HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2022-00007 for SUP2022-00001 - GEO Geological Review - 11/23/2021 -� *Z -20-zz - oaoo�-
RECEIVED �o�. 5yP2o2Z- odool
MASON COUNTY Submittal Checklist
COMMUNITY SERiWj� 2022
Building,Planning,Environmental Health.Co y 1 Alder Street Geotechnical Report
b'�� :
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 Rush Development Parcel# 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, 1400001
Site Address xxx-State Route 3
(1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
Located on page(s) Pg 3-4
(b) A discussion of specific soil types,
Located on page(s) Pg 3, 6-7 Appendix A
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions,
Located on page(s) Pa 8, Appendix A
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology,
Located on page(s) 2
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands,
Located on page(s) 8
(f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records.
Located on page(s) 3-4
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
Located on Map(s) Figure 2-5
Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Located on Map(s) Figure 2
(3) 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) Figure 2
(4) 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) Proposed grade changes unknown at this time
(5) 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) NA
(6) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features,
Rev. February 2018
i
Located on page(s 11-12
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields,
Located on page(s) NA
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings,
Located on page(s) 12,16,17
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. '
Located on page(s) NA
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) NA
(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.
11, 14
Located on page(s)
(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.
(10)
Located on page(s) Ili-if;
(11) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) NA
(12) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widths.
Located on page(s) 15-16
(13) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
Located on page(s) NA
(14) 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.
Figure 2
Located on Map(s)
I, -b—fn j 1,Af f +( ;nAg6 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 t Z3 I ZoZ.t and entitled
-� meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance,
Geologically Hazardous Areas Section, is complete and true, that the
9i
assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the
�2( landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical
�$pp�
ii 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.
i
GEORESOURCES
earth science & geotechnical engineering
4809 Pacific Hwy. E. Fife, Washington 98424 253.896.1011 1 www. georesources.rocks
November 23, 2021
• Rush Development RECEIVED
6622 Wollochet Drive
Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
JAN 18 2022
Attn: Steve Yester
(360)280-3636 615 W. Alder Street
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rush Industrial/Belfair Gateway Concept
xxx- State Route 3
Mason County,Washington
PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000,
1400001
Doc ID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.RG
INTRODUCTION
This Geotechnical Engineering Report summarizes our site observations, subsurface
explorations, and provides geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the proposed
warehouse/light industrial development to be constructed on two of the unaddressed parcels
located to the north and east of 25140 State Route 3 in the Belfair area of Mason County,
Washington. The neighboring Gateway site consists of four undeveloped parcels and the Rush Site
consists of two undeveloped parcels. This report summarizes site observations and provides
geotechnical recommendations for the Rush Site and to supplement the greater area of the Belfair
Gateway Concept for development in the future. The general location is shown on the Site Location
Map, Figure 1.
Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with you, our review of the
Belfair Gateway Concept Plan prepared by Apex Engineering, the Rush Belfair Industrial Park Site Plan
prepared by Innova Architects dated March 2021, our July 7, 8, 9, 2021 site visits and subsurface
explorations, our understanding of the Mason County development codes, and our experience in
the site area. The site is currently undeveloped, however, parcel 123214160000 is being developed
by MTA. We understand that you propose to process a BLA between parcels 123211400001 and
123214100000 included in the Rush Belfair Industrial Park. The Rush Belfair Industrial Park will have
four buildings ranging in size from 62,180 square feet to 136,600 square feet. We anticipate these
structures will be tilt-up construction supported by conventional spread and column footings that
bear on native soils. Additionally, we anticipate that both Belfair Gateway and Rush Belfair Industrial
Park developments will include parking areas, loading docks, new roadway, building/roof areas, a
regional stormwater pond for the Rush Site as well as Belfair Gateway Concept development and
associated utilities. The proposed configuration is shown on Figure 2.
