Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2016-00063 - GEO Geological Review - 9/8/2016 GeoResources, LLC Ph 253-896-1011 5007 Pacific Hwy E., Ste. 16 Fx 253-896-2633 Fife,Washington 98424 September 8, 2016 Revised November 16, 2016 Cedarland Forest Products, LLC Joseph T. Cedarland P.O. Box 2264 Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 (253) 208-8136 Revised Geotechnical Report Proposed Single Family Residence xxx East State Route 302 Mason County, Washington PN: 122162400000 Doc ID: Cedarland.Hwy302.RG.rev01 INTRODUCTION This revised geotechnical report presents the results of our recent site visit, subsurface explorations, literature research, and engineering analysis for the proposed single family residence to be constructed at xxx East State Route 302 in Mason County, Washington. It also provides additional information requested by Mr. Michael MacSems with Mason County. The intent of this report is to evaluate the site stability and provide design and construction recommendations for the project. The location of the site is shown in the attached Site Location Map, Figure 1. Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with you, our site visits on July 23, 2016 and August 24, 2016, our review of publicly available soils data, our subsurface explorations, our past experience in the project vicinity, and our understanding of the Mason County Development Codes. We understand that you propose to construct a single family residence, well, paved driveway from Highway 302, and associated utilities. We anticipate that the residence will be a one or two-story wood-framed structure supported by conventional shallow footings. SCOPE The purpose of our services was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site as a basis for developing and providing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the proposed residential addition. Specifically, our scope of services for the project included the following: 1. Reviewing existing and publically available geological and geotechnical literature for the site area; 2. Exploring subsurface conditions at the site by monitoring the completion of 5 test pits across the subject site; 3. Obtaining samples of the soils and performing laboratory testing including grain size analyses; Ce d a rl a n d.Hwy302.R G.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 2 4. Describing surface and subsurface conditions, including soil types, and depth to groundwater, as appropriate. 5. Preparing a written Geotechnical Data Report summarizing our site observations and subsurface explorations. 6. Addressing the Mason County Critical Area ordinances and providing recommendations specific to required setbacks from critical areas based on our experience and slope stability modeling. 7. Evaluating the seismic hazards at the site and providing the seismic site class in accordance with the IBC. 8. Providing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding site grading activities, including site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria, suitability of on-site soils for use as structural fill, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes-specific to construction to the adjacent existing structures, and drainage and erosion control measures. 9. Providing conclusions regarding foundation and floor slab support and design criteria, including bearing capacity, subgrade modulus, basement lateral earth pressures, settlement estimates and drainage criteria. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The subject parcel is located near the end of North Bay on Highway 302 in Mason County, Washington. The site is a single tax parcel that is irregular in shape, measures approximately 140 to 460 feet wide (east to west) by 210 to 660 feet deep (north to south), and encompasses approximately 4.0 acres. The site is bounded by undeveloped large lots to the east and south, existing residential development on the north, and by East State Route 302 on the west. The site sits above East State Route 302 on about a 10 to 15 foot steep road cut with inclinations of about 40 percent. From the northern boundary of the site, the site slopes gently down to the southwest and south at inclinations of about 7 to 9 percent. The site then slopes steeply to the southwest towards the road cut and south towards a creek valley that runs northeast to southwest across the site. The site slopes down to the creek at inclinations of about 40 to 45 percent. The vertical height of the creek valley is approximately 30 to 40 feet. From the creek, the site slopes up the south at inclinations of about 30 to 40 percent. As the site continues south, the site slopes to the west at inclinations of 13 to 25 percent. The total topographic relief across the site is on the order of approximately 40 feet. The existing topography and proposed development layout is shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Vegetation across the site consists of coniferous and deciduous trees with scattered shrubs and weeds. The slopes of the creek valley are well vegetated with ferns and coniferous trees. No evidence of seepage was observed on the site or the slope below the site at the time of our site visit. No evidence of erosion, soil movement, landslide activity or deep-seated slope instability was observed at the site or the adjacent areas at the time of our site visit. Site Soils The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps the soils in the site area as Everett very gravelly sandy loam (Eh and Ek). The Everett soils are derived from sandy and gravelly glacial outwash and form on slopes of 8 to 15 percent (Eh) and 15 to 30 percent (Ek) slopes. These soils have a "slight" (Eh) to "moderate" (Ek) Cedarla nd.Hwy302.RG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 3 erosion hazard when exposed and are included in hydrologic soils group A. A copy of the NRCS Soil Conservation Survey map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 3. We observed no evidence of surficial erosion at the site during our reconnaissance. Site Geology The Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington by Michael Polenz et al (2009) indicates the site as being underlain by Vashon recessional outwash fines (Qgol) and undifferentiated pre-Fraser deposits (Qpu). The pre-Fraser soil was either deposited during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago or during a previous glacial period. The Qpu unit consists of a lightly stratified mixture of sand and gravel undistinguishable from, and may contain, advance outwash deposits of Vashon age. The recessional outwash was deposited during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. The recessional outwash consists of poorly sorted, lightly stratified mixture of sand and gravel that may contain localized deposits of clay and silt that were deposited by meltwater streams emanating from the retreating ice mass. The recessional sands are considered normally consolidated. The pre-Fraser deposits were deposited and subsequently overridden by the continental ice mass. As such, they are considered to be overconsolidated and to provide high strength and low compressibility characteristics. No areas of landslides or landslide debris are mapped on or within the vicinity of the site area. An excerpt of the above referenced map is included as Figure 4. The Department of Ecology (DOE) Coastal Atlas indicates the slope stability on the site is "S" for stable, while the steeper slopes to the creek are mapped as "I" for intermediate. The intermediate designation can be applied to the site because of the height and inclination of shoreline bluff. However, the Coastal Atlas does not map any area of known or recent or older landslides in the immediate vicinity of the site. A copy of the DOE Coastal Atlas is included as Figure 5. Subsurface Explorations On August 25, 2016, GeoResources, LLC explored subsurface conditions at the site by monitoring the excavation of five test pits to depths of up to 9'h feet below existing ground surface. The test pits were excavated by a small track mounted machine operated by a licensed earthwork contractor working for you. The attached test pit logs describe the vertical sequence of soils encountered at each test pit location. The soils were visually classified per ASTM D: 2587. Where encountered, the approximate groundwater depth is noted on the test pit logs. The USCS soil classification sheet is included as Figure 6; the test pit logs are included as Figure 7a and 7b. The locations of the test pits were selected by GeoResources personnel in the field based on discussions regarding the proposed development, along with site access limitations and consideration for underground utilities. A field geologist from our office continuously monitored the excavations, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing as deemed necessary. Each test pit was then backfilled with excavated soils and bucket tamped in place. The test pits excavated and reviewed as part of this evaluation indicate the subsurface conditions at specific locations only, as actual subsurface conditions may vary across the site. Furthermore, the nature and extent of such variation would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have Ce d a rla n d.Hwy302.RG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 4 begun. