Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeoTech Engineering Report - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 12/12/2018 Geotechnical Engineering Report Mason Transit Authority Park and Ride Site Improvements Belfair Site Shelton, Washington December 12, 2018 Prepared for SO Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, Washington LANDAU ASSOCIATES 955 Malin Lane SW,Suite B Tumwater,WA 98501 (360)791-3178 Landau Associates Geotechnical Engineering Report Mason Transit Authority Park and Ride Site Improvements Belfair Site Shelton, Washington This document was prepared by,or under the direct supervision of,the undersigned,whose seal is affixed below. (;ARYL Gti WAS Name: Lance Levine Washington/No.45853 v, •G+�� Date: December 12, 2018 .d x 'SSG 45853 . ��CISI'CRt'D 0NAL�'' Document prepared by: _ Lance Levine, PE Projec anager Document reviewed by: SY �4"d y � Steven R. Wright, PE Quality Reviewer Date: December 12,2018 Project No.: 1174015.010.012 File path: Y:\1174\015.010\R\Belfair Site\Signature Page.docx Project Coordinator: MCS LANDAU ASSOCIATES Landau Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Understanding........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Scope of Services................................................................................................................1-1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Surface Conditions..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Geologic Review.................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Subsurface Explorations.....................................................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Soil Conditions...............................................................................................2-1 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................2-2 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................3-1 3.1 Earthwork...........................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Wet Weather Considerations..........................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Site Preparation Activities ..............................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Subgrade Preparation.....................................................................................3-2 3.1.4 Structural Fill .................................................................................................3-2 3.1.4.1 General....................................................................................................3-2 3.1.4.2 Imported Fill.............................................................................................3-3 3.1.4.3 Onsite Soil................................................................................................3-3 3.1.4.4 Recycled Materials ...................................................................................3-3 3.1.4.5 Fill Placement and Compaction.................................................................3-4 3.1.5 Temporary and Permanent Slopes ..................................................................3-4 3.2 Site Utilities.........................................................................................................................3-4 3.2.1 Trench Excavation and Support.......................................................................3-5 3.2.2 Construction Dewatering................................................................................3-5 3.2.3 Pipe Foundation Support................................................................................3-5 3.2.4 Pipe Bedding and Initial Backfill......................................................................3-6 3.2.5 Trench Backfill and Compaction......................................................................3-6 3.3 Structures...........................................................................................................................3-6 3.3.1 Seismic Design Considerations........................................................................3-7 3.3.2 Bearing Capacity ............................................................................................3-7 3.3.3 Settlement.....................................................................................................3-7 3.3.4 Resistance to Lateral Loads.............................................................................3-8 3.3.5 Footing Overexcavations ................................................................................3-8 3.3.6 Foundation Drainage Considerations ..............................................................3-8 3.3.7 Slabs-On-Grade..............................................................................................3-8 3.3.8 Illumination Pole Foundations ........................................................................3-9 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride iii December 12,2018 Landau Associates 3.4 Pavement Design................................................................................................................3-9 3.5 Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility...................................................................................3-10 4.0 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT.............................................................................................................4-1 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................5-1 6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................6-1 FIGURES Figure Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Location Plan I TABLES Table Title 1 Summary of Design Parameters 2 2015 International Building Code Seismic Design Parameters 3 Recommended Asphalt Pavement Design Section 4 Recommended Portland Cement Concrete Section 5 Preliminary Factored Infiltration Rates APPENDICES Appendix Title A Field Explorations B Laboratory Testing I Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride iv December 12,2018 Landau Associates LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AASHTO.................American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASTM.................................................................................................ASTM International bgs.................................................................................................below ground surface CBR.............................................................................................California Bearing Ratio CSBC.................................................................................crushed surfacing base course ESAL...................................................................................... equivalent single-axle load ft........................................................................................................................foot/feet GDM...................................................................................Geotechnical Design Manual H:V..................................................................................................horizontal to vertical IBC........................................................................................ International Building Code LAI...............................................................................................Landau Associates, Inc. MDD.............................................................................................. maximum dry density MTA...........................................................................................Mason Transit Authority PCC......................................................................................... Portland cement concrete pcf.................................................................................................pounds per cubic foot PIT....................................................................................................pilot infiltration test psf.............................................................................................. pounds per square foot SG.................................................................................................................SG Alliance SWMMWW........................Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington WAC............................................................................Washington Administrative Code WSDOT............................................... Washington State Department of Transportation Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride v December 12,2018 Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. I �I I Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride vi December 12,2018 Landau Associates 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our field investigation and provides geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for Mason Transit Authority's (MTA's) proposed Park and Ride Improvements project, located near the Mason County—Kitsap County border, southeast of the intersection of Log Yard Road and State Highway 3 near Belfair,Washington (site).The purpose of our investigation was to compile and review available subsurface information for the project area, complete site investigations to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, and develop geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for design of the proposed improvements. The general project location is shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 shows some of the site features and the approximate locations of the explorations completed for this study. Appendix A includes a description of our field explorations and summary logs of the conditions observed during our field investigation. Test results and a description of our laboratory testing program are provided in Appendix B. This report has been prepared based on conversations with and information provided by SCJ Alliance (SCJ), data collected during our field investigation, the results of our laboratory testing program, our familiarity with geologic conditions in the vicinity of the project area, and our experience with similar projects. Our services were provided in accordance with amendment number one to the subconsultant agreement for professional services, issued by SCJ on July 28, 2017 and authorized on August 1, 2017. 1.1 Project Understanding We understand a park and ride will be constructed on an undeveloped,4-acre site in a future commercial/industrial development near the Mason County—Kitsap County border. Proposed improvements include a 1,500-square-foot MTA office building,two bus shelters, illumination (i.e., light poles), paved parking and drive lanes, and stormwater management facilities. The proposed site layout is subject to minor changes and will be finalized during design. 