Because of the height and inclinations of the slopes at the site, Mason County is requiring a
geologic hazard assessment for the proposed development in accordance with the Mason County
Code of Ordinances (MCCO), Section 8.52.140.E(5)to evaluate potential geologic hazards at and near
the site. Additionally, we anticipate a Soils Report will be required in accordance with the 2012
t .
Rush.Belfairindustrial.RG
November 23,2021
Page 12
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), Volume III, Section 3.1.1 to
g g
address the feasibility of infiltration onsite. As such, we completed a full geotechnical engineering
report that addresses both the critical areas ordinance and stormwater manual, as well as provide
site specific geotechnical design criteria per the 2018 International Building Code (IBC).
SCOPE
The purpose of our services was to evaluate the site conditions as a basis for assessing
potential adverse impacts to and from the slopes located within the site area and to provide
geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed development. Specifically, our scope of
services for this project included the following:
1. Reviewing the available geologic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical data for the site area;
2. Exploring surface and subsurface conditions by reconnoitering the site and monitoring the
excavation of a series of 28 test pits at select locations across the site;
3. Describing surface and subsurface conditions, including soil type, depth to groundwater, and
an estimate of seasonal high groundwater levels;
4. Addressing the MCCO Section 8.52.140.E(5)for Geologic Hazards;
5. Providing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding site grading activities,
including site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria, suitability of on-site
soils for use as structural fill,temporary and permanent cut slopes and drainage and erosion
control measures;
6. Providing conclusions regarding shallow foundations and floor slab support and design
criteria, including bearing capacity and subgrade modulus;
7. Providing our opinion about the feasibility of onsite infiltration in accordance with the 2012
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, including a preliminary design
infiltration rate based on grain size analysis;
8. Providing recommendations for erosion and sediment control during wet weather grading
and construction;
9. Preparing a written Geotechnical Engineering Report summarizing our site observations and
conclusions, and our geotechnical recommendations and design criteria, along with the
supporting data.
10. Completing the Mason County Geotechnical Engineering Report checklist.
The above scope of work was completed in accordance with our Proposal for Engineering
Services dated May 28, 2021 and our Change Order dated June 28, 2021.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
As stated, the site is located at four unaddressed parcels located north and east of 25140
State Route 3 in the Belfair area of Mason County. When combined, the site is irregular in shape,
measuring approximately 2,400 to 2,650 feet wide (southwest to northeast) by approximately 700 to
875 feet long (northwest to southeast) and encompasses approximately 35.17 acres. The site is
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23, 2021
page 13
bounded by undeveloped land to the northeast and southeast, existing commercial development to
the southwest, and State Route 3 to the northwest.
According to topographic information obtained from the Mason County Parcel Viewer
Website, provided site plans, and our field observations, the terrain across the site generally slopes
down to the southeast and east. In the northern and central portion of the site, the ground surface
slopes gently down to the southeast and east at approximately 2 to 5 percent. In the southern
portion of the site, the ground surface generally slopes down to the southeast at approximately 5 to
15 percent. There are isolated areas in the southern portion of the site slope to the south and east
at approximately 20 to 30 percent over a vertical relief of approximately 10 to 15 feet. The existing
site layout and topography are shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 3.
Vegetation across the site generally consists of a dense stand of coniferous and deciduous
trees with a medium dense to dense understory of native and invasive plants and shrubs. The site
has numerous, previously cleared trails throughout the wooded areas. No seeps, springs, or
standing water were observed at the time of our site reconnaissance. No evidence of significant
surficial erosion, active soil movement, active landslide activity, or deep-seated slope instability was
observed at the site or the adjacent areas at the time of our site visit.
Site Soils
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for Mason County
maps the site as being underlain Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Ab) soils and Everett gravelly
loamy sand (Ed and Ee) soils. Detailed descriptions of the soil units are included below. A copy of the
NRCS Web Soil Survey soil map for the area of interest is included as Figure 4.