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Figure 6. The test pit logs are included as Figures 7a and 7b. Subsurface Conditions Our test pits encountered fairly uniform subsurface conditions that generally confirmed the mapped stratigraphy. The test pits extended to depths ranging from 8'/z to 9'/2 feet below the existing ground surface. We encountered about '/2 to 1.0 feet of dark brown forest duff and top soil overlying 3 to 4'/2 feet of tan to brown silty sand and gravels with some cobbles in a loose to medium dense and moist condition. We interpret these soils as recessional outwash. Underlying the surficial soils we encountered grey silty sand interbedded with lightly mottled sandy silt in a loose to dense and moist condition to the full depth explored. We interpret these soils as recessional outwash soils. Groundwater Conditions No groundwater seepage was observed in any of the test pits at the time of our site visit. We do anticipate that perched groundwater may develop at some depth below the site, based on the mapped stratigraphy. Perched groundwater develops when the vertical infiltration rate of precipitation through a more permeable soil is slowed at depth by a deeper, less permeable soil type. We anticipate fluctuations in the local groundwater levels that likely will occur in response to precipitation patterns, off-site construction activities, and site utilization. After the site is developed, the amount of seasonal perched groundwater should decrease over time. Grain Size Analysis Grain size analyses were performed on select samples retrieved from the test pits. Laboratory testing included visual soil classification per ASTM D: 2488, moisture content determinations per ASTM D: 2216, and grain size analyses per ASTM D: 422 standard procedures. The results of the laboratory tests are included in Appendix "B". CONCLUSIONS Based on our site observations, data review, subsurface explorations and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed single family residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the project plans. The logging that was performed previously at the site left the stumps in place and does not appear to have decreased the stability of the site in general and the site was observed to be well vegetated with a robust forest understory. The driveway that was improved from its historic condition appeared to be stable and had a silt fence below it for temporary erosion control. The driveway appeared to have been constructed for logging equipment access and consisted of quarry spalls. Given the loading the driveway has already been subjected to and the materials it was constructed from, it should be adequate for the proposed residential driveway loads. Landslide Hazard Areas —Mason County Resource Ordinance 8.52.140 Mason County Resource Ordinance chapter 8 states that the following shall be classified as a Landslide Hazard Area: a. Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps and rock falls; Ce d a r1a n d.Hwy302.R G.revO 1 November 16,2016 Page 5 b. Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e. cuts or fills; c. Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils; d. Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action; e. Slopes greater than 15% (8.5 degrees) and having the following: i. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock (e.g. sand overlying clay), and ii. Springs or groundwater seepage; f. Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. Mason County uses the above referenced checklist to define a Landslide Hazard Area. Based on our observations of the site and review of published information, we offer the following comments. No areas with indications of earth movement were observed at the time of our site visit. The road cut above Highway 302 is a constructed slope, but we assume that the slope was engineered as it was cut for road construction. Soils encountered at the time of our site visit, loose sands, could be considered potentially liquefiable, however we did not observe the presence of groundwater in the same location. The stream running across the site does have steep slopes but they did not have any indication of instability. There are slopes greater than 15 percent, but no adverse geologic contacts or seeps or springs were observed at the time of our site visit. The site does have slopes greater than 40 percent with 10 feet or more of vertical relief. Based on the above, the site has one (slopes greater than 40 percent with 10 feet or more of vertical relief)of the 6 landslide hazard indicators, but it does not appear that there is an active landslide hazard on or within 300 feet of the site. Because we did not observe an active landslide hazard at the site no prescriptive buffer should be imposed by the County. Because of the proximity of the proposed residence to slopes with more than 10 feet of 40 percent slopes, a geotechnical report with slope stability is required by the County. Slope Stability We analyzed the global and internal slope stability of the existing slope geometry using subsurface profile A-A', as located on Figure 2. This cross section was selected as the most critical section given the height and steepness of the slopes, relative to the proximity of the proposed home site. It was also modeled in its current condition. We used the computer program SLIDE version 7.016, from RocScience, 2016, to perform the slope stability analyses. The computer program SLIDE uses a number of methods to estimate the factor of safety (FS) of the stability of a slope by analyzing the shear and normal forces acting on a series of vertical "slices"that comprise a failure surface. Each vertical slice is treated as a rigid body; therefore, the forces and/or moments acting on each slice are assumed to satisfy static equilibrium (i.e., a limit equilibrium analysis). The FS is defined as the ratio of the forces available to resist movement to the forces of the driving mass. A FS of 1.0 means that the driving and resisting forces are equal; an FS less than 1.0 indicates that the driving forces are greater than the resisting forces (indicating failure). We used the Simplified Bishop's Method which satisfies both Cedarla nd.Hwy302AG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 6 moment and force equilibrium, to search for the location of the most critical failure surfaces and their corresponding FS. The most critical surfaces are those with the lowest FS for a given loading condition, and are therefore the most likely to move. We modeled the existing conditions based on our literature review, recent subsurface explorations and site observations. Our model included the portion of the upland area containing the proposed residence and stream valley wall. Our analyses determined the FS for the stream valley in its current condition to be 2.4 and 1.8 under static and seismic conditions, respectively. Details of the slope stability analyses are included in Appendix "B". We understand that DNR has mapping showing a high hazard at the site, but based on the publicly available mapping and our site observations and stability analyses, it is our opinion that the hazard is low at the site. Recommended Setback and Buffer Based on our observations at the site, we recommend that the location of the proposed residence meet steep slope setback requirements, as indicated in the 2012 International Building Code (2012 IBC) Section 1808.7. As stated, the vertical height of the steep slopes in the central and western portion of the site is on the order of 20 to 30 feet. The 2012 IBC Section 1808.7 requires a building setback from slopes steeper than 3H:1V(Horizontal:Vertical). The setback distance is calculated based on the vertical height of the slope. The typical IBC setback from the top of the slope equals one third the height of the slope, while the typical setback from the toe of a slope equals half the vertical height of the slope. The IBC setback from the top of the steep slope in the western and central portion of the site is approximately 10 feet from the top of the slope. We were provided with a conceptual site layout drawing. Based on this drawing, the residence will be located at least 100 feet away from the top of the bank. Based on these conceptual site layout, it appears that the proposed residence should be setback from the slope far enough to meet the top of slope setback requirements. Where these IBC setbacks cannot be met, the IBC allows the foundations to be deepened, resulting in a structural setback. Deep foundations, such as pin piles or drilled piers, may be used to meet this setback. Provided the foundations for the addition are supported on firm and unyielding native soils, no additional setback should be required. As previously stated, because we did not observe an active landslide hazard no buffer or setback should be required by the County. Site Preparation and Grading All structural areas on the site to be graded should be stripped of vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials including existing structures, foundations or abandoned utility lines. Clearing should be limited to the area within the geologically hazardous areas limits identified on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Organic topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in non-structural areas. Stripping depths ranging from 6 to 12 inches should be expected to remove these unsuitable soils. Areas of thicker topsoil or organic debris may be encountered in areas of heavy vegetation or depressions, several of our explorations did encounter upwards of 18 inches or topsoil/duff. Where placement of fill material is required, the stripped/exposed subgrade areas should be compacted to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of fill material. Excavations for debris removal should be backfilled with structural fill compacted to the densities described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. We recommend that a member of our staff verify the exposed subgrade conditions Ceda rla n d.Hwy302.RG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 7 after excavations are completed and prior to placement of structural fill or new foundations. The exposed subgrade soil should be proof-rolled and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. We recommend that trees be removed by overturning in fill areas so that a majority of the roots are removed. Excavations for tree stump removal should be backfilled with structural fill compacted to the densities described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. Soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during proof-rolling or probing should be recompacted, if practical, or over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. The depth and extent of overexcavation should be evaluated by our field representative at the time of construction. The areas of fill should be evaluated during grading operations to determine if they need mitigation; recompaction or removal. Structural Fill All material placed as fill associated with mass grading, as utility trench backfill, under building areas, or under roadways should be placed as structural fill. The structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness to allow adequate and uniform compaction of each lift. Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557)within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content for compaction. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and compaction equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field representative during construction. We recommend that our representative be present during site grading activities to observe the work and perform field density tests. The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend use of well-graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent(by weight) passing the US No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve, such as Gravel Backfill for Walls(WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, higher fines content (up to 10 to 12 percent) may be acceptable. Material placed for structural fill should have non-plastic fines and be free of debris, organic matter, trash and cobbles greater than 6-inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill During dry weather construction, non-organic on-site soil may be considered for use as structural fill; provided it meets the criteria described above in the "Structural Fill" section and can be compacted as recommended. If the soil material is over-optimum in moisture content when excavated, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural fill. We generally did not observe the site soils to be excessively moist at the time of our subsurface exploration program. The areas of native sandy outwash material are comparable to sandy "pit run"and may be used for use as structural fill during moderate wet weather months, depending on their fines content. The deeper, native weathered and glacial till soils at the site generally consisted of silty gravel with fine sand. These soils are generally comparable to "common borrow" material and will be suitable for use as structural fill provided the moisture content is maintained within 2 percent of the optimum moisture level. However, the high fines C e d a rla n d.H wy302.R G.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 8 content makes these soils highly moisture sensitive. These soils will be difficult to adequately compact during extended periods of wet weather or where seepage occurs. We recommend that completed graded-areas be restricted from traffic or protected prior to wet weather conditions. The graded areas may be protected by paving, placing asphalt-treated base, a layer of free-draining material such as pit run sand and gravel or clean crushed rock material containing less than 5 percent fines, or some combination of the above. Temporary Excavations All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor providing services/work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes only. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations or utility installation. All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA, WAC 296-155-66401) regulations, the shallow upper weathered soils on the site would be classified as Type C soils, whereas the deeper, glacial, dense soils would be classified as Type B soils. According to WISHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type B soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1 H:1 V, and Type C soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1.5H:1V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope. It should be recognized that slopes of this nature do ravel and require occasional maintenance. All exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane,jute matting, or other erosion control mats during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled along the top of the slope. Where it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a retaining structure should be considered. Where retaining structures are greater than 4-feet in height (bottom of footing to top of structure) or have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them, they should be engineered per Washington Administrative Code (WAC 51-16-080 item 5). This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that GeoResources assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Permanent Cut Slopes According to the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), Appendix J106.1, permanent cut slopes shall be no steeper than 2HAV unless a soils report is provided justifying a steeper slope. The 2012 IBC requires mid-slope benches or terraces that are at least 6 feet in width at no more than 30 foot intervals on all cut or fill slopes so as to control surface drainage and debris from shallow sloughs. We are not currently aware of potential cut heights at the site, but they may be necessary to establish the driveway grades. All fills placed on slopes steeper than 5HAV should be placed on level benches cut into the existing slope. In our opinion, these benches should have a maximum height of 3 feet and a minimum width of 6 feet. Additionally, the fill shall Ceda r1a n d.Hwy302.RG.revO1 November 16,2016 Page 9 have a keyway at the base that is a minimum of 2 feet deep and 10 feet wide, per Figure J107.3 of the 2012 IBC, Appendix J. Finished fills shall have a slope no steeper than 2HAV. Due to the potential steepness of the slopes, if required, it will be difficult to naturally revegetate the soil portion of the slope. As such, we recommend using a geosynthetic erosion control material to minimize the potential for erosion, such as coconut mats or jute netting over the hydroseed. Alternatively, a spray on application, like Bonded Fiber Mesh, included with the hydroseed could be considered. We also anticipate that some maintenance of the slope will be required because of the steepness of the slope. As stated above, we do not anticipate significant grading. If it is required the guideline above should be followed. Foundation Support Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered across the site, we recommend that spread footings for the new residences be founded on medium dense to dense native soils or on appropriately prepared structural fill that extends to suitable native soils. The soil at the base of the footing excavations should be disturbed as little as possible. All loose, soft or unsuitable material should be removed or recompacted, as appropriate. A representative from our firm should observe the foundation excavations to determine if suitable bearing surfaces have been prepared, particularly in the areas where the foundation will be situated on fill material. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated footings and at least 12 inches for single story and 16 inches for two story continuous wall footings. All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade for frost protection. Footings founded as described above can be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf(pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long-term live loads. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs and as passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.32 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Passive resistance from soil should be ignored in the upper 1 foot. A factor of safety of 1.5 has been applied to these values. We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of 1/2 inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. We recommend that all foundations be provided with footing drains. Subgrade/Basement Walls Based on existing topography, the new structures may include subgrade or retaining walls. The lateral pressures acting on subgrade and retaining walls (such as basement walls)will depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall. It is Cedarland.HwyM RG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 10 also dependent upon the presence or absence of hydrostatic pressure. If the walls are backfilled with granular well-drained soil, the design active pressure may be taken as 35 pcf (equivalent fluid density). Where the walls are restrained from moving, we recommend an at-rest equivalent earth pressure of 55 pcf above groundwater and 90 pcf below groundwater be used for design. We assume a level backfill condition behind any proposed basement or subgrade wall. For the condition of a sloping back slope, higher lateral pressures would act on the walls. For a 3 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical) slope above the wall, the active pressure may be taken as 48 pcf; for a 2 to 1 (H: V) back slope condition, a wall design pressure of 55 pcf may be assumed. The recommended pressure does not include the effects of sur- charges from surface loads. Adequate drainage behind retaining structures is imperative. Positive drainage which controls the development of hydrostatic pressure can be accomplished by placing a zone of coarse sand and gravel behind the walls. The granular drainage material should contain less than 5 percent fines. The drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The drainage zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the wall. The drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the MDD. Over-compaction should be avoided as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures. A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be placed in the drainage zone along the base and behind the wall to provide an outlet for accumulated water and direct accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a nonwoven geotextile filter fabric be placed between the drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to reduce silt migration into the drainage zone. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can, with time, reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed such that it fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the drainage zone. Typical wall drainage and backfilling is shown on Figure 7. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings and the buried portion of the wall, as described in the "Foundation Support" section. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf(pounds per cubic foot). Factors of safety have been applied to these values. Floor Slab Support Slab-on-grade floors, where constructed, should be supported on the medium dense native soils or on structural fill prepared as described above. Areas of old fill material should be evaluated during grading activity for suitability of structural support. Areas of significant organic debris should be removed. We recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick pea gravel or washed 5/8-inch crushed rock. This layer should be placed and compacted to an unyielding condition and should contain less than 2 percent fines. A synthetic vapor retarder is recommended to control moisture migration through the slabs. This is of particular importance where the foundation elements are underlain by the silty till or lake sediments, or where moisture migration through the slab is an issue, such as where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. A subgrade modulus of 400 kcf(kips per cubic foot) may be used for floor slab design. We estimate that settlement of the floor slabs designed and constructed as recommended, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet. Cedarland.Hwy302.RG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 11 Site Drainage All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks at the site should be sloped away from structures. The site should also be carefully graded to ensure positive drainage away from all structures and property lines. Surface water runoff from the roof area, driveways, perimeter footing drains, and wall drains should be collected, tightlined, and conveyed to an appropriate discharge point. We recommend that footing drains are installed for the residences in accordance with IBC 1807.4.2. Precipitation water from roof downspouts should be collected into tightlines and routed away from the building. Downspout water should not be introduced into the foundation backfill. Surface water should be collected in catch basins, treated if necessary and tightlined, with other collected stormwater to an approved discharge point. Stormwater Management Based on the sloping nature of the site and the required setbacks of the proposed septic system it is our opinion that infiltration at the site is not feasible. However, we understand that you plan to either direct stormwater to the road ditch below the residence off of Highway 302 or disperse it towards the creek on the backside of the property. Erosion Control Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow land sliding are natural processes that affect steep slope areas. As noted, no evidence of surficial raveling or sloughing was observed at the site. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural processes, we recommend the following: • No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto or near the steep slope area. • No fill should be placed within the buffer or setback zone unless retained by engineered retaining walls or constructed as an engineered fill. • Grading should be limited to providing surface grades that promote surface flows away from the top of slope to an appropriate discharge location. Erosion protection measures will need to be in place prior to grading activity on the site. Erosion hazards can be mitigated by applying Best Management Practices (BMP's) outlined in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) (SMMWW). Wet Weather and Wet Condition Considerations In the Puget Sound area, wet weather generally begins about mid-October and continues through about May, although rainy periods could occur at any time of year. Therefore, it would be advisable to schedule earthwork during the dry weather months of June through September. Most of the soil at the site likely contains sufficient fines to produce an unstable mixture when wet. Such soil is highly susceptible to changes in water content and tends to become unstable and difficult or impossible to proof-roll and compact if the moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. In addition, during wet weather months, the groundwater levels could increase, resulting in seepage into site excavations. Performing earthwork during dry weather would reduce these problems and costs associated with rainwater, construction traffic, and handling of wet soil. However, should wet weather/wet condition earthwork be unavoidable, Cedar1and.Hwy302.RG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 12 the following recommendations are provided: • The ground surface in and surrounding the construction area should be sloped as much as possible to promote runoff of precipitation away from work areas and to prevent ponding of water. • Work areas or slopes should be covered with plastic. The use of sloping, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work. • Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet conditions. That is, each section should be small enough so that the removal of unsuitable soils and placement and compaction of clean structural fill could be accomplished on the same day. The size of construction equipment may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. It may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe, or equivalent, and locate them so that equipment does not pass over the excavated area. Thus, subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic would be minimized. • Fill material should consist of clean, well-graded, sand and gravel, of which not more than 5 percent fines by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on wet-sieving the fraction passing the 1/4-inch mesh sieve. The gravel content should range from between 20 and 50 percent retained on a No. 4 mesh sieve. The fines should be non-plastic. • No exposed soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth- drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, should roll the surface to seal out as much water as possible. • In-place soil or fill soil that becomes wet and unstable and/or too wet to suitably compact should be removed and replaced with clean, granular soil (see gradation requirements above). • Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed on a full- time basis by a geotechnical engineer(or representative) experienced in wet weather/wet condition earthwork to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications and our recommendations. • Grading and earthwork should not be accomplished during periods of heavy, continuous rainfall. We recommend that the above requirements for wet weather/wet condition earthwork be incorporated into the contract specifications. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for Cedarland Forest Products and other members of the design team for use in evaluating a portion of this project. The data used in preparing this report and this report should be provided to prospective contractors. Our report analyses, conclusions and interpretations are based on data from others, our subsurface explorations and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with Ce d a rla n d.Hwy302.RG.rev01 November 16,2016 Page 13 those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental evaluations or construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report. If there are changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made or site conditions change, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as appropriate. We trust this is sufficient for your current needs. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC OA;2� Jordan L. Kovash, GIT Geotechnical Staff o SM0 / NAI. E Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer JLK:BPB:DCB/jlk DoclD:Cedarland.Hwy302.RG.rev01 Attachments: Figure 1:Site Location Map Figure 2a:Site Vicinity Map Figure 2b:Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3:NRCS SCS Soils Map Figure 4:USGS Geologic Map Figure 5:Coastal Zone Atlas Figure 6:USCS Soil Classification Figure 7a and 7b:Test Pit Logs Appendix A—Laboratory Analyses Appendix B—Slope Stability r t r� .• ''cti" =.ter.,--r .X �-, ' fir�s; 9 I1t 3aX •. r r: Approximate Site Location (map created from Google Earth, 02016) Not to Scale GeoResources, LLC Site Location Map Proposed SFR 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife,Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: Cedarland.Hwy3021 September 2016 Figure 1 I Approximate Site Location (map created from Mason County Public GIS data and Esri World Imagery) (W+T 5 Not to Scale GeoResources, LLC Site Vicinity Map 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife, Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: Cedar1and.Hwy302.F September 2016 Figure 2a °0 4 it vac cMaaq W[wS1 a W art Orr • r Ep �y v !f1►C�s� - ISO I,I(QItS syt� FIN FL. '"' STUB our o, a. - I4o Nrr SdPTIC IN - 106~9, TP-4/PH-1 our -bzb/ ''. ��.Vrr �lo't•o P-3/1`11-2 �y f TP-2/PH-3 TP-1/PH 4 ✓\ 1�17R \ rasarrc a�.o« Gwr;jl) mn rAp A �'K NNt�uYW j r.wrwu ww w+C W. ur "fA tAAY Mw i� TP-5 tan oar • �s..