge: ,c.,E... - .C:�-.�:-rS:,��raCii•-s..�`•.0�. .. �rn.::y.>x.... ... ..f;..:� ..<:...... ;.::.... ,. ..<M"A'tM"`:n'•P"N%h'N:NW.1:'•C)'MC•YC�.(•Gi.CjItCO.'Nt'l (C) Project Time Une: (from-to dates' Z TO Project Start data: �'t tZ EstkTW Fhtsh Date: Apprwimata hoLn: ESTIMATED TOTAL SS: 7�j COST ESTIMATE (De Pik En4Aoy" S R49 Hours SM4S3j Ftinot% TOTAL t LL1 wl 7— t� LU o ' I !M EM TOTAL n EQUIPMENT USED: MATERLAI.USED: . .. � .: :n' ..<.,-� �....:..<"wnA�_.".rr Vf-rT+G��yy������((���`:!") G�.�,_'4 G. �Sr •+- �i.fw•.�„/wti?�i Iw��2 (� Actust cost BARS: PROJ it DATE Esnp40y" larm Hours Fdrf<n TOTAL$ EQUIPMENT USED: paw TOTAL SS MATERIAL USED: TOTAL ALL (G) 6ILLE0 DATE IM// PAID DATE REC! CKS �'1�G `C � MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER Shelton,Wuhington 98584 DATE: May 1", 2002 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: Michael MacSems, DCD - Planner FROM: Alan A. Tahja, P/W- Co. Hydr. Engr. WO# PLG-02 SUBJ: Geo-Tech Report Review NAME: Broughton near Lakeland Village FPA2002-00004 Michael, The materials prepared for the Rylan Broughton FPA Class IV conversion have been received and reviewed by Public Works. I have also been in contact with Rylan Broughton who provided additional details of proposed Best Management Practices to be implemented in development of the property in conjunction with the timber harvest, and a site plan. Mr. Broughton indicated he had no immediate plans for development of the property after the timber harvest,but is planning to eventually site a single family residence on the property(s). I feel the submitted materials are adequate to allow the timber harvest to proceed, if the recommendations in the engineer's report are followed, and the owner implements the BMPs proposed in his materials. The engineer has indicated no cutting within 15' of the top of the slopes exceeding 28' (approximately 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slopes). This recommendation should be made a condition for approval of the proposed timber harvest. The site plan submitted by the owner indicates a proposed homesite located more than 50 feet back from the top of the steep slopes on the property, which, given the information in the engineer's report, is an acceptable location. In summary, ]i feel the submitted materials adequately address stability issues pertaining to this property, and the owner should be allowed to proceed as conditioned. Please feel free to contact me at County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any features need further discussion or attention. Si c re;ly, Ah n A. Tahja File: H:\WP\GEO\REVIEWS\Broughton.doc *M.ONSOLIDATED EmaiMEERIMG CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - SOILS - PLANNING - October 10, 2002 Rylan Broughton 4790 NE North Shore Rd. Belfair, WA 98528 RE: ACCESS ROAD COMPLETION AND SITE INSPECTION Dear Mr. Broughton; David Brown, construction inspector, performed a follow-up construction inspection of the private drive at 380 E. Sherwood Creek near Allyn, WA on October 9, 2002. The road was well graveled, approximately 12 feet wide with an initial grade of about 15 % to the first cut. Both shoulders were hydro-seeded and about five feet wide. The grade decreased to about 12 % at the first cut and the sides were 18 to 20 feet and 25 to 27 feet high. The second cut was not as deep (10 ft. to 20 ft.) and the grade was approximately 12 %. The gravel surface of the road seemed firm and was compacted under the traffic. In two places, we noted the steep downslope may require the installation of some kind of safety rail. Photographs were taken of both cuts and the Right-of-Way in general for our file and record. Yours truly, B' BOUG .- may,' • r ��°F W � R. B. Bough P.E. Q �� CIVIL ENGINEER 000e813 ois�° G ENCLS - Legal Description of Property S`S�ONAL 0 Site Inspection Field Notes EiPiP s'2� PO, Box 2321 • Bremerton, WA 98310 • (360) 479-5598 • Fax (360) 377-1376 tic) .. •••• •• r r 19 2C /VOO-E�- •III1 as�.oz %Ic tot fro. I' LP. itaGoo __ iIL1. Joo.00_, - _ s=o.00 ..30 A 29 s.o.at X.13 O O p 0 t% 4 � 1V 0 1 .4 3 Ac. n • 14 0 a I n w � n ivas- ss- z3 Ar R c 5.07 AG. y SO7 As. tiJ r r ` IJ A 1 I✓• ONd ALAf , •t. ♦A o r 33L.tI » o 73t.SL IO f?. 09 If •I lnc --- ------30 2- s�z5.7I DESCRIPTION , TI'f "�V1:' ( �r r..� �n�iHlidf �r�aGTCG IF THE :.'l:►Mf /-^ r- A f /l 1 ,3 7/ y zt-t 1x�s ,�1�AC LcxA� pl Tc H b�J !� (LC7� S�iS S1� �► f' �RoA.� sc�R�L� Erb Gvt' \ 7-14/-S S »L= G cvT' Tc' Ct N F-37-L' "