1.2 Scope of Services The objective of our services was to explore subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site as a basis for developing geotechnical recommendations in support of the proposed improvements.Our scope of services includes the following tasks: • reviewing available published geologic maps and geotechnical reports for the project area; • coordinating public and private utility locates; • completing a subsurface exploration program by advancing a series of exploratory test pits; • collecting representative soil samples and completing laboratory testing to aid in the classification and determination of certain engineering soil properties; Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 1-1 December 12,2018 1 Landau Associates • providing seismic spectral acceleration coefficients for the proposed structures using map- based methods in accordance with International Building Code (IBC) criteria. We also assessed the risk for seismically induced soil liquefaction and lateral spreading; • providing recommendations for earthwork and grading, including stripping depth, subgrade preparation, utility trench excavation, construction dewatering,the reuse of onsite materials and structural fill, and structural fill placement and compaction; • providing geotechnical recommendations for shallow foundation support of the proposed bus shelters and MTA office building, including allowable soil bearing capacity, minimum footing width and depth, lateral resistance criteria, and elastic settlement estimates; • providing geotechnical recommendations for design of foundations for new illumination in accordance with section 17.2.1 of the Washington State Department of Transportation's Geotechnical Design Manual(WSDOT GDM; WSDOT 2015); • providing recommendations for pavement sections using assumed traffic loading conditions; • assessing the feasibility of infiltrating stormwater on site, including feasible infiltration locations, depth-to-groundwater, and a design infiltration rate estimated by correlation to grain size characteristics; and • preparing this geotechnical engineering report, summarizing the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing program and presenting our conclusions and recommendations along with supporting data. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 1-2 December 12,2018 Landau Associates 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following sections describe the surface conditions observed during our field explorations,the results of our geologic review,our subsurface exploration program, and the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions observed in our explorations. 2.1 Surface Conditions The site includes undeveloped forestland with several trails and primitive gravel roads.Topography is generally flat in the areas of the proposed improvements,though the eastern portion of the site slopes gently down to the west with a vertical relief of about 10 feet (ft).The site is vegetated with mostly trees and some brush. Evidence of surface water or ponding was not observed during our August 2017 site visits. 2.2 Geologic Review The geology of the area is described on the Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington (Polenz 2009). Vashon glacial ice-contact deposits (Qgic) are mapped at the project site,with Vashon till (Qgt) mapped to the east. Ice-contact deposits are described as sand, gravel, lodgment till, and flow till with minor silt and clay beds.This unit is light brown to gray, loose to compact, and massive to well stratified.The unit was formed in the presence of meltwater alongside ice,generally near the end of the glaciation, and commonly is accompanied by stagnant-ice features,such as kettles, eskers, and subglacial outwash channels. The soils observed in our explorations are consistent with the mapped geology. 2.3 Subsurface Explorations We explored subsurface conditions at the site on August 15, 2017 by advancing 10 test pits (TP-1 through T-10) between 12.5 and 16.3 ft below ground surface(bgs).The test pits were advanced by Howard's Construction & Excavating of Olympia,Washington, under subcontract to Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI).The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2.The following sections summarize the subsurface conditions observed in our explorations. More detailed information, including summary exploration logs, is provided in Appendix A. 2.3.1 Soil Conditions We categorized the soils observed in our explorations into two general units: • Forest duff/topsoil:A forest duff/topsoil layer was observed in all the explorations, except test pit TP-1,where the forest duff was removed at the time the primitive gravel road was constructed.The combined thickness of the forest duff and topsoil ranged from 0.75 to 2.5 ft. Forest duff detritus observed typically included leaves,fir needles, and other non- decomposed organics above the soil surface. Where observed in our explorations, the thickness of the forest duff layer ranged from 3 to 12 inches.The topsoil observed at the Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 2-1 December 12,2018 Landau Associates surface in test pit TP-1 and below the forest duff at the remaining test pit locations was typically a brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand with variable gravel and organic content. • Ice-contact deposits: Ice-contact deposits were observed below the forest duff/topsoil unit to the depths explored.This unit typically consists of brown to gray, medium dense to very dense sand with variable silt,gravel, and cobble content or brown to gray, dense to very dense gravel with variable silt, sand, and cobble content. Although not observed in all of our explorations, cobbles and boulders are often present in glacial deposits and may be present throughout the site.The contractor should be prepared to handle oversized material. 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions During our August 2017 explorations, groundwater was not observed in the test pits to 16.3 ft bgs,the maximum depth explored. No evidence of mottling was observed.The groundwater conditions reported herein and on the exploration logs in Appendix A are for the specific locations and date indicated and may not be indicative of other locations and/or times. Furthermore,we anticipate groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions,weather conditions, and other factors. Groundwater levels in the project area are expected to fluctuate seasonally,with maximum groundwater levels occurring during late winter and early spring. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 2-2 December 12,2018 Landau Associates 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that subsurface conditions at the project site are suitable for the proposed improvements. We interpret the ice-contact deposits to be suitable for onsite infiltration of stormwater, provided the base of the infiltration facility is situated below restrictive layers. The ice-contact deposits observed in our explorations are also suitable for shallow foundation support of structures(e.g., bus pad, shelters, MTA office building, and light poles), provided the recommendations in Section 3.1 of this report are followed. The following sections of this report provide geotechnical conclusions and recommendations pertaining to earthwork; underground utilities;structures, including seismic design criteria, allowable bearing capacity, foundation settlement, resistance to lateral loads,footing overexcavations, and slabs-on-grade; illumination; pavement design; and stormwater infiltration. 3.1 Earthwork To accommodate construction of the proposed improvements, earthwork likely will include clearing, grubbing, and stripping of areas where improvements are planned; cuts and fills;subgrade preparation for structures and pavement areas; and construction of temporary and permanent slopes. 3.1.1 Wet Weather Considerations Some of the onsite soils contain up to about 16 percent fines(material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, by weight) and are considered moisture sensitive. Imported fill also could be moisture sensitive. When the moisture content of soil is more than a few percent above or below the optimum moisture content,the soil may become unstable, and meeting the required compaction criteria may be difficult. Optimum moisture content is the moisture content at which the greatest compacted dry density can be achieved. Disturbance of near surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather or under wet conditions. The wet weather season in the project area generally begins in late October and continues through June. However, periods of wet weather may occur throughout the year. If wet weather earthwork is unavoidable,we recommend: • the ground surface be sloped so that surface water is collected and directed away from the work area to an approved collection/dispersion point; • excavation of temporary drywells to expose cleaner underlying soils; • earthwork activities not take place during periods of heavy precipitation; • measures are taken to prevent onsite soil and soil stockpiles from becoming wet or unstable; • structural fill materials used during periods of wet weather should be limited to imported, all- weather fill; Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-1 December 12,2018 Landau Associates • a smooth-drum roller is used to seal the surface prior to periods of precipitation to reduce the extent to which the soil becomes wet or unstable; • construction traffic is restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas surfaced with materials that are not susceptible to wet weather disturbance; • a minimum 1-ft-thick layer of 4-to 6-inch quarry spalls is used in high-traffic areas to protect the subgrade soil from disturbance; and • contingencies are included in the project schedule and budget to allow for the above elements. 3.1.2 Site Preparation Activities Site preparation activities are expected to include clearing,grubbing, and stripping of the existing vegetation, duff, and topsoil and removal of pavement and utilities, if present. Sod,topsoil, and organic-rich soils or fill located within the bus pad shelter or pavement areas should be stripped. We estimate an average stripping depth of approximately 20 inches for removal of forest duff and near surface topsoil. If the forest duff is removed during logging activities,the remaining topsoil will range from 0.5 to 1.5 ft thick.These estimates do not include the removal of existing tree roots or debris, if present. All incidental excavations associated with site preparation activities should be backfilled in accordance with the recommendations set forth in Section 3.1.4 of this report. 3.1.3 Subgrade Preparation Prior to placing structural fill,the prepared subgrade should be proof-rolled in the presence of a qualified civil or geotechnical engineer, who is familiar with the site conditions and can check for any soft and/or disturbed areas. Areas of limited access that cannot be proof-rolled can be evaluated using a steel T-probe. Loose and/or disturbed subgrades identified during the proof-roll should be repaired by overexcavating the disturbed soil and replacing it with compacted structural fill, meeting the requirements described in Section 3.1.4 of this report. Unsuitable soils also can repaired with additional scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompacting. Repaired subgrades should be recompacted in accordance with Section 3.1.4.5 of this report. 3.1.4 Structural Fill The following sections provide recommendations for the use of onsite soils, imported fill, and recycled materials as structural fill and structural fill placement and compaction. 