• Alderwood gravel�-v sandy loam (Ab): The Alderwood soils are mapped as underlying the
majority eastern and central portions of the site. These soils are derived from glacial drift
and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits, form on slopes of 8 to 15 percent,
are considered to have a "moderate" erosion hazard when exposed, and are included in
hydrologic soils group B.
• Everett gravel/ ly oamy sand (Ed): These Everett soils are mapped as underlying the
southwestern corner of the site. These soils are derived from glacial outwash, form on
slopes of 0 to 5 percent, are considered to have a "slight" erosion hazard when exposed, and
are included in hydrologic soils group A.
• Everett gravell loam oam sand and (Ee): These Everett soils are mapped as underlying the western
portion of the site, are derived from glacial outwash, form on slopes of 5 to 15 percent, are
considered to have a "moderate" erosion hazard when exposed, and are included in
hydrologic soils group A.
Site Geology
The Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties,
Washington by Michael Polenz et al (July 2009) maps the site as being underlain by Vashon glacial ice-
contact deposits (Qgic) and Vashon till (Qgt). No landslides, mass wasting deposits, or alluvial fan
deposits are mapped on or within the site vicinity. Detailed descriptions of the geologic units are
provided below.An excerpt of the above referenced map is included as Figure 5.
GEORESOURCES
t
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23,2021
page 4
• Vashon glacial ice-contact d oe�sits�OFic):These glacial soils were deposited during the Vashon
stade of the Fraser glaciation, some 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. The ice contact units
typically consist of an unstratified mixture of sand, gravel and silt and clay. This material was
originally deposited through fluvial processes on or within the continental ice mass, then
slumped as the ice receded, causing mixing of the material and disturbance of the
stratification. These soils are considered normally consolidated and generally have
moderate strength and compressibility characteristics, where undisturbed. Stormwater
infiltration potential is variable based on the gradation of the soils.
• Vashon Till Qgt): These glacial soils were deposited during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser
glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. Glacial till typically consists of a
heterogeneous mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay that was deposited at the base of the
continental ice mass and was subsequently overridden. As such, the till is considered to be
over-consolidated, and generally has high strength and low compressibility characteristics,
where undisturbed. The potential for stormwater infiltration is generally limited.
The Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington map (Smith and
Carson) indicates that the site is located in an area classified as Class 1: Areas believed to be stable.
No areas on or within the site vicinity are classified as Class 2: Areas believed to be stable under
normal conditions, or Class 3: Areas inferred to be unstable. An excerpt of the above referenced
map is attached as Figure 6.
Subsurface Explorations
On July 7 through July 9, 2021, we visited the site and monitored the excavation of 28 test
pits to depths of 11'/2 to 16'/2 feet below the existing grade, logged the subsurface conditions
encountered in each test pit, and obtained representative soil samples. The test pits were excavated
by a medium sized track-mounted excavator operated by a licensed earthwork contractor working
for GeoResources, LLC. Table 1, below, summarizes the approximate functional locations, surface
elevations, and termination depths of our subsurface explorations.
