The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEO2012-00033 for COM2012-00074 - GEO Geological Review - 7/23/2012 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 Geotechnical Assessment Review Acceptance Letter July 23, 2012 SHEARER BROTHERS CHIPPING P O BOX 2638 BELFAIR WA 98528 Case No.: GE02012-00033 Parcel No.: 123211390051 Proiect Description: DRY STORAGE BUILDING The Geotechnical Assessment for SHEARER BROTHERS CHIPPING has been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. The assessment was prepared by Michael Staten dated 4/30/2012. Based on the certification provided by the licensed engineer/geologist, the referenced Geological Assessment was prepared in general accordance with the requirements in the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Areas 17.01.100.E.4. Mason County considers the review valid until such time as scope of project, site conditions, and/or regulations change. Should the scope of work, site conditions, and/or regulations change after the original review, then an addendum from the original author of the assessment may be required to address these changes. The assessment would only be re-reviewed if a permit for development were submitted after these changes occur. Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 365 if you have questions. Sincerely, Allan Borden Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department Comments: 7/23/2012 Page 1 of 1 GE02012-00033 Geological Assessment for Shearer Brothers Chipping, LLC Industrial Property 100 NE Katchemak Lane Parcel No. 12321-13-90051 Mason County, Washington April 30, 2012 Project#1252 Prepared For: Shearer Brothers Chipping, LLC PO Box 2638 CLYDg ST G F wAsy 9� Belfair, Washington 98528 Prepared By: Envirotech Engineering ��ot '�Fc SR� w4 PO Box 984 �sSIONALti�G� Belfair, Washington 98528 Phone: 360-275-9374 Fax: 360-275-4789 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................I 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................................1 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION AND SCOPE OF WORK.........................................................................1 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................3 2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS..................................................................................................................3 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology.............................................................................................................3 2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................................................3 2.3.1 Upland Water Bodies..................................................................................................................4 2.4 SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................................4 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION......................................................................................................5 3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING............................................................................5 3.2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................5 3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................6 3.3.1 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................7 3.4 SOILS TESTING AND PROPERTIES.......................................................................................................8 3.1 INFILTRATION RATES.........................................................................................................................8 4.0 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................9 4.1 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS.........................................................................................................................9 4.1.1 Landslides and Slope Stability Analysis...................................................................................10 4.1.2 Surface and Subsurface Drainage...........................................................................................11 4.2 EROSION HAZARDS...........................................................................................................................1 1 4.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS............................................................................................................................11 4.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................12 5.0 CLOSURE............................................................................................................................................13 Appendix A-Site Plan Appendix B - Soil Information I 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this geological assessment for an industrial property located at 100 NE Katchemak Lane, parcel number 12321-13-90051 in Mason County, Washington(Project).As presented herein,this assessment includes information pertaining to the Project in this Introduction Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section; field methods and soils descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section;and,assessments for landslides,erosion, seismic hazards,and other considerations in the Conclusions Section. An initial geological/ geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech with the property owner on April 23, 2012. It was determined that slopes greater than 15% were present within 300 feet of the Project. Due to these slope grades, a geological assessment is required pursuant to landslide hazard areas of the Mason County Resource Ordinance(MCRO). During the evaluation and site visit by Envirotech, surface and subsurface conditions were assessed in order to determine if fiuther geotechnical studies are required.After completion of the field work and applicable Project research,Envirotech prepared this geological assessment. 