3.1.4.1 General The suitability of excavated or imported soil for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines increases,the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction may become more difficult to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be compacted Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-2 December 12,2018 Landau Associates consistently to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is more than about 2 to 3 percent above or below optimum moisture content. During dry,warm weather(generally July through early October),structural fill should consist of well-graded sand and gravel with a maximum particle size of 6 inches and at least 75 percent of the material passing the 3-inch sieve.The material should contain less than 30 percent fines and be maintained at a moisture content near optimum. If wet weather construction is anticipated,the amount of fines should not exceed 5 percent, based on the minus%-inch fraction. Structural fill should be free of debris, organic material, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. 3.1.4.2 Imported Fill During dry, warm weather(generally July through early October), imported structural fill should consist of well-graded sand and gravel with a maximum particle size of 6 inches and at least 75 percent of the material passing the 3-inch sieve.The material should contain less than 30 percent fines and be maintained at a moisture content near optimum. Imported structural fill should be free of debris, organic material, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. During wet weather conditions, imported all-weather fill should consist of well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 4 inches and less than 5 percent passing a U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, based on the minus%-inch fraction. Organic matter, debris,or other deleterious material should not be present. Gravel Borrow, as described in Section 9-03.14(1)of the Washington State Department of Transportation's 2016 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (2016 WSDOTStandard Specifications), is a suitable source of imported all-weather fill, provided the requirements set forth in this paragraph are satisfied. 3.1.4.3 Onsite Soil The ice-contact deposits observed in our explorations contain up to about 16 percent fines and are generally well suited for use as structural fill during dry weather. If onsite soils are reused as structural fill,they will require significant moisture conditioning to satisfy the compaction criteria recommended herein.We recommend a representative of LAI is present to review onsite material for use as structural fill prior to placement. 3.1.4.4 Recycled Materials If practical, recycled concrete materials can be considered for use as structural fill. Recycled concrete materials used as structural fill should meet the requirements set forth in Section 9-03.21 of the 2016 WSDOTStandard Specifications,the materials also must meet the minimum gradation criteria for Select Borrow, outlined in Section 9-03.14(2) of the 2016 WSDOTStandard Specifications. In all instances, use of recycled concrete should comply with current environmental policies. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-3 December 12,2018 Landau Associates 3.1.4.5 Fill Placement and Compaction Structural fill should be placed on an approved subgrade that consists of uniformly firm and unyielding, inorganic native soils or compacted structural fill prepared as described in Section 3.1.3 of this report. Structural fill should be compacted at a near-optimum moisture content. Optimum moisture content varies with the soil gradation and should be evaluated during construction. In structure and pavement areas,structural fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 2-03.3(14)C, Method C of the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Method A of the 2016 WSDOTStandard Specifications is appropriate for non-structural areas,such as landscaping. Structural fill should be placed in loose, horizontal lifts, not exceeding 12-inch thickness, and thoroughly compacted. Compaction and moisture control tests should be completed in accordance with Section 2-03.3(14)D of the 2016 WSDOTStondard Specifications. Alternatively,the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content can be determined using ASTM International test method D1557 (i.e., modified Proctor). 3.1.5 Temporary and Permanent Slopes Based on the soil conditions observed in our explorations,the maximum inclination for temporary excavation slopes less than 20 vertical ft in height, and in the absence of groundwater seepage, is 1% horizontal to 1 vertical (1%H:1V). If groundwater is present, unstable conditions may develop in the temporary slope, and flatter slopes or shoring will be necessary.Temporary excavation slopes should be covered with plastic sheets, straw, or other materials to prevent erosion. In addition,the contractor should implement measures to prevent surface water runoff from entering excavations. Temporary excavation slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes should be followed. Open cuts should be monitored by the contractor during excavation for evidence of instability. If instability is detected,the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. If groundwater or groundwater seepage is present and the excavation is not properly dewatered,the soil may be prone to caving, channeling, and running. Permanent cut-or-fill slopes constructed as recommended in this report should be sloped no steeper than 2H:1V.This ratio is not intended for use in the design of stormwater pond slopes;these slopes are typically 3H:1V or flatter and should be designed in compliance with local stormwater code requirements. Permanent slopes should be protected from erosion (see the preceding recommendations for protecting temporary excavations) and seeded or vegetated as soon as practical. 3.2 Site Utilities The following sections provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of new site utilities. Geotechnical recommendations include trench excavation and support, construction Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-4 December 12,2018 Landau Associates dewatering, pipe foundation support, pipe bedding and initial backfill, and trench backfill and compaction criteria. Please note for any new utilities within the public right-of-way, local standards may supersede the following recommendations. 3.2.1 Trench Excavation and Support We anticipate excavations for underground utilities will be primarily within the ice-contact deposits. Conventional construction equipment with sufficient reach should be able to excavate the proposed trenches to the expected depth of 12 ft bgs. Upon reaching the trench bottom,we suggest that a smooth-bladed bucket be used to remove any loose and/or disturbed soil.The final trench bottom should be firm and free of loose and disturbed soil. Trench configurations and maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, should be the responsibility of the contractor.All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes should be followed.Temporary excavations for utilities should be sloped no steeper than 1%H:1V, based on the governing regulations for safe excavation practice in the State of Washington (Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Chapter 296-155 Washington Administrative Code [WAC]). If groundwater seepage is present, flatter slopes,temporary shoring, and/or dewatering may be required. Trench boxes should provide adequate support for shallow excavations, provided the trench is properly dewatered and settlement-sensitive structures and utilities are not situated immediately adjacent to the excavation.Trench boxes should meet the requirements in Safety Standards for Construction Work, Part N (WAC Chapter 296-155). 3.2.2 Construction Dewatering We anticipate underground utilities at the site can be installed without encountering significant groundwater. However, localized zones of perched groundwater may be encountered within the trench zone, particularly during the winter and spring months. If perched, water-bearing zones are encountered, construction dewatering using conventional sumps and pumps within the excavations should be sufficient to handle groundwater inflow. If dewatering is necessary,the contractor should be responsible for design and implementation of the dewatering system. 3.2.3 Pipe Foundation Support Based on the conditions observed in our explorations, medium dense to very dense granular soils are expected to be present at the base of utility trenches. This soil type typically will provide adequate foundation support for utilities, provided the foundation soil remains in a relatively undisturbed condition. If the bottom of the trench becomes disturbed due to excavation and/or foot traffic during the laying of the pipe,the disturbed material should be overexcavated to expose undisturbed Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-5 December 12,2018 Landau Associates foundation soil. The overexcavation should be backfilled with suitable foundation material to provide a firm trench bottom. Foundation material should be free of roots,topsoil, lumps of silt and clay, cobbles, and debris. 3.2.4 Pipe Bedding and Initial Backfill Pipe zone bedding material should consist of crushed, processed, or naturally occurring granular material,free of organic matter and other deleterious material,and should meet the gradation requirements of Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding outlined in Section 9-03.12(3)of the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Pipe bedding material should extend at least 6 inches below the invert of the pipe and be compacted to a relative density of at least 90 percent of the MDD (ASTM test method D1557).The initial pipe backfill should be brought up evenly around the pipe in relatively horizontal lifts, not exceeding 6 inches, and worked under the haunches of the pipe by slicing with a shovel,vibration, or other approved procedure. Pipe zone backfill should extend 6 inches above the crown of the pipe. In order to prevent damage to the pipe,the initial backfill directly over the pipe should be compacted with hand-operated compaction equipment. Specific material and compaction requirements provided by pipe manufacturers may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. 3.2.5 Trench Backfill and Compaction Granular portions of the ice-contact deposits may be utilized for trench backfill, provided all soil particles greater than 4 inches in diameter are removed and the soil is properly moisture conditioned and compacted to the required density.Trench backfill should be compacted as described in Section 3.1.4.5 of this report. 