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23, 2021
page 15
TABLE 1:
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DEPTHS OFEXPLOR4TIONS
Test Pit Surface Termination Termination
Number Functional Location Elevation' Depth Elevation'
(feet) (feet) (feet)
TP-1 Northern Portion, Rush Industrial 347 15 332
TP-2 Northern Portion, Rush Industrial 346 133/a 3323/a
TP-3 Northern Portion, Rush Industrial 340 15%z 324'/z
TP-4 Northeastern Portion, Rush Industrial 347 14 333
TP-5 Northern Portion, Rush Industrial 345 15'/z 329Yz
TP-6 Western Portion, Rush Industrial 340 16 324
TP-7 Eastern Portion, Rush Industrial 350 11'/z 338'/2
TP-8 Central Portion, Rush Industrial 348 133/a 334'/a
TP-9 Central Portion, Rush Industrial 345 14 331
TP-10 Western Portion, Rush Industrial 337 14 323
TP-11 Southeastern Portion, Rush Industrial 355 15 340
TP-12 Central Portion, Rush Industrial 349 15'/2 333'/z
TP-13 Central Portion, Rush Industrial 344 133/a 330'/a
TP-14 Southwestern Portion, Rush Industrial 339 14 325
TP-15 Southeastern Portion, Rush Industrial 352 13'/z 338'/2
TP-16 Southeastern Portion, Rush Industrial 349 16'/2 332'/2
TP-17 Southern Portion, Rush Industrial 346 15 331
TP-18 Southwestern Portion, Belfair Gateway 337 14 323
TP-19 Utility Tract, Belfair Gateway 320 16'/z 303'/z
TP-20 Utility Tract, Belfair Gateway 322 14 308
TP-21 Central Portion, Belfair Gateway 332 113/a 320'/a
TP-22 Southeastern Portion, Belfair Gateway 317 15 302
TP-23 Southeastern Portion, Belfair Gateway 321 14 307
TP-24 Western Portion, Belfair Gateway 315 143/a 300'/a
TP-25 Western Portion, Belfair Gateway 317 14'/a 3023/a
TP-26 Western Portion, Belfair Gateway 320 16'/a 3033/a
TP-27 Northern Portion, Belfair Gateway 335 15'/z 319'/z
TP-28 I Northwestern Portion, Belfair Gateway 332 1 16 1 316
Notes:' Elevation based on interpolating between contours from Mason County Public GIS(NAVD88)
The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected based on the
configuration of the proposed development and were adjusted in the field based on consideration
for underground utilities, existing site conditions, site access limitations, and encountered
stratigraphy. The soil densities presented on the logs are based on the difficulty of excavation and
our experience. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed
plastic bags and then taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing as deemed
necessary. The test pits were then backfilled with the excavated soils and bucket tamped, but not
otherwise compacted.
r
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG r
November 23, 2021
page 16
The subsurface explorations excavated as art of this evaluation indicate the subsurface
p P
conditions at specific locations only, as actual subsurface conditions can vary across the site.
Furthermore, the nature and extent of such variation would not become evident until additional
explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. Based on our experience in
the area and extent of prior explorations in the area, it is our opinion that the soils encountered in
the explorations are generally representative of the soils at the site.
The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D2488. The USCS is included in Appendix A as Figure A-1.
The approximate locations and numbers of our test pits are shown on the Site & Exploration Plan,
included as Figure 2, while the descriptive logs of our test pits are included in Appendix A as Figure
A-2 through A-15.
Subsurface Conditions
At the locations explored, we encountered somewhat variable subsurface conditions that, in
our opinion, confirmed the mapped stratigraphy of the site. In general, our test pits encountered
approximately 1/2 to 13/4 feet of dark brown topsoil. Underlying the topsoil in test pits TP-1 through TP-5,
TP-7 through TP-10, TP-12 through TP-18, TP-21, and TP-26 through TP-28 we encountered
approximately 3/4 to 3 feet of brown silty sand with some gravel, and occasional cobbles in a medium
dense, moist condition that we interpret to be consistent with weathered glacial till. Underlying the
weathered glacial till we encountered grey silty sand with some gravel and occasional cobbles in a
dense to very dense, moist condition. We interpret these soils to be consistent with glacial till and the
glacial till was encountered to the full depth explored in test pits TP-1 through TP-5, TP-7 through TP-
10,TP-12 through TP-15,TP-17,TP-18, and TP-21.