1.1 Project Information Information pertaining to the Project was provided by the proponent of the property, and observations from a field visit by Envirotech. The property is currently developed with a mechanic/work shop, onsite septic, and natural surfaced parking lot. The proposed development is expected to consist of a 120 x 60 building to be used as a storage facility. Approximate site development with relation to existing site features are illustrated in the Site Map in Appendix A. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope of Work The purpose of this geological assessment was to evaluate the Project in order to confirm that the proposed development is outside of any landslide hazard area and its associated buffers and setbacks as determined in the MCRO. The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and subsurface conditions,and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site development. In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geological/ geotechnical program completed for the proposed improvements of the Project include: • Review project information provided by the Project owner's representative; • Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements; • Define general subsurface conditions of the site by observing soils within test pit excavations, review well logs from existing wells near the Project, and evaluate geological maps depicting the site geology for the vicinity of the Project; • Perform soils testing, such as visual classifications,to determine selected index properties of the soils; • Complete an engineering assessment supported by planned site alterations and the surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation, soil testing, and applicable Project research;and, • Establish engineering conclusions based on findings and anticipated Project. Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 1 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 r �� 13 � r a �� rs Ito 1.40- " NE o " ci 24 r 9 20 ,p� NEIMKRK RD O � O 3 � j p � o Q � Project ' T23NR2W T23NR1v► �i III Lama" to J1 NEJAKEDR) 25 y� 9 J� EN '31 W 4r�3Ji 33 HOOD CANAL - 0 5392ft Vicinity Map from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 2 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-2754789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on April 23, and April 27, 2012 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. During the site visit,site features were documented that may influence construction or reveal potential geological hazards. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and slope/ erosion conditions for the Project and surrounding areas. 2.1 General Observations The Project is currently developed as previously mentioned, and surrounded by rural residential and commercial development. Katchemak Lane extends just beyond the south side of the property, and a US Naval railroad is located to the west of the property. Vegetation on and near the property consists primarily of 2°d growth firs, and other trees and shrubbery common to this area of the Pacific Northwest. The property is mostly cleared in conjunction with the existing development. An aerial photo of the Project and immediate vicinity is provided on the following page. 2.2 Topography The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from a public lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements. Where necessary, slope verification included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site Map in Appendix A for an illustration of the general slope indicators with respect to the planned development. Except for the railroad embankment,descending slopes exceeding 15%were not observed within 300 feet of the property.Natural slopes with grades averaging 10%were observed approximately 150 feet to the west of the property. 2.2.1 U pslope Geomorphology Ascending grades are generally located to the east and southeast of the planned development. The immediate slope has been cut to approximately 2:1 with a vertical relief of up to 15 feet. Natural ascending slopes with grades exceeding 15% were not observed within 300 feet of the Project. The upland area of the property is situated on a gentle sloping hillside near a crest. Landforms are primarily of glacial origin. Additional geomorphology that is pertinent to both upslope and downslope areas are provided in the Subsurface Investigation Section of this report. 2.3 Surface Drainage The majority of the stormwater runoff originating upslope from the anticipated development is expected to be minimal to moderate. Significant scour, erosion and sediment transport was not apparent near the Project. Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 3 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 23.1 Upland Water Bodies There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned development that would significantly influence the Project. 