3.3 Structures The following sections provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for foundation design of structures. Recommendations are provided for seismic design, allowable bearing capacity,settlement, resistance to lateral loads,footing excavations, drainage considerations, slabs-on-grade, and illumination pole foundations. Table 1 provides a summary of design parameters for the structural engineer.The design parameters should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations provided in this report. Table 1.Summary of Design Parameters Allowable soil bearing pressure=3,500 pounds per square foot Friction coefficient(factored)=0.35 Passive resistance(factored)=280 pounds per cubic foot Minimum foundation width=18 inches(continuous),24 inches(isolated) Maximum foundation width(for settlement considerations)=5 feet(continuous),10 feet(isolated) Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-6 December 12,2018 Landau Associates 3.3.1 Seismic Design Considerations We understand that seismic design will be performed using the 2015 IBC standards ([CC 2014).The parameters listed in Table 2 can be used to compute seismic base shear forces. Table 2.2015 International Building Code Seismic Design Parameters Spectral response acceleration at short periods(Ss)=1.483g Spectral response acceleration at 1-second periods(Si)=0.586g Site class=C Site coefficient(Fa)=1.0 Site coefficient(F)=1.3 g=force of gravity The site is underlain by medium dense to very dense glacial deposits, and the groundwater table is relatively deep. On this basis, it is our opinion that there is a low risk for seismically induced soil liquefaction or lateral spreading at the site. Considering the location of the site with respect to the nearest known active crustal faults and the presence of a relatively thick layer of glacial deposits, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture due to surface faulting is low. 3.3.2 Bearing Capacity We recommend an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf)for shallow foundations that are established on medium dense to very dense glacial soils or structural fill extending to such soils.This allowable soil bearing pressure applies to long-term dead and live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill.The allowable soil bearing pressure can be increased by one-third when considering total loads, including transient loads, such as those induced by wind and seismic forces. The bus pad slab-on-grade foundation may utilize a thickened-edge slab design. For that reason,we recommend a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous footings. For settlement considerations,we have assumed a maximum width of 5 ft for continuous footings. For frost protection,footings should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade where the ground is flat adjacent to the footing. 3.3.3 Settlement Settlement of shallow foundations will depend on the foundation size and bearing pressure as well as the strength and compressibility characteristics of the underlying bearing soil.Assuming construction is accomplished as previously recommended, we estimate the settlement of continuous or isolated spread footings will be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential settlement between similarly loaded foundation elements may be assumed to be on the order of%: inch or less. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-7 December 12,2018 Landau Associates 3.3.4 Resistance to Lateral Loads Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting on the base of footings and by passive lateral earth pressures acting against the sides of footings.An allowable coefficient of sliding resistance of 0.35, applied to the vertical dead loads only, may be used to compute frictional resistance.The allowable coefficient of sliding resistance includes a factor of safety of 1.5 on the calculated ultimate value. For design purposes,the passive resistance of properly compacted structural fill placed against the sides of foundations may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 280 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).The foundation passive earth pressure has been reduced by a factor of 1.5 to limit deflections to less than 2 percent of the embedded depth. In addition,the recommended foundation passive earth pressure assumes drained conditions within the depth of the foundation. The passive earth pressure and friction components can be combined, provided the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the total.The top foot of soil should be excluded when calculating passive resistance unless the foundation perimeter area is covered by a slab-on-grade or pavement. 3.3.5 Footing Overexcavations We do not anticipate that appreciable overexcavations will be required for the proposed improvements. Medium dense to very dense ice-contact deposits soils should be present at or within about 2 ft of the ground surface. However,overexcavations could be required if the soils become saturated or disturbed by foot traffic. If overexcavations are required,the overexcavation zone should extend a horizontal distance equal to at least one-half of the overexcavation depth on each side of the footing. For example, a 2-ft-wide footing with a 2-ft-deep overexcavation should have a 4-ft-wide overexcavation zone.All footing overexcavations should be backfilled with structural fill. Alternatively, the depth of the footing could be increased to bear on the base of the overexcavation.The base of the overexcavation should be evaluated by a qualified civil or geotechnical engineer prior to placement of structural fill or concrete. 3.3.6 Foundation Drainage Considerations We recommend installing a footing drain around the perimeter of the proposed MTA office building. The drain should consist of a minimum 4-inch-diameter, perforated pipe surrounded by clean drain rock, wrapped in filter fabric.The drain pipe should be connected to a positive outlet and should include cleanouts. Roof drains should not be connected to footing drain. 3.3.7 Slabs-On-Grade Slabs-on-grade should be established on a subgrade that consists of uniformly firm and unyielding soil. A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (subgrade modulus) can be used to design the slab.The subgrade modulus varies based on the dimensions of the slab and the magnitude of applied loads on Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-8 December 12,2018 Landau Associates the slab surface;slabs with larger dimensions and loads are influenced by soil to a greater depth. We recommend a subgrade modulus value of 225 pounds per cubic inch for the design of on-grade floor slabs with floor loads up to 500 psf. This subgrade modulus is for a 1-ft by 1-ft square plate and is not the overall modulus of a larger area. We are available to provide alternate recommendations during design, based on specific loading information available at that time. 3.3.8 Illumination Pole Foundations Illumination structures (i.e., light poles) are proposed at the site. In our test pits, we observed medium dense to very dense soils with an estimated allowable lateral bearing pressure of 3,500 psf. The lateral bearing pressure provided was developed in general accordance with the methods described in Section 17.2.1 of the WSDOT GDM. 3.4 Pavement Design Pavement sections should be constructed on a subgrade that consists of 1 ft of uniformly firm and unyielding, compacted native subgrade or imported structural fill as described in Section 3.1 of this report.The structural fill should be prepared as described in Section 3.1.4 of this report.The design pavement sections were developed using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO's)Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993).The standard duty asphalt pavement section recommendations provided in Table 3 assume a 20-year design life, a maximum equivalent single-axle load (ESAL)of 100,000, and an assumed California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 12 percent for the section.The heavy-duty asphalt pavement section assumes at least 65 buses per day, a 20-year design life, a loading of 2,000,000 ESALs, and an assumed CBR of 12 percent for the section.The assumed CBR value is estimated to correspond to a subgrade soil with a density equal to 90 percent of the MDD, determined by ASTM test method D1557. For any new pavement installed within the public right-of-way, local standards may supersede the recommendations below. Table 3.Recommended Asphalt Pavement Design Section Asphalt Concrete Crushed Surfacing Base Compacted Native or Pavement Section Type Pavement Thickness Course Thickness Structural Fill Thickness Standard duty 3 inches 4 inches 12 inches Heavy duty 4 inches 4 inches 12 inches Asphalt concrete should be Class B aggregate material or hot-mix asphalt class%inch, PG64-22, conforming to Section 5-04 of the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications.The asphalt should be compacted to at least 91 percent of the Rice density. Base course material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD (ASTM test method D1557) and should meet the requirements for crushed surfacing base course(CSBC)in Section 9-03.9(3) of the 2016 WSDOTStandard Specifications. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-9 December 12,2018 Landau Associates The upper 2 inches of crushed surfacing could consist of crushed surfacing top course to facilitate fine grading of the surface. For our Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement design,we assumed a design life of 20 years. For bus turnarounds, 2,000,000 ESALs were assumed in our rigid pavement design.A reliability of 85 percent, a terminal serviceability index of 2.5,a design serviceability loss of 2, and load transfer coefficient of 3.2 (assumes continuous reinforcement and tied shoulders)were used in the design. The design assumed a CBR of 12 percent(equates to a resilient modulus of 12,533) and at least 4 inches of CSBC placed below the PCC pavement.The following table summarizes the PCC pavement section for the bus turnarounds. Table 4.Recommended Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Design Section Portland Cement Concrete Crushed Surfacing Base Compacted Native or Pavement Section Type Pavement Thickness Course Thickness Structural Fill Thickness Heavy Duty 8 inches 4 inches 12 inches Base course material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD determined using ASTM test method D1557 and should meet the requirements for CSBC in Section 9-03.9(3) of the 2016 WSDOTStandard Specifications. PCC pavement should meet the requirements in Section 5-05 of the 2016 WSDOTStandard Specifications. The pavement edges should be fully supported with either a thickened edge or an integral curb,and the joint spacing should be no more than 15 ft apart.To provide load transfer across the joints between panels,the panels should be fully doweled. Dowels should be placed at a depth of one-half the slab thickness and spaced 12 inches on center.The dowel bar diameter should be 1.5 inches and should have a minimum embedment of 9 inches on each side of the joint. Prevention of road base saturation is essential for pavement durability.Thus,efforts should be made to limit the amount of water entering the base course. 