Underlying the topsoil in test pits TP-6 and TP-11, we encountered 1Ya to 2'/4 feet of brown
sandy silt in a medium stiff, moist condition that we interpret to be consistent with weathered
glaciolacustrine deposits. Underlying the weathered glaciolacustrine deposits, we encountered
approximately 11/4 to 13/4 feet of grey sandy silt in a medium stiff, moist condition that we interpret to
be glaciolacustrine deposits. Underlying the glaciolacustrine deposits, we encountered grey silty sand
with some gravel and occasional cobbles in a dense to very dense, moist condition that we interpret to
be glacial till.The glacial till was encountered to the full depth explored in test pits TP-6 and TP-11.
In test pit TP-16, underlying the glacial till, we encountered approximately 2 feet grey poorly
graded sand with some silt and gravel in a dense, moist condition. We interpret these soils to be
consistent with advance outwash. Underlying the advance outwash in test pit TP-16, we encountered
approximately 2 feet of grey SILT in a very stiff, moist condition to the full depth explored.
Underlying the topsoil in test pits TP-19 through TP-20 and test pits TP-22 through TP-25, we
encountered approximately 11/2 to 2'/2 feet of brown silty sand with some gravel to brown poorly
graded gravel with some sand in a medium dense to dense, dry to moist condition that we interpret to
be weathered advance outwash. Underlying the weathered advance outwash,we encountered grey to
tan-brown silty sand with some gravel to poorly graded gravel with some sand in medium dense to
dense, dry to moist condition that we interpret to be advance outwash. These soils were encountered
to the full depth explored in test pits TP-19 through TP-20 and TP-22 through TP-25. In test pits TP-26
through TP-28, underlying the glacial till,we encountered grey poorly graded gravel with some sand in
a dense, dry to moist condition that we interpret to be consistent with advance outwash. These soils
were encountered to the full depth explored in test pits TP-26 through TP-28. Our interpretation of
advance outwash is based on these soils being stratigraphically lower than the glacial till and the
--.ONO
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfai rind ustria1.RG
November 23, 2021
page 17
dense nature of the soils. The logs of our test pit explorations are included in Appendix A. A summary
of the conditions encountered at the locations explored is provided in Table 2, below.
TABLE 2:
APPROXIMATE THICKNESSES, DEPTHS, AND ELEVATIONS OFSO/L LAYERS
ENCOUNTERED IN EXPLORATIONS
Topsoil Weathered Till Thickness Thickness of Depth to
Test Pit Thickness Thickness of Glacial Weathered Advance
Number Till Advance Outwash Outwash
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (Feet)
TP-1 1'/a 13/a >3 NE NE
TP-2 1 13/a >23/a NE NE
TP-3 13/a 13/a >3'/2 NE NE
TP-4 3/a 13/a >3'/2 NE NE
TP-5 3/a 2%2 >3'/a NE NE
TP-6 '/2 42 >4Y2 NE NE
TP-7 1 1'/a >2'/a NE NE
TP-8 3/a 3 >33/a NE NE
TP-9 1 1/2 23/a >4'/a NE NE
T P-10 3/a 13/a >2Y2 NE NE
TP-11 '/2 2 '/22 >3 NE NE
TP-12 '/2 2'/2 >3 NE NE
TP-13 1 13/a >23/a NE NE
TP-14 '/2 1 >1'/2 NE NE
TP-15 3/a 1'/a >2 NE NE
TP-16 '/2 2'/2 >3 NE 121/2
TP-17 1/2 3/a >1'/a NE NE
TP-18 1'/2 1'/2 >3 NE NE
TP-19 1'/a 0 0 2 31/a
TP-20 1'/a 0 0 2 3'/a
TP-21 1 13/a 23/a NE NE
TP-22 1 0 0 1'/2 21/2
TP-23 1 1/a 0 0 2'/a 31/2
TP-24 1 0 0 2 3
TP-25 1'/a 0 0 13/a 3
TP-26 1'/2 2Y2 6 0 10
TP-27 1 2 8 0 11
TP-28 1 3/a 11'/a 17 1 0 1 9
Notes: ' Elevation based on interpolating between contours from Mason County Public GIs(NAVD88)
2=glaciolacustrine deposits(weathered glaciolacustrine and lacustrine combined)
Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on several samples obtained from our tewst
pit explorations to estimate index engineering properties of the soils encountered. Laboratory
testing included visual soil classification per ASTM D2488 and ASTM D2487, moisture content
GEORESOURCES
t
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23, 2021
page 18
determinations per ASTM D2216, grain size analyses per ASTM D6913. Test results are included in
Appendix B and summarized below in Table 3.