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations The existing moderate slopes near the Project signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Some indicators that may suggest past slope movements include: • Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope, • Fissures, tension cracks or naturally stepped land masses on the face or top of the slope, and parallel to the slope, • Fine,saturated subsurface soils, • Old landslide debris, • Significant bowing or leaning trees,or, • Slope sloughing or calving. The above mentioned indicators, or other signs of significant mass wasting on the property or within the general vicinity of the Project were not observed or discovered during research. Indications of past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems, or surficial slope failures were not observed during the site visit. � O �O OV .y S� tie o NE KATCHEMAK LN .. - y - \ W9 �� W .f I o 2009 Aerial Photo from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment g g g Ph.360-275-9374 page 4 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-2754789 Mason County, Washington April 30,2012 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered during research and a site reconnaissance. The site visit was accomplished on April 27, 2012 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. Specific information on field methods, sampling, field testing, subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. Appendix B has pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the Project, including test pit log(s)representative of the site soils,and water well report(s)originating from the subject property and/or nearby properties. 3.1 Field Methods,Sampling and Field Testing Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by probing anticipated foundation areas with hand tools, and observing soils within test pit excavations and/ or earth cuts. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing geological maps within the Project vicinity,and water well reports originating from nearby properties.No soil samples were collected for this Project. Envirotech measured the relative density of the in-situ soils by gauging the resistance of hand tools. 3.2 Geologic Conditions In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster, 2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qg. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated deposits,and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation."as revealed in the Geologic Map. Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers. During the Quaternary period,the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets,with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits. The "Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap and Pierce Counties, Washington' by Michael Polenz, Katelin Alldritt, Nicholas J. Hehemann, Isablle Y. Sarikhan, and Robert L.Logan,July 2009,provides the following caption(s)for the project area: Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 5 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 OVashon glacial ice-contact deposits—Sand,gravel,lodgment till,and flow till;minor silt and clay beds;tan to gray;variably sorted;loose to compact;massive to well stratified;locally includes over-steepened beds that typically reflect sub-ice flow,but their dip may,along with small-scale shears,also have developed as collapse features or due to glaciotectonic and tectonic deformation;formed in the presence of meltwater alongside ice,generally toward the end of the glaciation,and is thus commonly accompanied by stagnant-ice features,such as kettles and less-orderly hummocky topography,eskers(also separately mapped as subunit Qge),and subglacial or subaerial outwash channels. Deposits and morphologies that support conceptual association with both ice and meltwater are common in the map area and suggest that where unit Qgic is mapped in the presence of fluted topography,it is commonly only a few feet thick and locally could have been mapped as undifferentiated drift (unit Qgd). Elsewhere,the unit may be over 100 ft thick. Unit Qgic also includes poorly consolidated till commonly accompanied by underlying, angular sand and noted as"sub-glacially reworked till"by Laprade(2003) (see Geologic Setting),especially in fluted areas that lack dead-ice features.See unit Qgo and Fig.4 for discussion of similarities between units Qgic and Qgo(and its subunits Qgos,Qgof,and Qgol).A discrepancy between this map and the Vaughn quadrangle to the south resulted where Logan and Walsh(2007)mapped undifferentiated Quatemary deposits(unit Qu)because they lacked field exposures and geomorphic signs of the dead-ice deposits that are apparent notch of the boundary. Dead-ice topography north of the boundary also reveals a sandy deposit mapped as unit Qgos by Logan and Walsh(2007)to be a facies within unit Qgic. Locally divided into: Vashon glacial eskers—Sand and gravel;tan to brown;loose; moderately to well sorted;moderately to well rounded with good porosity and permeability;deposited subglacially by Vbshon melt-water in areas occupied by stagnant ice;forms low,elongate,sinuous hills that seem to rest like slugs on fluted uplands or subglacial outwash channels and locally can be seen to merge into channel incisions(Fig. 1).One such transition causes a map boundary mismatch between unit Qgic on this map and unit Qgoe(esker)on the Vaughn quad to the south (Logan and Walsh,2007). Some polygons of this unit abut against unit Qgic in the Lake Wooten quadrangle to the west (Derkey and Hehemann,2009),where eskers are noted by linear symbols over unit Qgic.The underlying interpretation is identical. 