3.S Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Stormwater improvements may include ponds or underground infiltration facilities. Site soils suitable for stormwater infiltration were observed in our explorations but vary with depth and location. Groundwater was not observed during our site investigation in August 2017 to a maximum depth of 16.3 ft bgs. Groundwater levels in the project area are expected to fluctuate seasonally,with maximum groundwater levels occurring during the late winter and early spring months. Long-term preliminary infiltration rates are provided in Table 5 and are based on the soil grain size infiltration rate determination methods in the Washington State Department of Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 SWMMWW)and on the results of our laboratory tests (Appendix B). Appendix III-A of the 2005 SWMMWW provides the method and Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-10 December 12,2018 Landau Associates recommended correction factors to be used to estimate the infiltration rates.The following assumed correction factors were used to account for pond size (CFsize= 1.0), biofouling and siltation effects for ponds (CFsilt/bio=0.9), and aspect ratio correction factor(CFaspect= 1.0). We also assumed a ponded water depth of 4 ft and a depth-to-groundwater of 20 ft.These assumptions should be verified or modified in final design to calculate final infiltration rates. The preliminary(factored) infiltration rates using the correction factors mentioned above are provided in Table 5.The highest estimated infiltration rates are for soils located in the vicinity of test pits TP-2, TP-3, TP-6, and TP-9 site.The rates assume at least 10 ft of separation to seasonal high groundwater. Table 5.Preliminary Factored Infiltration Rates Preliminary Factored Exploration Designation Infiltration Rate(a) Depth Interval (inches/hour) (ft) TP-2 0.9 1.0—12.5 TP-3 0.7 1.5—13.5 TP-4 0.3 2.0—14.0 TP-5 0.3 1.7—14.0 TP-6 0.4 2.0—13.0 TP-6 1.0 14.0—15.0 TP-9 1.8 2.5—14.0 TP-10 0.3 0.75—10.0 TP-10 0.1 10.0—14.0 (a)=Assumes bottom of infiltration facility is 4 ft bgs from current site grades. ft=feet TP=test pit It is our opinion that the collection of seasonal high groundwater information is not warranted,given the site conditions. Final design infiltration rates should be confirmed by pilot infiltration test (PIT) evaluations at the specific locations and depths of the proposed facilities. Typically,the infiltration rates provided in Table 5 can be increased through the completion of onsite infiltration testing. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 3-11 December 12,2018 Landau Associates 4.0 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) should be asked to review the geotechnical portions of the plans and specifications for the proposed project in advance of project bidding.The purpose of the review is to verify that the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. We recommend that monitoring,testing, and consultation be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions observed are consistent with those indicated by our explorations, to provide expedient recommendations should conditions be revealed during construction that differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether geotechnical activities comply with the project plans, specifications,and the recommendations contained in this report. Such geotechnical activities include but are not limited to observation of foundation subgrades, compaction testing of structural fill, and observation of the prepared slab and pavement subgrades.The purpose of these services would be to observe compliance with the design concepts,specifications, and recommendations in this report. In the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before the start of construction, LAI can provide revised recommendations appropriate to the conditions revealed during construction. LAI would be pleased to provide these services for you. I II I II I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 4-1 December 12,2018 Landau Associates 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT Landau Associates, Inc. prepared this report fort he exclusive use of Mason Transit Authority and SO Alliance for the proposed Belfair Park and Ride Improvements project, located southeast of the intersection of Log Yard Road and State Highway 3 near Belfair, Washington. Within the limitations of scope,schedule, and budget, our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession; no other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the conditions observed/interpreted in the explorations advanced for this study and on our experience in the project area.There may be some variation in subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, and the nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction.Accordingly, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. If variations in subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, LAI should be notified for review of the recommendations in this report and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction,we recommend that we review this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us at (360) 791-3178 if you have questions or require additional information. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 5-1 December 12,2018 Landau Associates I� 6.0 REFERENCES AASHTO. 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ASTM. 2003.Annual Book of ASTM Standards. In:Soil and Rock(1).West Conshohocken, PA:ASTM International. Ecology. 2005.Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Volume 111—Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control Design/BMPs. Washington State Department of Ecology. ICC. 2014. 2015 International Building Code. International Code Council. May 30. Polenz M., K. Alldritt, N.J. Hehemann, I.Y. Sarikhan, and R.L. Logan. 2009. Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsop, and Pierce Counties, Washington. Open File Report 2009- 7. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. 2016. Construction Work. Chapter 296-155 WAC; Part N. Excavation,Trenching, and Shoring. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. WSDOT. 2015. Geotechnical Design Manual. Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT. 2016.Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2016. M 41-10. Washington State Department of Transportation. Amended April 4. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Road Park and Ride 6-1 December 12,2018 3 Bremerton National I JkW Airport Project Location fell `f''rek f XTacoma N 0 O.S 1 SpokeneMIleSington Data Source:Esri 2012 Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements LANDAU Belfair Site Vicinity Map 1 ASSOCIATES Belfair,Washington Legend / TP-1 Ig Approximate Test Pit Location and Designation LOT 20 N Project Limits ryaA � LOT 1 LOT 16 /TP-1 ,ATP-8 )T 2 TP_7 TP-9 i TP 3 / TP-6 TP-10 \ LOT 13 \TF 2 % 20-C \� 0 TP-4 \ 0 n s LOT 12 0 0 150 300 a Source:SO Alliance,2017 Scale in Feet 9 Mason Transit Authority Figure LANDAU Park and Ride Improvements Site and Exploration Location Plan ASSOCIATES Belfair Site Belfair, Washington APPENDIX A Field Explorations Landau Associates APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on August 15, 2017 by advancing 10 test pits (TP-1 through TP-10) between 12.5 and 16.3 feet below ground surface.The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on Figure 2. The test pits were advanced by Howard's Construction & Excavating of Olympia,Washington, under subcontract to Landau Associates, Inc. The field explorations were coordinated and monitored by a representative of Landau Associates, Inc., who also obtained representative soil samples, maintained a detailed record of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions observed, and described the soil encountered by visual and textural examination. In general accordance with ASTM International test method D2488,Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure),each representative soil type observed was described using the soil classification system shown on Figure A-1. Logs of our explorations are presented on Figures A-2 through A-6.These logs represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions identified during the field explorations.The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. A further discussion of the soil and groundwater conditions observed is contained in the main text of this report. Soil samples obtained from the test pits were taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing.The test results and a discussion of our testing procedures are presented in Appendix B. Upon completion of excavation and sampling,the test pits were backfilled with the excavated material.The backfill material was compacted using the bucket of the backhoe. Appendix A 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Park and Ride A-1 December 12,2018 Soil Classification System uses MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL"' DESCRIPTIONS(AP) GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVEL �°_o: :o. GW Well-graded gravel;gravel/sand mixture(s);little or no fines 1.ti GRAVELLY SOIL (Little or no fines) o 0 US C'y o. o o. GP Poorly graded gravel;graveltsand mixture(s);We or no fines C,m m (More than 50%Of GRAVEL WITH FINES GM Silty gravel;gravel/sand/sift mixture(s) ZE'y coarse fraction retained (Appreciable amount of 0 0 on No.4 sieve) fines) GC Clayey gravel;graveUsand/day mixture(s) G N C9 L.Z SAND AND CLEAN SAND SW Well-graded sand;gravelly sand;little or no fines w m= SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) kn $ SP Poorly graded sand;gravelly sand;little or no fines o m (More than50%of SAND WITH FINES OU L coarse fraction passed (Appreciable amount of SM Silty sand;sand/sift mixture(s) through No.4 sieve) fines) Sc Clayey sand;sand/day mixture(s) ML Inorganic sift and ve fine sand;rode four,silty or clayey fine p o$ SILT AND CLAY sand or clayey sift with slight plasticity N CL Inorganic day of ow to medium plasticity;gravely day;sandy day,silty day,lean day w (Liquid limit less than 50) Z L E H OL Organic sift;organic,silty day of ow plasticity m N SILT AND CLAY MH Inorganic sift;micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand � cmo clay of high plasticity-,fat clay w�m z CH Inorganic Y 9 P tY Y Z E (Liquid limit greater than 50) LL OH Organic day of medium to high plasticity;organic sift HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat;humus;swamp soil with high organic content GRAPHIC LETTER OTHER MATERIALS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS PAVEMENT ' C or PC Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement ROCK RK Rock(See Rock Classification) WOOD WD Wood,lumber,wood chips DEBRIS O O O DB Construction debris,garbage Notes: 1. USCS otter symbols correspond to symbols used by the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM classification methods.Dual letter symbols (e.g.,SP-SM for sand or gravel)indicate sal with an estimated 5-15%fines.Multiple letter symbols(e.g.,ML/CL)indicate borderline or multiple soil classifications. 2. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure),outlined in ASTM D 2488.Where laboratory index testing has been conducted,soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes,as outlined in ASTM D 2487. 3. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates(in the absence of laboratory test data)of the percentages of each sal type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: >50%-"GRAVEL,""SAND,"SILT,""CLAY,"etc. Secondary Constituents: >30%and<50%-'very gravelly,"'very sandy,""very silty;etc. >15%and<30%-'gravelly,""sandy,""silty,"etc. Additional Constituents: > 5%and<15%-'with gravel,"`with sand,"`with sift,'etc. < 5%-"with trace gravel,"'with trace sand,"`with trace sift,"etc.,or not noted. 