TABLE 3:
LABORATORY TEST RESUL TS FOR ON-SITE SOILS
Gravel Sand Silt/Clay D10
Sample Soil Type Content Content Content Ratio
(percent) (percent) (percent) (mm)
TP-9, S-1, D: 12ft Glacial Till 47.9 40.6 11.5 <0.075
TP-11, S-1, D: 1 Oft Glacial Till 13.6 57.8 28.6 <0.075
TP-20, S-1, D: 7ft Gravelly Outwash 66.8 31.3 1.9 0.3389
TP-22, S-1, D: 6ft Gravelly Outwash 71.7 28.0 0.5 0.5630
TP-25, S-1, D: 1 Oft Sandy Outwash 2.6 85.1 12.3 <0.075
TP-27, S-1, D: 2ft Weathered Outwash 43.8 40.8 15.4 <0.075
TP-27, S-2, D: 5ft Sandy Outwash 1 25.1 1 51.9 1 23.0 1 <0.075
Notes:
ND=Not Determined
Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was observed in any of our test pit explorations at the time of
exploration. However, iron-oxide staining/discoloration consistent with soil mottling was observed in
all test pits except test pit TP-20, TP-22, TP-23, and TP-25 at depths of approximately '/z to 14 feet
below existing ground surface. No upland water bodies are located up slope or up gradient from the
site. Some small localized wetlands are mapped on the north side of the site and off site to the north
and east.
Based on these observations and our review of the geologic literature of the area, the site is
likely prone to a shallow, "perched"groundwater table during and following periods of wet weather.
Perched groundwater develops when the vertical infiltration rate of precipitation through a more
permeable soil is slowed at depth by a deeper, less permeable soil type. We anticipate fluctuations
in the local groundwater levels that likely will occur in response to precipitation patterns, off-site
construction activities, and site utilization.
ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our site observations and data review, it is our opinion that the proposed
warehouse/light industrial development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided our
recommendations below are incorporated into the final plans and specifications. This Geotechnical
Report should be sufficient and suitable to address the portions of the site where the commercial
development is proposed.
Geologically Hazardous Areas per Mason County Codes of Ordinance 8.52.140
According to the Mason County Resource Ordinance 8.52.140.E, the purpose of the landslide
hazard assessment is to identify areas that present potential dangers to public health and safety, to
prevent the acceleration of natural geological hazards, to address off site environmental impacts,
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23,2021
Page 19
and to minimize the risk to the property owner or adjacent property owners from development
activities.
Mason County uses the following indicators to determine if a site should be considered as a
Geologically Hazardous Area.
a. Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps
and rock falls.
b. Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e. cuts or fills.
c. Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils.
d. Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank
erosion, and undercutting by wave action.
e. Slopes greater than 15% (8.5 degrees) and having the following:
I. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable
sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock(e.g.
sand overlying clay); and
ii. Springs or groundwater seepage.
f. Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more
feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its
toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over atleast ten feet of vertical
relief.