3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the Project subgrade utilizing information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and investigated locations. Specifically, soils for this project were described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)Textural Classification System. The Project is composed of native soils with no indications of significant borrowed fill. Adequate Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph. 360-275-9374 page 6 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax: 360-2754789 Mason County, Washington April 30,2012 foundation depths were field measured to be 18 inches below the ground surface.For engineering purposes,these native soils consist of distinguishable layers,as presented below. Soils within the upper 10 feet of natural ground were primarily observed to be moist, brown poorly graded sand with some gravel(SP). The relative densities of the soil are provided above in Section 3.1. Expanded and specific subsurface descriptions, other than what is provided in this section, are provided in the soil logs located in Appendix B of this report. According to the "Soil Survey of Mason County," by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the upland site soils are described as Indianola Loamy Sand, Ib with 5%to 15% slopes. The soil designation is depicted in the aerial photograph below, and complete descriptions are provided in Appendix B of this report R: t T23N R1W } IV Soil Survey From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service According to the USDA Textural Classification System, the site soils are primarily classified as medium sand. Soil structure may be described as granular. 33.1 Groundwater From the water well report(s)and knowledge of the general area,permanent groundwater is approximately 100 feet directly below the property at the lowest building pad location. Perched groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on-site, nor indicated on the well reports. Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 7 Parcel12321-13-90051 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 3.4 Soils Testing and Properties The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved and transported for possible laboratory testing. Visual classification of soils was performed in the field at all observed soil profiles. Visual classifications were performed in accordance with the American Standards for Testing and Materials(ASTM D2488). The general results from the visual classification are presented above in the Subsurface Conditions Section. Specifically,soils within the upper 10 feet in one testing location consisted of approximately 5% gravel, 95% medium sand-sized soils, and nearly 0% fines with no plasticity. Minor variations observed during the visual classification of particle size content (i.e. gravel, sand, fines), or isolated pockets within the soil stratification were insignificant in relation to the overall engineering properties of the soil. The soil gradation meets the requirements for pollution liners per the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. Based on the fines content,erodibility of the site soils is considered to be low. Based on the fines content and fraction of clay within the fines content, settleability of the site soils is expected to be moderate to fast. Permeability is expected to be high for this site due significance of moderate density,poorly graded granular soils. 3.1 Infiltration Rates According to the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, infiltration rates are determined per the USDA Textural Classification of the soils,and an appropriate factor of safety. Based on the soils consisting predominantly sand, and utilizing a factor of safety of 2, site infiltration for stormwater facilities should be 2 inches/hour. Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 8 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 4.0 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS The following sections present engineering assessments and conclusions concerning the Project. These conclusions have been made available based on the planned construction activities as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations of drainage and topography as summarized in the Surface Conditions Section; and, soil conditions that were identified by the field investigation and soils testing as outlined in the Subsurface Investigation Section. Conclusions for the Project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for landslide,erosion and seismic hazards. 4.1 Landslide Hazards For the planned development, as provided in the Introduction Section, surface and subsurface conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's opinion that the proposed development is not subjected to or cause adverse impacts to a landslide hazard area or its associated buffer or setback as defined in the MCRO. Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. Geotechnical engineering cannot eliminate these risks for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly inducing strain on the sloping soil mass. Excessive wet weather and/ or earthquakes will exacerbate these strains. Geotechnical engineering considers excessive wet weather and `design' earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping terrain. These factors of safeties are based on engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil,topography,water conditions,seismic acceleration and surcharges. Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep- seated structural capability of the slope. However, excessive and/or repeated surficial slope movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. Maintenance of the slope should be completed if the situation does arise in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated slope movements that may be damaging to life or property. According to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) "LHZ — Final A-1 Map —Landslide Inventory—Mason Watershed,by Sarikhan, et. al., May 2007,"previous landslide activity is not recorded near the project. Per the Resource Map from DNR, the Project is not within terrain labeled `highly unstable' or `highly erodible' relating to soils. DNR labeled portions of this project as medium slope instability with relation to slopes. This delineation is primarily dependent upon slopes and convergence. Secondly, lithology and precipitation are modeled within this delineation. In summary, this designation is based on mapping without field observations or knowledge of the specific site geology or soils. A resource map from DNR is provided below: Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 9 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 K t 709608 1709608 097 FW Fi( 15 t FW Fly 1709702 ` —.F fa AAA }AAA' AAA A AA AA AA JProject N F 17088 17 708780 8787 F 29 y j+� �t1 *7 *7 8 i1708780 1708782 h. U • _.L'Ai. U i A iL Fad v — 29 17IOB�pE �• PL 1T - 1706740 1709742 t �S/ * 4 a 1 + Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Wehsite 4.1.1 Landslides and Slope Stability Analysis Past landslide activity or high slope instability indicators near the development was not revealed during the Project research. In addition, detrimental landslide activity or potential high landslide indicators were not observed during the site visit as outlined in the Surface and Subsurface Conditions Sections of this report.Therefore,a slope stability analysis was not deemed necessary for this Project. Considering the planned construction as summarized in the Introduction Section of this report;the aforementioned surface and subsurface conditions for the Project; the slope stability assessment provided herein; and the Engineering Conclusions provided later in this report, it is our opinion that the Project is not within a landslide hazard area, and that the proposed site alterations will not encourage a landslide hazard. Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 10 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-2754789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 4.1.2 Surface and Subsurface Drainage This project does not appear to experience significant subsurface drainage or surface runoff. It is our opinion that groundwater or surface drainage is not a limiting factor for this Project. 4.2 Erosion Hazards Based on the USCS description of the Project soils,the surface soils are considered to have a low erodibility factor. According to the Resource Map from the Washington State DNR, as provided above, the Project is not within terrain labeled `highly erodible.' This Project is not within an erosion hazard area as defined by the MCRO. Erosion hazard areas are those with USDA SCS designations of River Wash (Ra), Coastal Beaches (Cg), Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Ac and Ad), Cloquallum Silt Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Cd), Harstine Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Hb), and Kitsap Silt Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Kc). Due to the type and magnitude of development, full erosion control plans are required for this project. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures are required for site development, and shall be provided in a stormwater management plan. From a geotechnical position, ordinary temporary and permanent erosion control is sufficient for this project. Extents of temporary erosion control will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction,moisture content of the soil,and amount of rainfall during construction. Soil erosion typical to the existing site conditions and planned disturbance of the Project include wind-borne silts during dry weather, and sediment transport during prolonged wet weather. Sediment transport could be from stormwater runoff or tracking off-site with construction equipment. Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the least extent possible. Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls. Temporary erosion control should remain in place until permanent erosion control has been established. Permanent erosion control may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching, seeding or an equivalent measure. Additional erosion control information and specifications may be found in the applicable "Stonmwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 43 Seismic Hazards Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this Project are generally Type D, corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. According to the IBC, the regional seismic zone is 3 for this Project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from 0.50g to 0.60g.This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey(USGS)National Seismic Hazard Project in which there is an estimated 2% probability of exceedance within the next 50 years. Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 11 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-2754789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 There are no known faults beneath this Project.The nearest Class `A' or 'B' fault to this property is the Tacoma Fault Zone. This fault is a Class `A,` and is located approximately 5 miles to the south of the Project. This information is supported by the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. The potential for liquefaction and other earthquake induced hazards are believed to be low for this Project. This is based on subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent and substantial shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems caused by seismic events include submerged and confined, poorly-graded granular soils. Although gravel- and silt-sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. 