4. Sal density or consistency descriptions are based on judgement using a combination of sampler penetration bow counts,drilling or excavating conditions,field tests,and laboratory tests,as appropriate. Drilling and Sampling Key Field and Lab Test Data SAMPLER TYPE SAMPLE NUMBER&INTERVAL_ Code Description Code Description a 3.25-inch O.D.,2.424rich I.D.Split Spoon PP=1.0 Pocket Penetrometer,tsf b 2.00-inch O.D.,1.50-inch I.D.Spit Spoon — Sample Identification Number TV=0.5 Torvane,tsf c Shelby Tube PID=100 Photoionization Detector VOC screening,ppm d Grab Sample 1 Recovery Depth Interval W=10 Moisture Content,% e Single-Tube Core Barrel D=120 Dry Density,pcf f Double-Tube Core Barrel 1 11 f— Sample Depth Interval -200=60 Material smaller than No.200 sieve,% g 2.50-inch O.D.,2.00-inch I.D.WSDOT Portion of Sample Retained GS Grain Size-See separate figure for data h 3.00-inch O.D.,2.375-inch I.D.Mod.California for Archive or Analysis AL Atterberg Limits-See separate figure for data i Other-See text if applicable GT Other Geotechnical Testing 1 300-lb Hammer,30-inch Drop CA Chemical Analysis 2 140-lb Hammer,30-inch Drop Groundwater 3 Pushed --- - 4 Vibrocore(Rotosonic/Geoprobe) Q Approximate water level at time of drilling(ATD) 5 Other-See text if applicable 1 Approximate water level at time other than ATD Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements Soil Classification System and Key /�_�I LANDAU Belfair Site n I ASSOCIATES Belfair,Washington TP- 1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER a m M° o Excavation Method: Excavator - ----- E n E .c o z Zlz m U Ground Elevation(ft): Not Measured co C6 n m a n to w io.6 CO) H 0 j Logged By: BJM 0 SM Brown,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel SP- and organics(medium dense,dry to moist) SM (TOPSOIL) Groundwater not encountered. S-1= d Brown,fine to coarse SAND with gravel and sift 5 (medium dense,moist) (ICE CONTACT) -Grades to light brown and dense at 2.5 ft bgs S-2= d 10 S-2 d SA d D. o. GP Light brown,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL with 15 o cobbles(dense,moist) --- Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 Total Depth of Test Pit=15.5 ft. -20 TP-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER ° E a) E $ Excavation Method: Excavator 3— F m E Ground Elevation(ft): Not Measured ww p d) Z CD W c+ N > CL a o CO Q 0 o w N ca ( � c9 j Logged By: BJM 0 tz 0 SM 6 inches of forest duff (FOREST DUFF) Groundwater n n r m SP- of encountered. ed. rW W=4 SM Brow�%flo coarse SAND w th organics CL 5 S 1 d GS (bosst) o (TOPSOIL) S 2= d ki Brown,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with silt (dense,moist) (ICE CONTACT) 10 -Grades to gray at 5.5 ft bgs I g S3 d -- ---- a Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 w Total Depth of Test Pit=12.5 ft. F 15 I o c I � I S I � 20 r o Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report Is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. $ 3. Refer to-Soil Classification System and Key'figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Mason Transit Authority Figure P Park and Ride Improvements g Logof Test Pits LANDAU Belfair Site A-2 ASSOCIATES Belfair, Washington i TP-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER _ E a E o Excavation Method: Excavator E Not Measured c z' H m cy rn >, Ground Elevation(ft): o aD Z iD o co n m n o n rn M a? m e m (D 2in Logged By: BJM o w cn oa co I— 0 D 0 6 inches of forest duff SM SP- (FOREST DUFF) Groundwater not encountered. Brown,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel 5 S 1= d GS (loose,dry to moist) (TOPSOIL) Gray,very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with sift and cobbles(dense,moist) S 2= d (ICE CONTACT) 10 -Grades to very dense at 8 ft bgs S-3 d -Grades to gravelly at 11 ft bgs Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 15 Total Depth of Test Pit=13.5 ft. -20 TP-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER --- -- - 0 E a E a Excavation Method: Excavator Z— to >>1 Ground Elevation(ft): Not Measured W O CD `y to U_ W L ; a a) a 0 L V 0 o w in os in t°' c� Logged By: BJM 0 F 0 12 inches of forest duff F SM (FOREST DUFF) Groundwater not encountered. F S-1 1 d SM Brown,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel and organics(loose,dry to moist) 5 (TOPSOIL) W=5 N S 2= d GS Brown,very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with o sift and cobbles(dense,moist) �SM 1 (ICE CONTACT) I- 10 1 -Grades to gray at 3.5 ft bgs ~m S 3 d W=6GS 11-Grades to light brown and very dense at 6 ft bgs LL _ S-4 d I-- ———— � m -15 Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 Light brown,silty,very gravelly,fine to coarse - - s Total Depth of Test Pit=14.0 ft. SAND with cobbles(very dense,moist) o 0 r -20 rn Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 0 3. Refer to"Soil Gassification System and Key'figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements Log of Test Pits /�_� LANDAU Belfair Site A ASSOCIATES Belfair, Washington TP-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER a m a o Excavation Method: Excavator E n E in z— ca �, Ground Elevation(ft): Not Measured o a) 2 m m c3 u) Ma CL o a ca o w in as w H 0 j Logged By: BJM 0 _ 8 inches of forest duff SM (FOREST DUFF) W- SM Groundwater not encountered. S1= d �=tfi o coarse SAND with gravel le,dry to moist) 5 (TOPSOIL) Light reddish brown,silly,very gravely,fine to S2= d W=6 coarse SAND(dense,moist) GS (ICE CONTACT) 10 -Grades to gray and gravelly at 5 ft bgs - -Grades to with cobbles at 7.5 ft bgs S3 d 15 Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 Total Depth of Test Pit=14.0 ft. 20 II i TP- 6 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER o a m .0 -6 Excavation Method: Excavator a Z W w rn T Ground Elevation(ft): Not Measured o mz i L) U) w L W a m a n co o w U)oa Logged By: BJM 0 - - ----- - t 6 Inches of forest duff SM (FOREST DUFF) Groundwater not encountered. GP- S1= d GM Brawn,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel a' and organics(hose,dry to moist) q 5 (TOPSOIL) o W=6 n S2= dJ[GP- Brown,very sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL with b sift(very dense,moist) (ICE CONTACT) �i 10 -Grades to gray at 6 ft bgs y rr w S3= d Gray,very sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL F (dense,moist) _ 15S4d ------------------ Test Pit Compl Gray,very sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL with —J Total Depth of Test Pit=16.0 ft. silt(dense,mast) s 20 a 'o Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. $ 3. Refer to'Soil Classification System and Key"figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements Log of Test Pits LANDAU Belfair Site A-4 ASSOCIATES Belfair, Washington TP-7 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER m .o o Excavation Method: Excavator '' E Ground Elevation ft: Not Measured c z rn ( ) o m Z d m o to n(D n a to o w `r)as W I! E S Logged By: BJM 0 6 inches of forest duB SM (FOREST DUFF) �_ Groundwater not encountered. S-1= d SM Brown,silly,fine to coarse SAND with gravel and organics(loose,dry to moist) 5 (TOPSOIL) Gray,fine to coarse SAND with gravel and sift o' GP \ (dense,moist) — S 2= d o.Q \ (ICE CONTACT) 10 D 610 Light brown,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL o,o (dense,moist) .O.O.. 15 S-3 d o Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 Total Depth of Test Pit=15.0 ft. —20 TP-8 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER o a a) a Excavation Method: Excavator Z— H m rn $ Ground Elevation(ft): Not Measured w O m Z N m t� rn w nm a n Cl) 0 o w in as W r 0 �o99ed BY BJM 0 SM 6 inches of forest duff IL (FOREST DUFF) SP- Groundwater not encountered. Cn S-1= d SM Brown,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel a and organics(loose,dry to moist) 0 5 (TOPSOIL) 0 gp \ Light brown,gravely,fine to coarse SAND with v \ silt(very dense,moist) \ (ICE CONTACT) ——-- J 10 S-2= d Brown to gray,fine to coarse SAND with gravel v, (dense,moist) LL -Grades to with cobbles at 10 ft bgs J 15 S-3 d c Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 o Total Depth of Test Pit=15.0 ft. vi v ti 20 r n m o Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. e 3. Refer to"Soil Classification System and Kell'figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements Log of Test Pits /�/1_5 LANDAU Belfair Site ASSOCIATES Belfair,Washington TP-9 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER °' $ Excavator m � Excavation Method: Z— y E Ground Elevation(fty Not Measured o m Z m` m o v) w W a m n c W o w co 0a co ►m- c�7 Logged BY BJM 0 12 inches of forest duff -- - -- _ (FOREST DUFF) Groundwater not encountered. o GW Brown,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel S-1 d W=3 Q and organics(medium dense,dry to moist) = p, . 5 GS o (TOPSOIL) Light brown,very sandy,fine to coarse :b GRAVEL(very dense,moist) S-2= d 0: (ICE CONTACT) 10 0 0 -Grades to brown to gray, o..: 9 Y with nibbles,and o_Q: dense at 8.5 ft bgs Q: 15 SP- Brown,gravely,fine to coarse SAND with sift———— S 3 d SM (dense,mast) Test Pit Completed 08/15/17 Total Depth of Test Pit=16.3 ft. —20 TP-10 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER o a $ Excavation Method: Excavator w c z Cl) > Ground Elevation(ft): Not Measured W L N rl m a o G v7 o w co ad co � E � Logged BY BJM n 0 SM 3 inches of forest duff - - - - -- — N W=5 SP- (FOREST DUFF) Groundwater not encountered. Lu S 1= d GS SM I Brown,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel a' S-2= d SP ) and organics(loose,dry to moist) I� m 5 ) (TOPSOIL) I � I t Brown,very gravely,fine to coarse SAND with ) S t sift(dense,moist) ) a ICE CO—— ( 'n 10 _1 SM Gray,fine to coarse SAND with gravel(dense, - y S-3 d A moist) a S4 d ML \ -------------------// LL \ Gray,silty,fine to coarse SAND with gravel m S-5 d SP \\(dense,moist) 15 Test Pit Completed OB/15117 \ e —————— s Grey.— SILT(herd,moist) c Total Depth of Test Pit=14.8 ft. Gray,fine to coarse SAND with gravel and trace v silt(dense,moist) 20 r rn o Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. v 3. Refer to"Sal Classification System and Key"figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements Log of Test Pits LANDAU Belfair Site A-6 ASSOCIATES Belfair, Washington APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Landau Associates APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Natural moisture content determinations and grain size analyses were performed on select samples to aid in soil classification and estimation of infiltration rates. Laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM) standard test methods described below. The samples were checked against the field log descriptions and updated where appropriate in general accordance with ASTM standard D2487,Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes. Natural Moisture Content In general accordance with ASTM test method D2216, natural moisture content determinations were performed on select soil samples obtained from the explorations.The natural moisture content is shown as W=xx (i.e., percentage of dry weight) at the respective sample depth in the column labeled "Test Data" on the summary exploration logs presented in Appendix A. Grain Size Analyses To provide an indication of the grain size distribution of the onsite soil,grain size analyses were conducted on representative soil samples obtained from the explorations. Analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM test method D422. Samples selected for grain size analyses are designated with a "GS" in the column labeled "Test Data" on the summary exploration logs in Appendix A.The results of the grain size analyses are presented in the form of grain size distribution curves on Figures B-1 and B-2 in this appendix. Appendix B 1174015.010.012 MTA—Belfair Park and Ride B-1 December 12,2018 1174015.01 9/6/17 Y:\1174\015.010\T\BELFAIR SITE\1174015.010.GPJ GRAIN SIZE FIGURE U.S.Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 6 4 3 2 1,1 1 3/4 1/2 318 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 5060 100 140 200 100 90 80 70 r oM 60 50 ii c 40 n. 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Symbol Exploration Sample Depth Natural Soil Description Unified Soil Number Number (ft) Moisture(%) Classification TP-2 S-1 3.5 4 Gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with silt SP-SM m TP-3 S-1 4.0 3 Very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with silt SP-SM ♦ TP-4 S-2 6.0 5 Very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with silt SPSM * TP-4 S-3 11.0 6 Silty,very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND SM (D I TP-5 S-1 3.0 6 Silty,very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND SM Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements Grain Size Distribution LANDAU Belfair Site B_1 1A ASSOCIATES Belfair,Washington 1174015.01 9/6/17 Y:111741015.010\T\BELFAIR SITE\1174015.010.GPJ GRAIN SIZE FIGURE U.S.Sieve Opening in Inches I U.S.Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer 6 4 3 2 1 314 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 14 16 20 30 40 5060 100 140 200 100 90 80 70 1= a� 60 50 ii c c� 40 d 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters F Cobbles oarse Gravel Sand Silt or Clay — C FineI Coarse Medium Fine Symbol Exploration Sample Depth Natural o Soil Description Unified Soil Number Number (ft) Moisture(/o) Classification • TP-5 S-2 7.5 6 Silty,very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND SM m TP-6 S-2 6.0 6 Very sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL with silt GP-GM TP-6 S-4 15.5 4 Very sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL with silt GP-GM * TP-9 S-1 4.0 3 Very sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL GW O TP-10 S-1 2.5 5 Very gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with silt SP-SM Mason Transit Authority Figure Park and Ride Improvements LANDAU Belfair Site Grain Size Distribution DD_2 ASSOCIATES Belfair, Washington i SHEET SV-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION �, �_330-^� / /�\ O + / /- /{' `\ I �\/� / I PARCEL 1: ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF(E%)OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE%)OF SECTION TWENTYONE(21).TOWNSHIP TWENTYMREE(23)NORTH,RANGE ONE(1)WEST,W.M.,PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: "�w4,4�j / \ COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID SECTION TWENTYONE(21);THENCE NORTH DO'09'15'EAST,ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID SECTION !!' __ TWENTYONEN(21).811.29 FEET;THENCE NORTH 6745'41"WEST.5.58 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE,CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST,HAVING A RADIUS /'/'/( // \ OF SOOAO FEET:THENCE WESTERLY,ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3T45'47 FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 329.54 FEET;THENCE NORTH 24'59'55"WEST,414.33 FEET.TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS"POINT A";THENCE SOUTH 65'DO'05"WEST,50.00 FEET,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREBY DESCRIBED;THENCE SOUTH 46'00'00"WEST,479.74 FEET;THENCE NORTH 44'DO'00'WE57,582.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 46'00'00"EAST,497.00 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE,CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH,HAVING A RADUS OF 35.00 FEET;THENCE EASTERLY,ALONG THE ARC , / / L� I( 1 /// / - ,--\ OF SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9000'00,FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 54.98 FEET:THENCE SOUTH 44'00'00'EAST,303.19 FEET,70 THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET:THENCE SOUTHERLY,ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 337' //, // // R'35. ,{JJJ / 1 /^/' ) /, \ I OF 19'00'05 FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 182.40 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 2459'55"EAST,68.46 FEET,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. N46-11.59-E I L ( _---' lool////' / I///' // //� /,,,1'��{ 1 PORTION OF PARCEL NOS. 12321 41 00000 AND 12321 44 00000 } 1 t 497.00( __ - ��7.' / / /J /'AQ r ,'4 y 1 PARCEL 2: \ ++" J' I \ - / / , / / / 'S /If N OI AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS,EGRESS AND UTILITIES,OVER,UNDER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF THE EAST/VILE(E X)OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE)0 6. i / O \ \ / / / // __ = ��� / / / b ` _ 1 OF SECTION TWENTYONE(21),TOWNSHIP TWENTYTHREE(23)NORTH,RANCE ONE(1)WEST.W.M.,LYING 50.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE, ( / A�' J t�' PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: \ t J }� \ ` / / / L 33'L''' i' // / ti / I 1 �'I �> I BEGINNING AT"POINT A"AS REFERENCED IN THE ABOVE PARCEL 1:THENCE NORTH 24'59'55"WEST,68.46 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE.CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET;THENCE NORTHERLY,ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19*00'05 FOR AN ARC DISTANCE , ///i' / 1-- OF 198.98 FEET;THENCE NORTH 44'00'00'WEST,673.76 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROUTE 3.AND THE '�-l\\ +p TERMINUS OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CENTERUNE. le 1 \ \ +.)?- 1 I I \ � / / / / / 1-338 340.5x __344 344.3X x344.4 / \ x343.6 --347-' x4.��- x343.4 /-'544'/ X344.4 /�A5 P LINE TYPES / ' / _ / / / +1 v ` TOE-TOE- GROUNOTOE 345•�! // / ` / / \\\ +I�1// �/ / / ? -TOP TOP GOUNDTOP BRK-BRK- GROUND BREAK -D-DD- STORM UNE / // -S-S S- SANBURIED TELEWERPHONE LINE 350 Imo/ / WWW -TTT- BURIED TELEPHONE OT OT OVERHEAD TELEPHONE /i" --� \ / / \ ! _ ' / /' 0' 40' 80 -P-PP- BURIED POWER / A / .345 �/ -_ �� �/ 347---j '/''��--\ of- / OF OP- OVERHEAD POWER / ' -W-W-W- WATERLINE P� 10P SCALE I'=40' -GGG- NATURAL GAS UNE }' t7 p --- _CC_ C- BURIED CABLE TV LINE MAJOR CONTOUR ------------ MINOR CONTOUR z"77)P- -- Tofr" >' \#F ) ,;: `\,' /• � / _,-' LEGEND LEGEND(UTILITIES) I - --343 - \ /' 345 I -35\--- G/' //' 0 BRASS CAP ® CABLE RISER/PEDESTAL Cl TELEPHONE CABINET / / I t / `JL'I 1 3s4.3x ® NUB AND TACK O CABLE VAULT/MANHOLE% /� / m TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX O IRON PIPE --( CULVERT (D TELEPHONE RISER \ ARM I f PK NAILINAIEWITH M TELEPHONE MARKER POST 1 + ' - _ x ' /' g NATURALI GAS MARKER POST O--_ 1 1 \\ // // / -353__I / O 3x. / / / O REBAR AND CAP 7 TELEPHONE VAULT/MANHOLE NATURAL GAS METER® ® WATER AIR RELEASE VALVE \ \ J NATURAL GAS VALVE /-' /' / -\ / �y° / / / \ \ \ ^� 1 1 HATCHING L POWERCHOR B WATDEPART EN \ I I d TIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION OFF / '// \`\ M 1 o-GUY ANCHOR ------ GRAVEL R HOSE RIGATI /' / / /' / .yhh \ \� / I 1 1 .,'nj I 0 POWER JUNCTION BOX N WATETMNCONTRSTOL VALVE \ -- / \ ry 1Y I I ® WATER MARKER POST 47974 L / / / / ✓ 2 t yN. / I I I I l B POWER MARKER POST EB WATER METER \ _ / / `-- �y1aaTS9aY" /�1 / T' �� C,`Y•� J \ \\ ASPHALT E9 POWER METER ® WATER POST INDICATOR VALVE -0- POWER POLE -O� PP WITH DROP LINE - SPRINKLER HEAD PP WITH DROP AND LIGHT lCf WATER VALVE / / \ TS WATER FIRE HYDRANT PP WITH DROP,LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER B WATER VAULT/MANHOLE 15 POWER TRANSFORMER • WELL •/f © POWER VAULT/MANHOLE p STORM CATCH BASIN OD STORM MANHOLE SURVEY NOTES DATUM 19 STORMYARDDRAIN UTILITY NOTE HORIZONTAL- WASHINGTON STATE DATE 1. INSTRUMENT USED: SOKKIA SRX 3 TOTAL PROJECT NAME: SHEET NAME: PLANE COORDINATES, SOUTH ZONE, NAD 9 19 2018 STATION AND TOPCON GRS CPS. scnLE E. p UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM MAPPING VISIBLE 83/2011 BASED ON TIES TO WSDOT MON T wWs R 2. THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE 1"=4O' 4Eu W, / MASON TRANSIT STANDARDS OF WAC 332-130-090 SURFACE APPURTENANCES, AND MAPPING VTIUTY PAINT 4599. Q',� '. MARKS FROM A UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE. BURIED UTILITIES $GT AUTHORITY, BELFAIR \/ 3. SURVEY COMPLETED 9/28/2017 17-625 ED T1t MTN r S V-1 4. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND VISITED ARE ONLY SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE VERTICAL - NAVD 88 BASED ON TIES DRAWN 4 OAST- TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING VERIFIED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. TO WSDOT MONUMENT 4599, ELEVATION SEP o 0 9/2017. CHECKED s 4 29278 o a1 1506 FAIRVIEW ST SE - ---__-- 298.73. -- BEP J; F41si E4f Je CLIENT NAME; APPROVED O/rgl LANDS OLYM60. W.1497 SCI ALLIANCE 360.239.1497 BEP SHEET NO.t OF 2 ' r 1 0. SCALE I'=4O FFFFF LOG YARD RD------ \ PROJECT SITE Belfair VICINITY MAP PITS /�\ I i LEGAL DESCRIPTION ----- PARCEL 1: ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF(E 74)OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE 36)OF SECTION TWENIYONE(21).TOWNSHIP TWEHfYfHREE(23)NORM,RANGE t ONE(1)WEST.W.M..PARTICULAR LY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1WENTYONE(21);THENCE NORM W09'15'FAST,ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION TWENTYONE(21).811,29 FEET;THENCE NORTH 6745'41'WEST,5.58 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE,CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET;THENCE WESTERLY,ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3745'47', FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 329.54 FEET;THENCE NORM 24'S9'55'WEST,414.33 FEET,TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS'POINT A%THENCE SOUTH 6500'05'WEST,50.00 FEET,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREBY DESCRIBED:THENCE SOUTH 4800'00'WEST,479.74 FEET;THENCE NORM 4000'00'WEST,562.00 FEET;THENCE NORM 46'00'00'FAST.497.00 FEET,TO THE BE OF A CURVE,CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH.HAVING A RADIUS OF 35.00 FEET;THENCE EASTERLY,ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE.THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 900000,FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 54.98 FEET:THENCE SOUTH WOO'00*EAST.303.19 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET;THENCE SOUTHERLY,ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'00'05',FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 182.40 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 24'59'55'FAST.68.46 FEET.TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING. PORTON OF PARCEL NOS. 12321 41 00000 AND 12321 44 DOOOO PARCEL 2. AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS.EGRESS AND UTILITIES.OVER.UNDER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF(E%)OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE X) OF SECTION TWENIYONE(21),TOWNSHIP TWEMYTHREE(23)NORTH,RANGE ONE(1)WEST,W.M.,LYING 50.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF A CEMERLINE, a �' / \ / \\ / ,-- _ / PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT'POINT A'AS REFERENCED IN THE ABOVE PARCEL 1;THENCE NORTH 21V59'55'WEST,68.46 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE,CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET;THENCE NORTHERLY.ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'00'05'.FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 198.98 FEET;THENCE NORM 44'00'00'WEST,573.76 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY RICHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROUTE 3,AND THE TERMINUS OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CENTERLINE. SURVEY NOTES LEGEND LINE TYPES -v- 1. INSTRUMENT USED: SOKKIA SRX 3 TOTAL -TOE TOE- GROUND TOE 0P 0 HUBANAP TOP-TOP- GROUNDTOP /- / STATION AND TOPCON GR5 CAPS. ® HUB AND TACK _ 2. THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE O IRON PIPE /�_ BRK-BRK- GROUND BREAK \ / / I /'//\ /' '/ / 1/ /( / '/ STANDARDS OF WAC 332-13D-090 i PKNAIL -D-DD- STORM LINE O REBAR AND CAP -SS-S- SANITARY SEWER LINE j \ Fj - ----_-, _ \\ / � ---/\• / ( /// �/ 3. SURVEY COIAPLETED 9�28�2017 -TT-T- BURIED TELEPHONE _ \ �'-\J / / / I / �l�l 1 / / l� / 4. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND VISITED -OT-OT- OVERHEAD TELEPHONE /� / 9/2017. -PPP- BURIED POWER - - TOP / I I / //'-_ i // / / / // -W OP W OP W- WATER LINE POWER \ _ -GGG- NATURALGAS UNE BURIED CABLE TV -C-_C- MAJOR CONTOR UNE -- ---- -- MINOR CONTOUR -N\ --`' ` ------ ; / /' / \\ \'�;� \\\ i 1� i I I UTILITY NOTE DATUM \ \ / /� /_ \ --- / / ' / / / / a 1 1 UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM MAPPING VISIBLE L8 \ __ i I i- / / / � \� / /J I ` HORIZONTAL- WASHINGTON STATE / -i - ,L- / / / 1 1 l SURFACE APPURTENANCES, AND MAPPING UTILITY PAINT PLANE COORDINATES, SOUTH ZONE, NAD MARKS FROM A UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE. BURIED UTILITIES 83/2011 BASED ON TIES TO WSDOT MON ARE ONLY SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE 4599. a / \ VERIFIED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. g PROPOSED DITCH EXISTING ROADSIDE / \�� VERTICAL- NAVD 88 BASED ON TIES 8 REALIGNMENT DITCH / TO WSDOT MONUMENT 4599, ELEVATION 298.73. Y� Q REVISIONS DALE BY DESIGNED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NAME DRAWING No.: P.HOLM 10-18-2018 0 ALL DIMENSIONS MASON TRANSIT AUTHORITY EX-1 €> DRAWN BY JOB No.: SHOWN IN FEET S CJ ALLIANCE , BELFAIR PARK AND RIDE DEVELOPMENT o NM 0730.05 m� UNLESS CHECKED BY LXRawMCHLENo DESIGNATEDOTHERWISE CONSULTING SERVICES MTA SHEET No.: 8730 TALLON LANE 352'IE,SUITE 3Li0,LACE�Y,WA 98516 P.HOLM FPA EXHIBIT SUALLIANCE.COM FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION EXHIBIT OF -----------// J SCALE I'=40' / \ 1 LOG YARD RDA • 50,/ I 5O. /> 1 )� 1 1 \ PROJECT SITE r \ / , / \/// ��� - Belfair ^� �-'// VICINITY MAP JNTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF(E 15)OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARIER(SE%)OF SECTION TWENTYONE(21).TOWNSHIP TWENTY THREE(23)NORTH.RANGE ONE(1)WEST.W.Y..PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID SECTION TW04TYONE(21);THENCE NORTH 0009'15'EAST,ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID SECTKN TWENIYONE(21).811.29 FEET;THENCE NORTH 6T45'41'WEST,5.58 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE.CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST,HAVING A RADIUS / / / / /�. \ \ / , OF 500.00 FEET:THENCE WESTERLY.ALONG SAID CURVE.THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3T45'47 FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 329.54 FEET:THENCE NORTH / II I 1I \/ 24.59'5 5-WEST,414.33 FEET.TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS'POINT A';THENCE SOUTH 65.00'05'WEST.50.00 FEET,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAID HEREBY DESCRIBED:THENCE SOUTH 46.00'00'WEST,472.74 FEET;THENCE NORM 44'00'00'WEST.582.00 FEET:THENCE NORTH 46'00'00 EAST,497.00 FEET.TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE.CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH.HAVING A RADIUS OF 35.00 FEET:THENCE EASTERLY,ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF WWOO,FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 54.98 FEET:THENCE SOUTH 44.00'00'EAST.303.19 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET;THENCE SOUTHERLY.ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'00'05'.FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 182.40 FEET:THENCE SOUTH 24'59.55'EAST.68.46 FEET.TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PORTION OF PARCEL NOS. 12321 41 OOD00 AND 12321 44 00000 'i` // I \ / // _ ' /•-\ \J• // / // PARCEL 2: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS.EGRESS AND UTILITIES.OVER,UNDER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF(E Ye)OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE 1Q OF SECTION 1WENTYONE(21).TOWNSHIP TWDIMHREE(23)NORTH.RANGE ONE(1)WEST,W.Y.,LYING 50.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE. - ,-- JL - _ , I PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT'POINT A'AS REFERENCED IN THE ABOVE PARCEL 1;THENCE NORTH 24.59.55'WEST,68.46 FEET,TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE,CONCAVE TO �j f // THE SOUTHWEST.HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET:THENCE NORTHERLY.ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'00'OS'.FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 198.98 FEET:THENCE NORM 44.00Oo'WEST. 673.76 FEET.MORE OR LESS,TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROUTE 3.AND THE -- _-_-_ TERMINUS OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CENTERLINE. > - SURVEY NOTES LEGEND LINE TYPES \ 7 [r�-- '_ 1. INSTRUMENT USED: SOKKIA SRX 3 TOTAL BRASS CAP TOE-TOE GROUNDTOE r_ 1 / STATION AND TOPCON GR5 GPS. ® HUB AND TACK TOP TOP- GROUND TOP \ \ - ---- BRK-BRK GROUND BREAK _ 2. THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE O IRON PIPE ♦ PK NAIL D D D STORM UNE \ / / / ,/ , , /I // / STANDARDS OF WAC 332-130-090 -S S S- SANITARY SEWER LINE �\ 1 r \ / _//� \/ O REBAR AND CAP )( \_ J � �� � C� // �/ 3. SURVEY COMPLETED 9/28/2017 -TTT- BURIED7ElEPHONE - ------ \ ` 1 / / I / (�I / / G i 4. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND VISITED OT OT OVERHEAD TELEPHONE 9/2017. P PP- BURIED POWER _ ' / ,'/ / / /// W OP W OP W WATEOVERHRAD LINE POWER INE //r ) / ___\ / / G----GG NATURAL GAS LINE '. \\ _ �� /•� �/ / // // ' // /' ' \ \ \\ \ \/ 1 1 /i C_ rC- BURIED CABLE TV- MANOR O R NTO t LINE / `J I - MINOR CONTOUR \ � / / ,/ �'/ \ \ �� ;� / \� 1 1 1 1 I UTILITY NOTE DATUM UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM MAPPING VISIBLE HORIZONTAL - WASHINGTON STATE SURFACE APPURTENANCES, AND MAPPING UTILITY PAINT PLANE COORDINATES, SOUTH ZONE, NAD MARKS FROM A UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE. BURIED UTILITIES 53/2011 BASED ON TIES TO WSDOT MON ARE ONLY SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE 4599. / \ VERIFIED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. PRE EXISTING ROADSIDE / VERTICAL - NAND 88 BASED TIES / TO WSDOT MONUMENT 4599, ELEVATION VATION SI REALIGN ENT DITCH 298.73. El 3 0 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED BY: ISSUE DATE. PROJECT NAME. DRAWING Na: P.HOLM 10.162T8 ALL DIMENSIONS MASON TRANSIT AUTHORITY EX-1 DRAWN BY: JDBNo- SHOWN IN FEET S CJ G.LLIAN C E BELFAIR PARK AND RIDE DEVELOPMENT o NM 0736.05 UNLESS OTHERWISE CONSULTING SERVICES SHEET No. CHECKED BY DRAWING FILE ND.: DESIGNATED 8730 TALLON LANE NE,SUITE 2(0,LACEY,WA 98516ra Lik P.HIOIM FPAExHIBTr P:360.3SCJALU F:360.352.1509 wALU FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION EXHIBIT ANCE.coM 1 of 1 /4 p I \ / /fAl c4 0 �I 11 1/a o I 111 � SPEED LIMITI I II `a'IIH�N° V dN)n \ 1 III I n1 I III II / I II 10324- \ k N o 326 I 1 I�Ill / J/I / T330, _325 rL / ROCK RETAINING i�32 I�'r1� 1 II I \MII �M I I WALL/ORNIMENTAI, STOP SIGN I / slcN BUILT of 'S`y8 /_ 11I-I \\ LOGS WITH ROOF/ 329— b O ��,ro{ \ _�� / 40TOCYCLE WARN"�CENTER TURN INiE / // / /i ^ I I JTRUge"iNIRG-SIGN\ SIGN MULTIPLE SIGN ON 333 I $�-33p DECORATIVE SUPPORT _ -- _ „'h,/ I ^ I I i/ W 0 T SIGN SDC� 88 RN6 T 3 323 \ ------ z•Pvcs-3ze.8z2 \ u we 32e.72327 TOE— _ TRUCK WARNING s1GN57, 7 323 - K 330 -_ 2g�-330• BARRICADE i T EO " -- --- ---- --332 -f � ,S•yA� � - _ 3 35, SDCB RIM ELEV=333.50 '..RIM SDC6 331.5.11 RIM SDCB 1086 331.48 / C ry i 12•PVC N=32 61 ----.�- 12•PVC S= 322 6 12 PVC S= _ 12,PVC 5 3276?- STATEE 3 Y-- J 323°� L _326 -330 '�b��—_338_�- 3-'_E— E—� ROUT ---- - -- MOTO MEMORIAL ALONG NUES __ --- --e ', F �2Cc�O -� n y� �T TOP of BANK —�— j-\ �J\\ '�l `? J' ,\ •aA"'/� \ STOP GN I O ---- OT OT OT OT—OT OT OT ,.j}� OP---6P—6P / TREE LINE / �.qr.- /\�'.3g'L'T\`�1�Jj 3g` SOP-«012 -- _ / EKG TOP OF ti/ / 333.-I`�\II �'�335 ���335• / TREE LINE n\ _ / I GATE WITH`�[,LTLE OF LARGE 335 ` \ I BOULDER ON THE 510E I 33.7 �/ •337 -36 `\ MATCHLINE SHEET SV-1 .1,/ DATE (� C 9 19 2018 PROJECT NAME: SHEET NAME: SCALE MASON TRANSIT AUTHORITY,BELFAIR 0' 40' 80, 17-625 m" m MTN r S V—2 DRAWN C�AST,.< TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING �p 29278 1506 FAIRVIEW ST SE o - - ---- - SCALEI"=40' CHECKED BEP �E6IST[ e'er CLIENT NAME: PIA, BE APPROVED �O'Y"1L LAll S`T OLY 360. wA239.1497 SC1 ALLIANCE P 60. 97 SHEET N0.2 OF 2 MASON COUNTY Submittal Checklist COMMUNITY SERVICES Geotechnical Report Building Planning Environmental Health,Cmmunity Health 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 is found not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Note:Unless specifically documented, this report does not provide compliance to the International Residential Code Sections R403.1.7 for foundations on or adjacent to slopes, Section R403.1.8 for expansive soils or section 1808.7.1 of the International Building Code Section for Foundations on or adjacent to slopes. Applicant/Owner Mason Transit Authority Parcel# 123214100000 Site Address SE corner of Highway 3 and Log Yard Road, Belfair, WA 98528 (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 2-1 (b) A discussion of specific soil types, Located on page(s) 2-1 (c) A discussion of ground water conditions, Located on page(s) 2-2 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology, Located on page(s) 2-1 (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, Located on page(s) N/A (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on page(s) N/A (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Figure 2 (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Figure 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. Located on Map(s) N/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) N/A (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 coefficients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) N/A (7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, Rev. February 2018 Located on page(s N/A (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields, Located on page(s) N/A (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings, Located on page(s) 3-2 through 3-4 (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) N/A (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) N/A (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) N/A (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) N/A (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) N/A (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) N/A (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) N/A (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) Figure 2 I, 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 and entitled meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Geologically Hazardous Areas 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 (Signature and Stamp) manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. Page 2 of 2 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.