In addition, the following information may be used as a guide by the County to indicate
areas that have a higher likelihood of meeting the classification criteria above:
a.The areas identified on the Mason County Soil Survey Map as having slopes
greater than 15%.
b.The areas identified on the Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 9, of Mason County,
Washington as:
I. Unstable - "U"
ii. Unstable Old Slides- "UOS"
iii. Unstable Recent Slides - "URS"
iv. Intermediate Slopes -"I"
v. Modified Slopes -"M"
c.The areas identified as Class 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the maps: "Relative Slope Stability of the Southern
Hood Canal Area, Washington", by M. Smith and R.J. Carson, Washington State Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Earth Resources, 1977; and "The Geological Map of North
Central Mason County, Washington", by R.J. Carson, 1976, U.S. Geologic Survey OFR 76-2;
d. Areas mapped as landslide deposits(Map Unit Qls) on the: Geologic map of
the Longbranch 7.5-minute quadrangle, Thurston, Pierce, and Mason Counties, Washington, by
R. L. Logan, T.J. Walsh, and Michael Polenz. 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000, 2003; Geologic map of
the Squaxin Island 7.5-minute quadrangle, Mason and Thurston Counties, Washington, by R. L.
Logan, Michael Polenz, T. J. Walsh, and H. W. Schasse. 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000, 2003;
Geologic map of the Shelton 7.5-minute quadrangle, Mason and Thurston Counties,
Washington, by H. W. Schasse, R. L. Logan, Michael Polenz, and T.J. Walsh. 1 sheet, scale
1:24,000, 2003; and Geologic map of the Summit Lake 7.5-minute quadrangle, Thurston and
GEORESOURCES
T
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23,2021
page 1 10
Mason Counties, Washington, by R. L. Logan and T. J. Walsh. 42 x 36 in. color sheet, scale
1:24,000, 2004.
No indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps, or rock falls
were noted at the time of our site visit. No areas of over-steepened slopes as a result of wave
action, stream incision, or stream bank erosion were observed at the site. No soft or potentially
liquefiable soils are mapped at the site. The map "Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal
Area, Washington" identifies the site and site vicinity as being Classl: Areas believed to be stable. An
excerpt of the "Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington" for the site and
surrounding area is included as Figure 6.
There are slopes steeper than 15 percent mapped and observed at the site, however, based
on the mapped stratigraphy and our subsurface explorations, we do not interpret the site to be
underlain by an adverse geologic contact. While the Coastal Atlas does not map the slope stability at
the site, we anticipate that the site would be considered "stable". No landslide or mass wasting
deposits are mapped on or within the site vicinity by the Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute
Quadrangle Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington by Michael Polenz et al (July 2009) or the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Based on our site observations and subsurface explorations, the site does = meet the
definition of a "Geologically Hazardous Area".Therefore, M setbacks or buffers should be applied.
Seismic Hazard Areas per Mason County Resource Ordinance 8.52.150
The purpose of the Seismic Hazard Section is to identify areas that present potential dangers
to public health and safety, and to prevent the acceleration of man-made and natural geological
hazards, and to neutralize the risk to the property owner or adjacent properties from development
activities.The following shall be classified as Seismic Hazard Areas:
1. Areas susceptible to ground failure including the following:
a. Areas with geologic faults;
b. Deep road fills and areas of poorly compacted artificial fill;
c. Areas with artificially steepened slopes (i.e. old gravel pits);
d. Postglacial stream, lake or beach sediments;
e. River deltas;
f. Areas designated as potential Landslide Hazard Areas;
g. Bluff areas; and
h. Areas underlain by potentially liquefiable soils.
In addition, the following criteria may be used as a guide by the County to indicate areas that
have a higher likelihood of meeting the classification criteria above:
a. Areas identified on the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume 9, Mason
County as Af, Qal, Qa2, Qvc, Qls, Qos and Qp.
b. Areas identified on the Mason County Soil Survey Map as having slopes greater
than 15 percent.
c. Faults identified on "Map Showing Known or Suspected Faults With Quaternary
Displacement in the Pacific Northwest", A.M. Rogers, T.J. Walsh, W.J. Kockelman
GEORESOURCES
• Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23, 2021
page 111
and G.R. Priest, US Geologic Survey, 1996; or described in "Active Faulting
Investigations on the Canyon River Fault, Southern Olympic Range, Washington",
T.J. Walsh and K.G. Neal, U.S. Geologic Survey, 1997.
d. Areas underlain by potentially liquefiable soils as shown "Liquefaction
Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington" by Stephen P. Palmer,
Sammantha L. Magsino,James L. Poelstra, Eric L. Bilderback, Derek S. Folger, and
Rebecca A. Niggemann, September 2004.