4.4 Other Considerations Conclusions in this report are based on the type and location of the anticipated development, and existing on-site and off-site conditions. Site development that significantly deviates from the anticipated improvements presented in this report, or nearby development that influences this Project may require geotechnical design recommendations. Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 12 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 5.0 CLOSURE Based on the project information and site conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's opinion that additional geotechnical studies are not required to further evaluate this Project. Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during construction are different than those described in this report. Therefore, it is recommended that either a qualified engineer observes and documents the construction, or Envirotech is promptly notified if project and subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report so that we can re-evaluate our recommendations. This report presents a geological/geotechnical assessment,and is intended only for the owner, or owners' representative. Furthermore, this report is only valid for the project information and location described herein. The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate education and experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards, earthquake hazards,and general soil mechanics. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotec Engineering lty� W-- Michael Staten,P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Shearer Brothers Geological Assessment Ph.360-275-9374 page 13 Parcel 12321-13-90051 Fax:360-2754789 Mason County,Washington April 30,2012 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN SCALE, 1 INCH = 100 FEET 0 25 50 100 A$ PROPERTY LINE O Q ig Zy,* �y w 4 2y,* PROPOSED 120•X6w EXISTING STORAGE NATIVE WAREHOUSE SURFACE PARKING +� TO 4 SEPTIC TP1 DRAINFIELD 9 (npprx) EXISTING MECHANIC SHOP TP3 380 FT Y ME KATCHEMAK LANE PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY GE❑LOGICAL ASSESSMENT SHEARER BROTHERS CHIPPING, LLC 100 NE KATCHEMAK LANE PARCEL 12321-13-90051 MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON LEGEND ENGINEER- ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING SLOPE INDICATOR PO BOX 984 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 TPI@ TEST PIT SITE PLAN APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION Map Unit Description: Indianola loamy sand,5 to 15 percent slopes—Mason County,Washington Mason County, Washington lb—Indianola loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 55 inches Mean annual air temperature:48 degrees F Frost-free period. 190 days Map Unit Composition Indianola and similar soils. 100 percent Description of Indianola Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material. Glacial sandy outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High(1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Loamy sand 5 to 28 inches: Loamy sand 28 to 60 inches: Sand Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 22, 2009 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/25/2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1 TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PROJECT: Shearer Geological Assessment DATE OF LOG: 04/27/2012 PROJECT NO: 1252 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: Shearer Brothers Chipping, LLC. EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 12321-13-90051 DRILL RIG: None Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50 0 _ SP Brown, moist, medium dense POORLY ._;; GRADED SAND with some gravel and a =? trace of fines. Sand is primarily medium. 1 - Non plastic. 2 :•�.:F' 3 :.s. 4 5 >F g ••:V. Tom:V 7 • j. 9 10 Excavation terminated at approximately 10.0 feet No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site. TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PROJECT: Shearer Geological Assessment DATE OF LOG: 04/27/2012 PROJECT NO: 1252 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: Shearer Brothers Chipping, LLC. EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 12321-13-90051 DRILL RIG: None Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50 0 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . SP Brown, moist, medium dense POORLY GRADED SAND with some gravel and a trace of fines. Sand is primarily medium. 1 - Non plastic. 2 X_ 3 4 5 --- Excavation terminated at approximately 5.0 feet 6 7 8 9 110 No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PROJECT: Shearer Geological Assessment DATE OF LOG: 04/27/2012 PROJECT NO: 1252 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: Shearer Brothers Chipping, LLC. EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 12321-13-90051 DRILL RIG: None Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50 0 SP Brown, moist, medium dense POORLY GRADED SAND with some gravel and a trace of fines. Sand is primarily medium. 1 - Non plastic. 2 x 5. 