+►a�ouw o.�v vw 1I or P.GMT SNt' e �vm� p Ar"aca wiv N'IMflIn�YI / 1NIf Y K LMMr QN1 ' r UiDMIf PMt�/ltlJflrM /�. t-ll It!k Ci1AY.1NtD +� yyl YulrAlFir •• 1'!w Ow II t„R_ Ow MWia / t-9'RKMGMv Wd i naws/ wraM �j 7 aagrnaworw•rri�� �� 1t.IIti �l+�i�i �. j! i MQIat { / f 9V e1w�Huq M� M as�w�ttrn! 91iRf /// /p IiO� rA7nAR!AN/) FnR T 1777R Pr OF 2 Approximate Site Location (map created from SEPTIC SITE PLAN) 1� 'NV+1E 5 Not to Scale GeoResources, LLC Site and Exploration Plan 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife,Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DoclD: Cedadand.Hwy302.F September 2016 Figure 2b All r Eh Ek _. bw Approximate Site Location (map created from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey) Soil Soil Name Parent Material Slopes Erosion Hydrologic Type Hazard Soils Group Eh Everett very gravelly Sandy and gravelly glacial 8 to 15 Slight A sandy loam outwash Ek Everett very gravelly Sandy and gravelly glacial 15 to 30 Moderate A sandy loam outwash (h (W+E s Not to Scale GeoResources, LLC NRCS SCS Soils Map 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife,Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: Cedarland.Hwy302.F September 2016 Figure 3 Qga Q �j`Q t , t f 'Qmw �� �� '� - � Og°i 9� Qgt Qm Qa 1 { a•.�y�l t ,r 1 1 ,f Qga < Qb Qgic Us QM'-' Qaf ' Qgic`�. Qgol ofOrn Qgt Oa Qb t' Qga �Qgoi� b"; s.Qot� �.� Qgas `Y >Qpu + Qaf; Qgt Qgol l_ Q04 Approximate Site Location Excerpt from the Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap and Pierce Counties, Washington by Michael Polenz, et al, (2009) Qaf Alluvial fan Qgol Vashon recessional outwash fines Qpu Undifferentiated sediment older than Vashon till Not to Scale GeoResources, LLC USGS Geologic Map 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife,Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: Cedadand.Hwy302.F September 2016 Figure 4 Approximate Site Location (Map obtained from the DOE Coastal Atlas https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/) Cis Stable CZ�Intermediate Modified C Unstable No Unstable(old slide) Unstable(recent slide) ,W+E 5 Not to Scale GeoResources, LLC DOE Coastal Atlas 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife,Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 Doc ID:Cedarland.Hwy3025 September 2016 F Figure 5 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL COARSE GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED More than 50% SOILS Of Coarse Fraction GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL Retained on WITH FINES No.4 Sieve GC CLAYEY GRAVEL More than 50% SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND,FINE TO COARSE Retained on SAND No.200 Sieve SIP POORLY-GRADED SAND More than 50% Of Coarse Fraction Passes SAND SM SILTY SAND No.4 Sieve WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT FINE CL CLAY GRAINED SOILS Liquid Limit Less than 50 ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT,ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY,ELASTIC SILT More than 50% Passes CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAY No.200 Sieve Liquid Limit 50 or more ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY,ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry- Absence of moisture,dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist- Damp,but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. Wet- Visible free water or saturated,usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data,visual appearance of soils,and or test data. GeoResources, LLC Unified Soil Classification System 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife,Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: Cedadand.Hwy302.F September 2016 Figure 6 Test Pit TP-1 Location: Perc Hole#4, NW center of parcel Approximate Elevation: 65 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 1.0 - Dark brown topsoil and forest debris 1.0 - 5.0 SP Tan to brown silty fine SAND with gravels, some cobbles (loose, moist) 5.0 - 9.0 SW-SM Grey coarse silty SAND with minor gravels (loose, moist) Terminated at 9 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage. Test Pit TP-2 Location: Perc Hole#3, NNW center of parcel Approximate Elevation: 65 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 1.0 - Dark brown topsoil and forest debris 1.0 - 4.5 SP Tan to brown silty SAND with gravel (loose, dry-moist) 4.5 - 9.0 SW-SM Grey silty SAND with gravel, some small mottled silt lenses at 7 feet(loose, moist) Terminated at 9 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage. Test Pit TP-3 Location: NW of parcel Approximate Elevation: 65 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 1.0 - Dark brown topsoil and forest debris 1.0 - 4.0 SP Tan to brown sandy GRAVEL/gravelly SAND with silt and cobbles (loose to medium dense, moist) 4.0 - 9.0 SW-SM Grey gravelly SAND with mottled silt lenses, some cobbles (loose to medium dense, moist) Terminated at 9 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage. Logged by:JLK Excavated on: August 24,2016 GeoResources, LLC Test Pit Logs 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife, Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: Cedadand.Hwy3021 September 2016 Figure 7a Test Pit TP-4 Location: N of parcel Approximate Elevation: 65 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.5 - Dark brown topsoil and forest debris 0.5 - 5.0 SP Tan to brown gravelly SAND with silt, minor roots(loose, moist) 5.0 - 6.0 SW-SM Brown sandy SILT with gravel and roots (stiff, moist) 6.0 - 9.5 SP-SM Grey gravelly SAND interbedded with grey silt below 8 feet(loose to medium dense, moist) Terminated at 9.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage. Test Pit TP-5 Location: NE of parcel, at end of drive above creek Approximate Elevation: 72 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.5 - Dark brown topsoil and forest debris 0.5 - 1.5 SP Tan silty gravelly SAND, some cobbles (loose to medium dense, moist) (Weathered?) 1.5 - 5.0 SW-SM Brown gravelly SAND with silt and cobbles (loose to medium dense, moist) 5.0 - 8.5 SP-SM Grey silty gravelly SAND with cobbles, some mottling (medium dense to dense, moist) (Ablation till?) Terminated at 8.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage. Logged by:JLK Excavated on: August 24,2016 GeoResources, LLC Test Pit Logs 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Proposed SFR Fife,Washington 98424 XXX East State Route 302 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: Cedarland.Hwy302T September 2016 Figure 7b Appendix A Laboratory Analyses Particle Size Distribution Report < < = m pp o ry00o pp g � Ng m M N � � n .�' (�3 it � i! � � it # # iR 100 i i i 0 90 10 80 20 70 30 Of m M w n Z 60 40 m LL i i i i i i i i i i i i Z Z 50 50 (7 ul U i iii O i i i W 40 i i i i i i 60 Cl) o m 30 70 M 20 80 10 t 90 0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. >1- %Gravel %Sand %Fines E %+3" CoarseI Fine JCoarsel Medium I Fine I Silt Clay a v' 0.0 7.5 1 16.1 1 7.8 16.7 47.0 4.9 a) U TEST RESULTS c Material Description o -°o Opening Percent Spec." Pass? poorly graded sand with gravel 9) - Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 3 aa) 1.25 100.0 ca 1 95.3 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) w a .75 92.5 PL= LL= Pl= 2o O .375 84.1 Classification 3 a) #4 76.4 USCS(D 2487)= SP AASHTO(M 145)= o .5 #10 68.6 Coefficients a #20 61.6 D90= 15.3003 D85= 10.2918 1360= 0.6655 #40 51.9 D50= 0.4015 D30= 0.2529 D15= 0.1606 o #60 29.5 D10= 0.1237 Cu= 5.38 Cc= 0.78 a� m #100 13.5 Remarks w 0 -0 #200 4.9 Sample I13:092038 0 m NM-4.9% � -0 Date Received: Data Tested: 8/24/16 in a� 0 a Tested By: x _ a) E Checked By: in Title: o a� m w (no specification provided) co Source of Sample:TP-1 Depth:7' Date Sampled: 8/24/16 42 Sample Number: 1 VD > GeoResources, LLC Client: aD Project: Cedarland.HWY302 in m Fife, WA Project No: Cedarland.HWY302 Figure A-1 Tested By: __ __ Checked By: Particle Size Distribution Report 100 1 0 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I 10 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 80 I 1 1 1 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 70 I I 1 30 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I I W Z 60 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 40 m Il I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I Z I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 Z 50 50 w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o Of 40 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I Y w I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 60 ;0 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 d I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 m 30 1 I I 1 I 1 70 ;1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I 80 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 0 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. T- %Gravel %Sand %Fines, m °+3' Coarse I Fine ICoarsel Medium Fine I Silt I Clay a (n 0.0 1 3.7 1 20.1 1 8.9 21.5 1 36.4 1 9.4 �a a) U TEST RESULTS �a c Material Description 0 Opening Percent Spec." Pass? poorly graded sand with silt and gravel a) - Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 3 ro 1.25 100.0 as 1 98.3 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .75 96.3 PL= NP LL= NV PI= .5 90.9 0 0 .375 86.1 Classification � > #4 76.2 USCS(D 2487)= SP-SM AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-b #10 67.3 Coefficients -o #20 58.3 D90= 12.0401 D85= 8.9211 D60= 0.9760 m #40 45.8 D50= 0.5144 D30= 0.2411 D15= 0.1318 #60 31.1 D10= 0.0819 c„= 11.91 Cc= 0.73 #100 17.3 Remarks 0 -o #200 9.4 Sample ID:092042 a) m NM-11.1% M -0 a Date Received: Date Tested: 8/24/16 Tested By:JPK x _ aa) E Checked By: w o°i Title: o a) (no specification provided) in o Source of Sample:TP-5- Sample Number:2 Date Sampled: 8/24/16 -- N > GeoResources, LLC Client: m Project: Cedarland.HWY302 N f0 m Fife WA Project No: Cedarland.HWY302 Figure A-2 Tested By: Checked By: Appendix B Slope Stability c> Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 M 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 0 4.000 Unit Weight Cohesion Phi Water Material Name Color Strength Type Ru a 4.250 (Ibs/ft3) (psf) (deg) Surface 4.500 4.750 Cutwash Fines ■ 110 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0 5.000 5.250 Sandy TillLI 135 Mohr-Coulomb 250 35 None 0 5.500 5.750 6.000+ 0 2.344 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Project Cedarland.Hwy302 tit, MalysisDescnption Static Drawn By scale 1:941 Company suoeiNreavaEr�.oia °ate 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM I File Name Cedarland.Hwy302.s1md Qo Cedarland.Hwy302: Page 1 of 5 Slide Information Analysis Y Cedarland.Hwy302 Project Summary File Name: Cedarland.Hwy302.slmd-B-B'-Static Slide Modeler Version: 7.018 Project Title: Cedariand.Hwy302 Date Created: 8/31/2016,10:30:49 AM General Settings Units of Measurement: Imperial Units Time Units: days Permeability Units: feet/second Failure Direction: Left to Right Data Output: Standard Maximum Material Properties: 20 Maximum Support Properties: 20 Analysis Options Slices l ype: Vertical Analysis Methods Used Bishop simplified Number of slices: 50 Tolerance: 0.005 Maximum number of iterations: 75 Check malpha<0.2: Yes Create Interslice boundaries at intersections Yes with water tables and piezos: Initial trial value of FS: 1 Steffensen Iteration: Yes Groundwater Analysis Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces Pore Fluid Unit Weight[lbs/ft3]: 62.4 Advanced Groundwater Method: None Surface Options Cedarland.Hwy302.slmd 8/31/2016,10:30:49 AM wmrrrenaner gnu ?t• Cedarland.Hwy302: Page 2 of 5 Surface Type: Circular Search Method: Slope Search Number of Surfaces: 5000 Upper Angle: Not Defined Lower Angle: Not Defined Composite Surfaces: Disabled Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces Minimum Elevation: Not Defined Minimum Depth[ft]: 4 Minimum Area: Not Defined Minimum Weight: Not Defined Seismic Advanced seismic analysis: No Staged pseudostatic analysis: Yes Staged pseudostatic method: Effective Stress Material Properties Property Outwash Fines Sandy Till Color ■ ❑ Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight[lbs/ft3] 110 135 Cohesion[psf] 0 250 Friction Angle[deg] 30 35 Water Surface None None Ru Value 0 0 Global Minimums Method:bishop simplified FS 2.344300 Center: 466.498,96.658 Radius: 59.170 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 417.734,63.145 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 474.459,38.027 Resisting Moment: 2.86427e+006 lb-ft Driving Moment: 1.22181e+006 lb-ft Total Slice Area: 372.626 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 56.7253 ft Surface Average Height: 6.56895 ft Slice Data Global Minimum Query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:2.3443 Cedarland.Hwy302.s1md 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM Cedarland.Hwy302: Page 3 of 5 Slice Width Weight Angle Base Base Base Shear Shear Base Pore Effective Number [ft] [Ibs] of Slice Base Material Cohesion Friction Angle Stress Strength Normal Stress Pressure Normal Stress [degrees] Will [degrees] [psf] [psf] [psf] [psf] [psf] 1 1.16816 86.0795 -54.5266 Outwash Fines 31.6168 0 13.4867 31.6168 54.7616 0 S4.7616 2 1.16816 251.152 -52.6203 Outwash Fines 93.8697 0 40.0417 93.8697 162.587 0 162.587 3 1.1331 408.506 -50.8202 Sandy Till 367.686 0 156.843 367.686 168.072 0 168.072 4 1.1331 578.803 -49.1136 Sandy Till 451.81 0 192.727 4S1.81 288.214 0 288.214 5 1.1331 737.22 -47.464 Sandy Till 532.286 0 227.055 532.286 403.145 0 403.145 6 1.1331 884.861 -45.8646 Sandy Till 609.254 0 259.887 609.254 513.066 0 513.066 7 1.1331 1022.65 -44.31 Sandy Till 682.847 0 291.28 682.847 618.168 0 618.168 8 1.1331 1151.35 -42.7957 Sandy Till 753.193 0 321.287 753.193 718.631 0 718.631 9 1.1331 1271.64 -41.3175 Sandy Till 820.406 0 349.958 820.406 814.625 0 814.625 10 1.1331 1384.07 -39.8722 Sandy Till 884.595 0 377.339 884.595 906.297 0 906.297 11 1.1331 1487.48 -38.4568 Sandy Till 945.019 0 403.114 945.019 992.585 0 992.S8S 12 1.1331 1543.02 -37.0686 Sandy Till 981.952 0 418.868 981.952 1045.33 0 1045.33 13 1.1331 1574.48 -35.7054 Sandy Till 1006.82 0 429.476 1006.82 1080.86 0 1080.86 14 1.1331 1599.74 -34.3652 Sandy Till 1028.5 0 438.724 1028.5 1111.81 0 1111.81 15 1.1331 1619.09 -33.046 Sandy Till 1047.07 0 446.645 1047.07 1138.33 0 1138.33 16 1.1331 1632.79 -31.7464 Sandy Till 1062.62 0 4S3.278 1062.62 1160.54 0 1160.54 17 1.1331 1641.1 -30.4648 Sandy Till 1075.22 0 458.653 1075.22 1178.54 0 1178.54 18 1.1331 1644.22 -29.1998 Sandy Till 1084.95 0 462.803 1084.95 1192.42 0 1192.42 19 1.1331 1642.34 -27.9502 Sandy Till 1091.86 0 465.751 1091.86 1202.3 0 1202.3 20 1.1331 1635.6S -26.715 Sandy Till 1096.01 0 467.521 1096.01 1208.22 0 1208.22 21 1.1331 1624.3 -25.493 Sandy Till 1097.44 0 468.131 1097.44 1210.28 0 1210.28 22 1.1331 1608.43 -24.2833 Sandy Till 1096.21 0 467.607 1096.21 1208.51 0 1208.51 23 1.1331 1588.17 -23.0851 Sandy Till 1092.35 0 465.96 1092.35 1203 0 1203 24 1.1331 1563.65 -21.8974 Sandy Till 1085.9 0 463.209 1085.9 1193.78 0 1193.78 25 1.1331 1534.97 -20.7196 Sandy Till 1076.88 0 4S9.361 1076.88 1180.9 0 1180.9 26 1.1331 1502.24 -19.5509 Sandy Till 1065.32 0 454.43 1065.32 1164.39 0 1164.39 27 1.1331 1464.79 -18.3905 Sandy Till 1050.82 0 448.245 1050.82 1143.69 0 1143.69 28 1.1331 1414.7 -17.238 Sandy Till 1028.87 0 438.882 1028.87 1112.34 0 1112.34 29 1.1331 1358.26 -16.0926 Sandy Till 1002.92 0 427.812 1002.92 1075.28 0 1075.28 30 1.1331 1298.08 -14.9537 Sandy Till 974.421 0 415.655 974.421 1034.58 0 1034.58 31 1.1331 1234.21 -13.8209 Sandy Till 943.371 0 402.411 943.371 990.24 0 990.24 32 1.1331 1166.72 -12.6935 Sandy Till 909.777 0 388.08 909.777 942.262 0 942.262 33 1.1331 1095.66 -11.5712 Sandy Till 873.641 0 372.666 873.641 890.654 0 890.654 34 1.1331 1021.06 -10.4533 Sandy Till 834.958 0 356.165 834.958 835.407 0 835.407 35 1.1331 942.972 -9.33944 Sandy Till 793.725 0 338.577 793.725 776.519 0 776.519 36 1.1331 861.428 -8.22913 Sandy Till 749.93 0 319.895 749.93 713.974 0 713.974 37 1.1331 776.459 -7.12192 Sandy Till 703.56 0 300.115 703.56 647.751 0 647.751 38 1.1331 688.091 -6.01738 Sandy Till 6S4.6 0 279.23 654.6 577.828 0 577.828 39 1.1331 596.348 -4.91508 Sandy Till 603.027 0 257.231 603.027 504.176 0 504.176 40 1.1331 501.248 -3.8146 Sandy Till 548.819 0 234.108 548.819 426.758 0 426.758 41 1.1331 404.812 -2.71553 Sandy Till 493.169 0 210.369 493.169 347.281 0 347.281 42 1.1331 356.265 -1.61745 Sandy Till 466.224 0 198.876 466.224 308.8 0 308.8 43 1.1331 326.79S -0.519976 Sandy Till 450.723 0 192.263 450.723 286.663 0 286.663 44 1.1331 294.00S 0.577311 Sandy Till 432.985 0 184.697 432.985 261.33 0 261.33 45 1.1331 257.894 1.67481 Sandy Till 412.973 0 176.16 412.973 232.75 0 232.75 46 1.1331 218.458 2.77292 Sandy Till 390.649 0 166.638 390.649 200.868 0 200.868 47 1.1331 175.691 3.87206 Sandy Till 365.968 0 156.11 365.968 16S.619 0 165.619 48 1.1331 129.581 4.97262 Sandy Till 338.882 0 144.5S6 338.882 126.937 0 126.937 49 1.1331 80.1135 6.07503 Sandy Till 309.34 0 131.954 309.34 84.7464 0 84.7464 50 1.1331 27.269 7.1797 Sandy Till 277.284 0 118.28 277.284 38.9655 0 38.9655 Interstice Data Global Minimum Query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:2.3443 Cedarland.Hwy302.slmd 8/31/2016,10:30:49 AM S MIMERMtEr 7.014 �l•� Cedarland.Hwy302: Page 4 of 5 Slice X Y Interslice Interslice Interslice Number coordinate coordinate-Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle [ft] [ft] [Ibs] [Ibs] [degrees] 1 417.734 63.1452 0 0 0 2 418.902 61.SOS9 74.017 0 0 3 420.07 59.9769 275.839 0 0 4 421.203 58.S866 331.79S 0 0 5 422.336 57.2779 490.606 0 0 6 423.469 56.0429 731.214 0 0 7 424.602 54.875 1035.91 0 0 8 425.735 53.7689 1389.63 0 0 9 426.869 52.7198 1779.5 0 0 10 428.002 51.7237 2194.39 0 0 11 429.135 50.7772 2624.62 0 0 12 430.268 49.8773 3061.1 0 0 13 431.401 49.0213 3481.26 0 0 14 432.534 48.2069 3874.85 0 0 15 433.667 47.4321 4239.2 0 0 16 434.8 46.69S 4S72.22 0 0 17 435.933 45.9939 4872.25 0 0 18 437.066 45.3274 5138.05 0 0 19 438.2 44.6941 5368.77 0 0 20 439.333 44.0929 SS63.87 0 0 21 440.466 43.S226 5723.12 0 0 22 441.599 42.9823 5846.58 0 0 23 442.732 42.4711 5934.55 0 0 24 443.865 41.9881 5987.57 0 0 25 444.998 41.5327 6006.41 0 0 26 446.131 41.1041 5992.OS 0 0 27 447.264 40.7017 5945.67 0 0 28 448.398 40.325 5868.62 0 0 29 449.531 39.9734 5762.39 0 0 30 450.664 39.6465 5629.14 0 0 31 451.797 39.3439 5471.25 0 0 32 452.93 39.0651 5291.31 0 0 33 454.063 38.8099 5092.06 0 0 34 455.196 38.S779 4876.42 0 0 35 456.329 38.3688 4647.49 0 0 36 4S7.462 38.1825 4408.56 0 0 37 458.595 38.0186 4163.08 0 0 38 459.729 37.877 3914.73 0 0 39 460.862 37.7576 3667.34 0 0 40 461.995 37.6602 3425 0 0 41 463.128 37.5846 3191.97 0 0 42 464.261 37.S309 2972.27 0 0 43 46S.394 37.4989 2756.8 0 0 44 466.S27 37.4886 2541.89 0 0 45 467.66 37.5 2329.63 0 0 46 468.793 37.5331 2122.31 0 0 47 469.927 37.588 1922.47 0 0 48 471.06 37.6647 1732.88 0 0 49 472.193 37.7633 1556.56 0 0 50 473.326 37.8839 1396.83 0 0 51 474.459 38.0266 0 0 0 List Of Coordinates External Boundary Cedarland.Hwy302.sImd 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM S110E1N1ERPPET JA11 Cedadand.Hwy302: Page 5 of 5 •'jam,,' x Y 724 0 724 20 517 30 464 40 448 SO 430 60 391 70 231 80 77 90 46 90 0 80 0 59 0 0 Material Boundary X Y 0 59 430 60 CedaHand.Hwy302.slmd 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM Safety Factor 0 0.000 0.250 0.500 ► 0.15 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 M 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 0 4.250 N 4.500 4.750 Material Name Color Unit Weight Strength Type Cohesion Phi Water Ru 5.000 (lbs/ft3) (psf) (deg) Surface 5.250 5.500 Outwash Fines . 110 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0 5.750 6.000+ Sandy Till 135 Mohr-Coulomb 250 35 None 0 o 1.792 V 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Project Cedarland.Hwy302 tit, Analysis De—p(ion Seismic �y Drawn ey scale 1:937 C—Pany 1 I ► Date 8/31/2016� 10:30:49 AM File Name Cedarland.Hwy302.s1md SLIDEINTERPRET 7.014 L wrenPner yaw e,14%aroa d;1+E'nGE' Cedarland.Hwy302: Page 1 of 5 Slide Analysis Information Cedarland.Hwy302 Project Summary File Name: Cedarland.Hwy302.s1md-B-B'-Seismic Slide Modeler Version: 7.018 Project Title: Cedarland.Hwy302 Date Created: 8/31/2016,10:30:49 AM General Settings Units of Measurement: Imperial Units Time Units: days Permeability Units: feet/second Failure Direction: Left to Right Data Output: Standard Maximum Material Properties: 20 Maximum Support Properties: 20 Analysis Options Slices type: Vertical Analysis Methods Used Bishop simplified Number of slices: 50 Tolerance: 0.00S Maximum number of iterations: 75 Check malpha<0.2: Yes Create Interslice boundaries at intersections Yes with water tables and piezos: Initial trial value of FS: 1 Steffensen Iteration: Yes Groundwater Analysis Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces Pore Fluid Unit Weight[lbs/ft3]: 62.4 Advanced Groundwater Method: None Surface Options Cedarland.Hwy302.s1md 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM su�rrrearatr 7..14 �I•. Cedarland.Hwy302: Page 2 of 5 Surface Type: Circular Search Method: Slope Search Number of Surfaces: 5000 Upper Angle: Not Defined Lower Angle: Not Defined Composite Surfaces: Disabled Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces Minimum Elevation: Not Defined Minimum Depth[ft]: 4 Minimum Area: Not Defined Minimum Weight: Not Defined Seismic Advanced seismic analysis: No Staged pseudostatic analysis: Yes Staged pseudostatic method: Effective Stress Loading Seismic Load Coefficient(Horizontal): 0.15 Material Properties Property Outwash Fines Sandy Till Color ■ ❑ Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight[lbs/ft3] 110 135 Cohesion[psf] 0 250 Friction Angle[deg] 30 35 Water Surface None None Ru Value 0 0 Global Minimums Method:bishop simplified FS 1.791770 Center: 463.821,96.233 Radius: 58.207 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 415.551,63.705 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 471.655,38.556 Resisting Moment: 2.94752e+006 lb-ft Driving Moment: 1.64503e+006 lb-ft Total Slice Area: 401.287 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 56.1046 ft Surface Average Height: 7.15247 ft Slice Data Global Minimum query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:1.79177 Cedarland.Hwy302.s1md 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM SLIDEIN ERPRU 7.014 Cedariand.Hwy302: Page 3 of 5 Slice Width Weight Angle Base Base Base Shear Shear Base Pore Effective of Slice Base Material Cohesion Friction Angle Stress Strength Normal Stress Pressure Normal Stress Number [ft] [Ibs] [degrees] [psf] [degrees] [psf] [psf] [psf] [psf] [psf] 1 1.36845 119.894 -54.8549 Outwash Fines 37.3981 0 20.8722 37.3981 57.9646 0 57.9646 2 1.36845 347.977 -52.5765 Outwash Fines 110.855 0 61.869 110.855 173.434 0 173.434 3 1.11183 454.83 -50.6058 Sandy Till 392,554 0 219.087 392.554 142.307 0 142.307 4 1.11183 617.326 -48.9109 Sandy Till 474.858 0 265.022 474.858 251.319 0 251.319 5 1.11183 768.554 -47.2718 Sandy Till 553.605 0 308.971 553.605 356.755 0 356.755 6 1.11183 909.546 -45.682 Sandy Till 628.931 0 351.011 628.931 458.596 0 458.596 7 1.11183 1041.17 -44.1363 Sandy Till 700.967 0 391.215 700.967 556.852 0 556.852 8 1.11183 1164.14 -42.63 Sandy Till 769.836 0 429.651 769.836 651.553 0 651.553 9 1.11183 1279.1 -41.1594 Sandy Till 835.651 0 466.383 835.651 742.746 0 742.746 10 1.11183 1386.57 -39.7211 Sandy Till 898.517 0 501.469 898.517 830.473 0 830.473 11 1.11183 1487.03 -38.3122 Sandy Till 958.529 0 534.962 9S8.529 914.796 0 914.796 12 1.11183 1580.88 -36.9302 Sandy Till 1015.78 0 566.914 1015.78 995.763 0 995.763 13 1.11183 1662.2 -35.5728 Sandy Till 1067.09 0 595.551 1067.09 1069.08 0 1069.08 14 1.11183 1694.23 -34.2381 Sandy Till 1093.06 0 610.045 1093.06 1108.64 0 1108.64 15 1.11183 1712.33 -32.9243 Sandy Till 1111.7 0 620.448 1111.7 1138.35 0 1138.35 16 1.11183 1725.04 -31.6296 Sandy Till 1127.38 0 629.199 1127.38 1164 0 1164 17 1.11183 1732.59 -30.3528 Sandy Till 1140.17 0 636.337 1140.17 1185.69 0 1185.69 18 1.11183 1735.16 -29.0924 Sandy Till 1150.13 0 641.896 1150.13 1203.48 0 1203.48 19 1.11183 1732.96 -27.8473 Sandy Till 1157.34 0 645.92 1157.34 1217.43 0 1217.43 20 1.11183 1726.14 -26.6163 Sandy Till 1161.83 0 648.426 1161.83 1227.59 0 1227.59 21 1.11183 1714.86 -25.3985 Sandy Till 1163.67 0 649.453 1163.67 1234.02 0 1234.02 22 1.11183 1699.26 -24.1928 Sandy Till 1162.89 0 649.017 1162.89 1236.77 0 1236.77 23 1.11183 1679.45 -22.9984 Sandy Till 1159.53 0 647.142 1159.53 1235.85 0 1235.85 24 1.11183 1655.55 -21.8145 Sandy Till 1153.63 0 643.849 1153.63 1231.32 0 1231.32 25 1.11183 1627.67 -20.6403 Sandy Till 1145.22 0 639.156 1145.22 1223.2 0 1223.2 26 1.11183 1595.89 -19.4751 Sandy Till 1134.31 0 633.067 1134.31 1211.51 0 1211.51 27 1.11183 1560.31 -18.3182 Sandy Till 1120.94 0 625.605 1120.94 1196.26 0 1196.26 28 1.11183 1521 -17.1691 Sandy Till 1105.12 0 616.776 110S.12 1177.47 0 1177.47 29 1.11183 1477.6 -16.027 Sandy Till 1086.6 0 606.439 1086.6 1154.78 0 1154.78 30 1.11183 1422.49 -14.8914 Sandy Till 1060.93 0 592.113 1060.93 1121.96 0 1121.96 31 1.11183 1360.82 -13.7617 Sandy Till 1031 0 575.409 1031 1083.02 0 1083.02 32 1.11183 1295.66 -12.6375 Sandy Till 998.583 0 557.317 998.583 1040.39 0 1040.39 33 1.11183 1227.07 -11.5183 Sandy Till 963.67 0 537.831 963.67 994.052 0 994.052 34 1.11183 1155.09 -10.4034 Sandy Till 926.264 0 516.955 926.264 944.002 0 944.002 35 1.11183 1079.76 -9.29256 Sandy Till 886.358 0 494.683 886.358 890.217 0 890.217 36 1.11183 1001.12 -8.18521 Sandy Till 843.943 0 471.011 843.943 832.675 0 832.675 37 1.11183 919.184 -7.08093 Sandy Till 799.007 0 445.932 799.007 771.339 0 771.339 38 1.11183 833.987 -5.97929 Sandy Till 751.534 0 419.437 751.534 706.173 0 706.173 39 1.11183 745.549 -4.87986 Sandy Till 701.504 0 391.515 701.504 637.135 0 637.135 40 1.11183 653.888 -3.78224 Sandy Till 648.893 0 362.152 648.893 564.179 0 564.179 41 1.11183 559.018 -2.686 Sandy Till 593.674 0 331.334 593.674 487.247 0 487.247 42 1.11183 460.948 -1.59074 Sandy Till 535.817 0 299.043 535.817 406.281 0 406.281 43 1.11183 359.687 -0.49607 Sandy Till 475.285 0 26S.26 475.285 321.213 0 321.213 44 1.11183 283.776 0.598422 Sandy Till 430.069 0 240.025 430.069 257.741 0 257.741 45 1.11183 248.473 1.69313 Sandy Till 410.133 0 228.898 410.133 230.247 0 230.247 46 1.11183 210.455 2.78846 Sandy Till 388.233 0 216.676 388.233 199.841 0 199.841 47 1.11183 169.237 3.88481 Sandy Till 364.024 0 203.164 364.024 166.012 0 166.012 48 1.11183 124.809 4.98259 Sandy Till 337.459 0 188.338 337.459 128.676 0 128.676 49 1.11183 77.1567 6.08221 Sandy Till 308.487 0 172.169 308.487 87.7417 0 87.7417 50 1.11183 26.261 7.18408 Sandy Till 277.051 0 154.624 277.051 43.1096 0 43.1096 Interstice Data Global Minimum Query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:1.79177 Cedarland.Hwy302.slmd 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM �1SUUINi RU 7.014 • • Cedarland.Hwy302: Page 4 of 5 Slice x Y Interslice Interslice Interslice Number coordinate coordinate-Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle [ft] [ft] [Ibs] [Ibs] [degrees] 1 415.551 63.7049 0 0 0 2 416.919 61.7611 102.097 0 0 3 418.288 59.9728 379.786 0 0 4 419.399 58.6189 397.085 0 0 S 420.511 S7.3439 515.458 0 0 6 421.623 56.1402 716.642 0 0 7 422.735 55.0016 984.976 0 0 8 423.847 53.9228 1306.92 0 0 9 424.959 52.8994 1670.68 0 0 10 426.07 51.9274 2065.91 0 0 11 427.182 51.0037 2483.5 0 0 12 428.294 50.1252 2915.37 0 0 13 429.406 49.2895 3354.35 0 0 14 430.518 48.4943 3791.66 0 0 15 431.63 47.7376 4206.42 0 0 16 432.741 47.0177 4592.98 0 0 17 433.853 46.3329 4949.29 0 0 18 434.965 45.6818 5273.66 0 0 19 436.077 45.0632 5564.78 0 0 20 437.189 44.4758 S821.66 0 0 21 438.301 43.9187 6043.6 0 0 22 439.412 43.3908 6230.19 0 0 23 440.524 42.8912 6381.26 0 0 24 441.636 42.4193 6496.87 0 0 25 442.748 41.9743 6577.32 0 0 26 443.86 41.5555 6623.12 0 0 27 444.971 41.1623 6634.98 0 0 28 446.083 40.7942 6613.8 0 0 29 447.195 40.4507 6560.67 0 0 30 448.307 40.1314 6476.87 0 0 31 449.419 39.8357 6363.63 0 0 32 450.531 39.5634 6222.91 0 0 33 451.642 39.3141 6056.97 0 0 34 452.754 39.0875 5868.28 0 0 35 453.866 38.8834 5659.48 0 0 36 454.978 38.7015 5433.39 0 0 37 4S6.09 38.5416 5193.04 0 0 38 457.202 38.4035 4941.65 0 0 39 458.313 38.287 4682.65 0 0 40 4S9.42S 38.1921 4419.66 0 0 41 460.537 38.1186 4156.56 0 0 42 461.649 38.0664 3897.45 0 0 43 462.761 38.0355 3646.65 0 0 44 463.873 38.0259 3408.77 0 0 45 464.984 38.0375 3181.48 0 0 46 466.096 38.0704 2956.69 0 0 47 467.208 38.1245 2736.53 0 0 48 468.32 38.2 2S23.5 0 0 49 469.432 38.297 2320.35 0 0 50 470.544 38.4155 2130.11 0 0 51 471.655 38.5556 0 0 0 List Of Coordinates External Boundary F1 Cedarland.Hwy302.s1md 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM �j woorrrearaer�.oi+ � Cedadand.Hwy302: Page 5 of 5 X Y 724 0 724 20 517 30 464 40 448 50 430 60 391 70 231 80 77 90 46 90 0 80 0 59 0 0 Material Boundary X Y 0 59 430 60 Cedarland.Hwy302.slmd 8/31/2016, 10:30:49 AM -voo 63 i 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. � Applicant/Owner /�QClaf-tc nd � P t6+ z1ucj,, Parcel)# i�?a I Lt 00000 Site Address X X X 5"b, S4uk4 34zoJ*e. 20 a . V:,kk�ru r . WA 'I S S;L6 (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 3 (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) 9 (c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) N (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) 1,�- (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s) IVA (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) 3 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s)�A,jYj !9 (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) �;jj,rts 9b,2a ,­4 b (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) W A (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 pr_-evkd i1C B (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) 5 (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s) I n ? Je3 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Sewer ' Located on page(s) N A (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) tg.