3 4 - 5 Excavation terminated at approximately 5.0 feet 6 7 8 9 110 No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site. Fib R Start f)�W ttM rat Copy talMn Carr lie. DaWrftWofEcology WATER WELL REPORT 11MWEWELLI.D.a_ Ace 875 second Cc"—Owners Copy STATE OF WASHINGTON Thfrd Copy—Dflllsr's ocpy tltrfer RIpM Parmlr No. M OWNER: Name Tom Shearer Amines P.O. Box 98 Belfair, WA 98528 i M LOCATION OF WELL: county Mason NW im SE im sec 21 T 23 N..R 1W Nate (2e) STRErETADDRESSOFWELL(tvnesmeamraw) NE 100 Katchemak Lin Beifair, WA 98528 r (3) PROPOSED USE. dC Domestic Industrial ❑ Municipal ❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION ■ ❑ Irrigation D DeWeter Test We" ❑ 01ha ❑ Farm lion,Describe by color.chetacter.size of matenai and structure.and show thicimas of squfers and the Bind and nature of the met"in each stratum penetrated,wim at inset one Sinn,for each i" (4) TYPE OF WORK' Owner's number of wall dhape of infomhalgn. (if more Oran one) Abandoned ❑ New well 9C Method: Dug❑ Bored❑ MATERIAL r R0Y To Deepened ❑ CabWU Driven❑ Reconditioned❑ Rotary❑ Jetted❑ (5) DIMENSIONS: Diameter of*a 6 rtdtn. f Drilled 135 feet. Depth or completed well 135 n. Sand & gravel 2 40 (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: Sand 100 Casing Inahlled: 6 Diam.from 0 to 125 n. Uner installed 0 Diem.mom n.to It. Threaded a Dian.from rt.lo rt. 100 135 Parlaatwna: Yes❑ No Type of perforator used f SIZE of perforations In by h. pwfon vjww from rt.to rt, perforabono from ft.to pedoremorts from rt.to rt. s Sea" ; Yes® No❑ Manutactim's Now Cook _ .p Type stai nl FRS wi re wrap Moan No. h Diem. 5"Slof size 16 kont 125 p.to 135 ft. Diam. _Slot size from IL to n. -- SGravel Packard: Yea Ei No® Size of gravel = Gravel placed from rt,to ■ ■ Surface saw: Yes 0� No❑ To whet depth? rt, Material used insest Betanite ■ Did tiny strata contain unusable water? Yea❑ No Ei Type of w4hr7 Depth of strata Method of sealing strain off f m PUMP: Martufaelyra's Name Fairbanks Morse Type: SU H.P. (8) WATER LEVELS: Wool,sterad 6 18 96 ,9. cgmpwted 672stac Artm 90 _ It below top of was Dais ft- WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION: j Artesiann I presuxpre qs.per square inch Dais Artesian water is corwokd by I constructed and/or accept responsibility for construction of this well, and rts (CEP.weve.sec. compliance with all Washington well construction standards.Materials used and • (9) WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount wafer level is lowered below static level fha intOrmanOn reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief i Was a pump teat made? Yes❑ No® If yes.by whom? Yield: gal./min wwithIG afrawdown after tr N ME Davis Drilling ee fMMXM.PINK OR caRPonATnoNt frV oR �— •• Address Belf it WA 98528 >: Recovery data(time taken as zero where pump turned of)(water level measured from well (Sigrod License No. 2062 top to water lovN) a f Time Water Level Time Water Leval Time Wafer Loral Contractor's 1ISDIIl00A Date_June is 96 Data of fast (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) Belier test 25 gN./min.with 4 IL drawdo n enter 1 Ins. Airte6t gat.imi,,with start sat s1 n.for his. Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer.For spe- Anesian now gp.m. Data cial nocommodation needs,coated the Water Resources Program at(206) Tiampararture of water Was a chemical analysis made7 Yes 407-6600.The TDD number is(2D6)407.6006- ECY 050-1-20(9011M•'f I Mason County Review Checklist For a Geological Assessment Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geological Assessment. The Assessment 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 Assessment 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. 5 - �Applicant's Name: �i �y t Permit#: 0644-W v 0 00� Parcel #'s: �� W�f Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: 14 30 70 L Z 1. A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed development, with geologic unit designation base n referenced maps. OK? Comment: 2. (a) A discussion of the ground water conditions at the site, OK?_�Comment: (b) A discussion f the estimated depth to water OK? Comment: (c) A discussion of the quantity of surface seepage OK? ✓ Comment: (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology on OK? V Comment: (e) A discussion of/location of upland waterbodies and wetlands. OK? Comment: 3. The approximate pth to hard or dense competent soil, e.g. glacial till or outwash sand. OK? Comment: 4. A discussion of any geomorphic expression of past slope instability (presence of hummocky ground or ground cracks, terraced topography indicative of landslide block movement, bowed or arched trees indicating downslope move nt, etc.). OK? 7 Comment: 5. A discussion of the history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. OK?_ Y Comment: 6. An opinion on whether the proposed development is within the landslide hazard area or its associated buffer or setback and t�ential for landslide activity t the site in light of the proposed development. OK? Comment: 7. A recommendation by the preparer whether a Geotechnical Report should be required to further evaluate site conditions and the roposed development of the subject property. OK? Comment: Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 R 8. If the presence of a hazard is determined within 300 feet of the proposed development, then the following are delineated on a geologic map/site map: ff (a) the area of the proposed development, [/ OK?__,/Comment: (b) the boundaries of the landslide hazard area (top, both sides, and toe), OK? W Comment: (c) the associated buffers (top, both sides, and toe) OK? / Comment: (d) building or other setbacks(top, both sides, and toe). OK?��Comment: 9. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and propos d development on the site. OK? Comment: Are the ocuments si ed and stamped? v By whom? r S LicenseWPV License t# ly FIRST REVIEW �J If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by on . Time spent in review: SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE Reviewed by on . Time spent in second review: THIRD REVIEW/ UPDATE Reviewed by on . Time spent in third review: Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 , f Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geological Assessment Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geological Assessment and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s) who prepared the Geological Assessment 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�4sc'mr 5t—jl -h Parcel# Site Address ,/00IV5 /G �e �:j� n��61r (1) A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed development,with geologic unit designation based on referenced maps. Located on page(s) (2) (a)A discussion of the ground water conditions at the site, Located on page(s) 7 (b) A discussion of the estimated depth to water Located on page(s) -7 (c) A discussion of the quantity of surface seepage Located on page(s) 7 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) (e) A discussion of location of upland waterbodies and wetlands. Located on page(s) 3 (3) The approximate depth to hard or dense competent soil, e.g. glacial till or outwash sand. Located on page(s) (4) A discussion of any geomorphic expression of past slope instability (presence of hummocky ground or ground cracks, terraced topography indicative of landslide block movement, bowed or arched trees indicating downslope movement, etc.). Located on page(s) (5) A discussion of the history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on page(s) (6) An opinion on whether the proposed development is within the landslide hazard area or its associated buffer or setback and the potential for landslide activity at the site in light of the proposed development. Located on page(s) - (7) A recommendation by the preparer whether a Geotechnical Report should be required to further evaluate site conditions and the proposed development of the subject property. Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 i Located on page(s) (8) If the presence of a hazard is determined within 300 feet of the proposed development, then the following are delineated on a geologic map/site map: (a) the area of the proposed development, Located on Map(s) JL- - (b) the boundaries of the landslide hazard area (top, both sides, and toe), Located on Map(s) �/, (c) the associated buffers (top both sides, and toe) Located on Map(s) .1 �-1 (d) building or other setbacks._(top, both sides, and toe). Located on Map(s) '4; (9) 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) �;4 aay'j, (C�1G� C %��/r_ Yl hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I a 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 Geological Assessment, dated 14, r 3 ,% , and entitled ��12� rP-f / r� v�l,rn, PLC ln'�4Uti fF'U /> c r- meets all the requirements of the Mas ri Co my Resource Ordinance, Landsli a Ha and 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) y CLY1D . WAS Is, 43045 I�NAL Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 I Mason County Department of CommunitV Development Submittal Checklist For a Geological Assessment Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geological Assessment and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s) who prepared the Geological Assessment 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� ,, re,r' t74 h Parcel# 9( -3L/ Site Address /00 N/� ��a1�h2�nal� ems{ �e�'t�ir (1) A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed development,with geologic unit designation based on referenced maps. Located on page(s) (2) (a)A discussion of the ground water conditions at the site, Located on page(s) 7 (b) A discussion of the estimated depth to water Located on page(s) -7 (c) A discussion of the quantity of surface seepage Located on page(s) (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) 3 (e) A discussion of location of upland waterbodies and wetlands. Located on page(s) _3 (3) The approximate depth to hard or dense competent soil, e.g. glacial till or outwash sand. Located on page(s) 6 (4) A discussion of any geomorphic expression of past slope instability (presence of hummocky ground or ground cracks, terraced topography indicative of landslide block movement, bowed or arch d trees indicating downslope movement, etc.). Located on page(s) (5) A discussion of the history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on page(s) (6) An opinion on whether the proposed development is within the landslide hazard area or its associated buffer or setback and the potential for landslide activity at the site in light of the proposed development. Located on page(s) �,9 (7) A recommendation by the preparer whether a Geotechnical Report should be required to further evaluate site conditions and the proposed development of the subject property. Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 I Located on page(s) /3 (8) If the presence of a hazard is determined within 300 feet of the proposed development, then the following are delineated on a geologic map/site map: (a) the area of the proposed dev lopment, Located on Map(s) a (b) the boundaries of the land§le hazard area (top, both sides, and toe), Located on Map(s) /4 (c) the associated buffers (top oth sides, and toe) Located on Map(s) (d) building or other setbacks top, both sides, and toe). Located on Map(s) ', g (9) 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) 7- /;c I, CC hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I a 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 Geological Assessment, dated / , r. 3�� -zo -,and entitled �i'lec(r�f' {�f�Tf�•r ✓�1 Li,C � �rU r U 9 &r meets all the requirements of the Mas C my Resource Ordinance, Landsli a Ha and 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) CLYjj� P 0. WAS 'Glsr-p G ZONAL Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008