— a 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 property. Located on page(s) S-& (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 5— U (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) CJ (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) 10 (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 6 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 11) (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) S-(e (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) !:iuS)Ye. Q.b I, DAty A. G• $t 666_R_STAiI� hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer 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 4IS 201 and entitled " ?0-oF�oSCD Stfuc-'L • FAMIL. R.ESipENCG_ STA->11* eoyr6 30Z meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, 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 such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) v � .0� 2 fo 50 0� ���R� sl 41I EaG g /y n 16 f 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. GEO .3 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: CQA,,)cA A �Ne (31G/4LAL+_s Permit#: V A R ZGJ 9 Qo oc, - Parcel#: G Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: c) )Z. 9 J1(- 1. (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? ✓ Comment: (b) A discussion of specific soil types OK? ✓ Comment: >� Z (c) A discussion of ground water conditions OK? ✓ Comment: QIf (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology OK? ✓ Comment: Z (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands OK? V Comment: Ao / A (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records OK? V Comment: 6? 3 2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features. OK? I/ Comment: Jr- 21.E 3. Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. OK? ✓ Comment: L4� 2 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. OK? Comment: 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. 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 coeffients should be a value of 0.15. OK? V Comment: P-5 7. (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features OK? V Comment: 49 I C: 7 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septjc drain fields OK?j—Comment: N/A- - -_2�1/ei/ (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings. OK? ✓ Comment: G - 'S 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? 1-/Comment: F J - C, (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. OK? y Comment: 1� 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. OK? V Comment: RG 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? ✓ Comment: U 10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. OK? J Comment: I 11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. n OK?_�L Comment: 12. Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. OK? Z_Comment: P C, 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. OK? V Comment: I- - 2— Are the Documents signed and stamped? By whom? License#: License type: FIRST REVIEW ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by , on . Time spent in review: SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by I 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 Page 1 of 1 Michael MacSems-Hwy 302 Site From: Michael MacSems To: joe@cedarlandforestresources.com Date: 10/24/2016 1:41 PM Subject: Hwy 302 Site CC: Angie Amidon Attachm cnts: 046.JPG JOC. I'll be calling you back in a few minutes,but I am sending this e-mail to you so that you have a written list of what still needs to be done. Geo-Report needs to be finalized (see e-mail correspondence with GeoResorces dated 10/5/16) Mason Environmental Permit review needs to be completed. (see e-mail to Angie dated 10/4/16) Land Modification--probably required, either way, I need to know the amount of cubic yards on the cut and fill for the d/w. (see my letter of 5/4/16) SEPA MDNS --can happen once the geo report is finalized, the MEP application is complete, and the volume on the d/w cut and fill is known. Flag the boundaries of the waiver envelope. I have a pretty good site plan of the proposed boundaries that was provided by TWC, but I have not yet verified the square area. I will do that soon. You will need a new road access permit from WSDOT. #50345 is a temporary permit that was supposed to have been closed when the harvest was complete (see photo). Michael file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 80EOFAOMasonmail 100161346... 10/24/2016 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS This is not a complete list. Inclusion on this list should not be construed as a County endorsement. COMPANY NAME ADDRESS CITY PHONE EMAIL The Wetland Corps Lee Boad& PO Box 2854 Belfair 98528 360-620-0618 wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Heather Lane Foster Wheeler Environmental 10900 NE 8th St, Bellevue 98004 425-688-3700 Ste 1300 Environmental Design,LLC Nate&Becky 901 V Street Centralia 98531 360-219-3343 envirorunental—design@comcast.net Wetlands(and septic design) Rieger Pentec Environmental Inc/ 120 Third Ave S, Edmonds 98020 425-775-4682 Hart Crowser Ste 110 Soundview Consultants 2907 Harborview Dr Gig Harbor 98335 253-514-8952 jeremy@soundviewconsultants.com B-12 Associates 521 S Washington Ave Kent 98032 206-859-0515 Skillings-Connolly 5016 Lacey Blvd SE Lacey 98503 360-491-3399 Lakebay Environmental Sherri Lampman PO Box 931 Lakebay 98349 253-884-2821 lakebayenvironmental@gmail.com Lovell-Sauerland&Assoc. 19217 36th Ave W, Lynnwood 98036 425-755-1591 Ste 106 ACERA LLC Mike Layes 1409 7th Avenue SE Olympia 98501 360-292-9639 acera.consulting@gmail.com Land Services Northwest PO Box 4372 Olympia 98501 360-481-4208 Pacific Rim Soil&Water/ Lisa Palazzi 120 State Ave NE, Olympia 98501 360-534-0346 lisa@JWMorrissette.com J W Morrissette Ste 140 The Coot Company 416 S Washington Olympia 98501 360-352-9897 Aquatic Restoration Consultants 6411 32nd Ave NE Olympia 98502 360-867-1811 Agua Tierra 1910 E 4th Ave Olympia 98506 360-754-3755 Ecolution Marnie Tyler 1910 E 4th Ave, Olympia 98506 360.480.5518 marnie.tyler@ecolution.us.com PMB 193 ro—und Native Plants PO Box 7505 Olympia 98507 360-352-4122 Page 1 Mason County DCD Sept 2016 i BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS Ecological Land Services,Inc. Joan Bartlett 1157 3rd Ave, Longview,98632 360-578-1371 'oanne@eco-land.com Ste 220 Marine Surveys&Assessments Amy Leitman 521 Snagstead Way- Pt Townsend 98363 360-385-4073 marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com Forestech Earl Kong 260 Old Ft Townsend Rd Pt Townsend 98368 360-830-5564 EnCo Environmental Corp. Jonathan Kemp 110 Box 1212 Puyallup 98371 253-841-9710 Key Environmental Solutions Key McMurry 550 Mill Creek Rd Raymond 98577 360-942-3184 key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com (wetlands/pocket gophers) Mary Beth Dahl 10824 Lundeen Rochester 98579 360-858-0110 ICF Int.ernational Grant Novak 710 Second Ave, Seattle 98104 206-801-2800 Ste 550 Cardno Entrix 200 First Ave West, Seattle 98119 206-269-0104 Ste 500 Eric Beach 1320 23rd Ave. SW Puyallup 98571 360-490-6272 ebeach62@gmail.com Alkai Consultants 9465 Provost Rd NW, Silverdale 98383 360-613-2407 Ste 202 Bob Thomas&Sons PO Box 4146 Tumwater 98501 360-753-9051 Cascadia Land Planning Kim Pawlawski 300 Deschutes Way SW, Tumwater 98501 360-918-1539 cascadialandplanning@msn.com Ste 315 PBS Engineering&Environmental Joseph Leyda 1310 Main St Vancouver 98660 360-6904331 'oseph_leyda@pbsenv.com BioResources, LLC Kim Schaumburg 10112 Bay View Rd KPN Vaughn 98394 253-884-5776 kimberly035@centurytel.net Page 2 Mason County DCD Sept 2016 - , cress Connection Permit me and Address ofApplicant Width Gravei s45 I Cedarland Forest Resources LTfRT PO Box 2264 MP 2.110 Left Gig Harbor,WA 98335 111,tiNGITUDE Region H-ATITUDE Olympic I County Tax Parcel Number Mason _ GIT Ovemment Lot Number in a Phone(Optional) 253-208-8136 1;a of 114 of S 16 T 22 .R 01 Permit Category Current Highway Classification i ® 1-Minimum Connection ❑ 1-1320'Minimum Approach Spacing Required 1 ❑ 7-Minor Connection ❑ 2-660'Minimum Approach Spacing Required j ❑ 3.Major Connection ® 3.330'Minimum Approach Spacing Required ❑ 4-Temporary Connection ❑ 4-250'Minimum Approach Spacing Required ❑ 5.125'Minimum Approach Spacing Required Arr-ess CnnnecUon meets currant Department location.spacing,and design rntena: ®Conforming ❑Npn-Conforming ❑Variance — licai.t hereinafter referred to as the"Grantee",having applied for a permit to construct a rade,use,and The ApP 9 P Pg r'1ainiain an access connection to serve: Temporary contruction access for tree removal. Access will be removed and restored to original design upon Completion of tree removal. -,yshin9tOh State Department be granted,ru etotharte designee,herein after referred to as the'De + orders tert d r panment'. h �,J.J and EXhsPe�aal Provis'orns,Pages 1t,y 2 ference made a u o hereof upon the Genera!Provtsions ate c%hibi B•86ye(esic T dEnd em se section,Page t C-.zhiblt C'WZTCP,Page Exhibit D c " r s w y �E 9� T •�Y,et •- ,ti �' y .+A t� - �1.,.ywt 1,r .. '.: 41,E .!.:• 1 ; 77 r ! � I j •� �: •r V \ ; `� S-,, 'VI