Liquefaction is defined as a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in
pore water pressure. The increase in pore water pressure is typically induced by seismic vibrations.
Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, fine-grained sands or granular silts
that are below the groundwater table. The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County,
Washington maps the site as a low risk for liquefaction. An excerpt of the map for the site area is
included as Figure 7. Based on the observed subsurface conditions, the site appears to be underlain
by dense, glacially consolidated soils. Therefore, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to
occur at this site during an earthquake is low. The Washington State Department of Natural
Resources maps the Sunset Beach Scarp being approximately 2.25 miles southwest of the site. No
evidence of ground fault rupture was observed at the time of our site reconnaissance. An excerpt of
the DNR Faulty Hazard Map is included as Figure 8. Therefore, the site should = be considered to
be in a seismic hazard area.
Seismic Design
The site is located in the Puget Sound region of western Washington, which is seismically
active. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific,Juan de
Fuca, and North American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North American
plate at the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). This produces both intercrustal (between plates) and
intracrustal (within a plate) earthquakes. In the following sections we discuss the design criteria and
potential hazards associated with the regional seismicity.
Seismic Site Class
Based on our observations and the subsurface units mapped at the site, we interpret the
structural site conditions to correspond to a seismic Site Class "C" in accordance with the 2018 IBC
documents and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standard 7-16 Chapter 20 Table 20.3-1.
This is based on the assumed range of SPT blow counts of the soils encountered. These conditions
are assumed to be representative for the subsurface across the site.
Design Parameters
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA)
for the entire country in November 1996, which were updated and republished in 2002 and 2008.
We used the ATC Hazard by Location website to estimate seismic design parameters at the site. Table
4, below, summarizes the recommended design parameters.
®��
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23,2021
page 1 12
TABLE 4:
2018 I8C PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN OFSEISMIC57RUCTURES
Spectral Response Acceleration (SRA)and Site Short 1 Second
Coefficients Period Period
Mapped SRA SS = 1.272g Si = 0.442g
Site Coefficients (Site Class C) Fa = 1.2 F = 1.5
Maximum Considered Earthquake SRA Sans = 1.5269 SM, = 0.6639
Design SRA SDs = 1.0179 SD1 =0.6639
Peak Ground Acceleration
The mapped peak ground acceleration (PGA)for this site is 0.50g. To account for site class, the
PGA is multiplied by a site amplification factor (FPGA) of 1.2. The resulting site modified peak ground
acceleration (PGAM) is 0.60g. In general, estimating seismic earth pressures (kh) by the Mononobe-
Okabe method are taken as 30 to 50 percent of the PGAM, or 0.20g to 0.30g.
Seismic Hazards
Earthquake-induced geologic hazards may include liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope
instability, and ground surface fault rupture. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a
reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in pore water pressure in soils. The
increase in pore water pressure is induced by seismic vibrations. Liquefaction primarily affects
geologically recent deposits of loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands and granular silts that are
below the groundwater table. The soils encountered in our explorations consist of medium stiff silts
in the sloping portion of the site and the regional groundwater table is relatively deep. The shallow
seasonal or perched water table will be mitigated based on the recommendations contained herein.
Additionally, the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington (Palmer, et al, 2004)
indicates the site and surrounding area have a "very low to low" liquefaction susceptibility.
The ground surface at and near the project site slopes down toward the Hood Canal;
therefore, the potential for earthquake-induced slope instability on the site is moderate. According
to the Department of Natural Resources Geologic Information Portal, the site is located north of the
Sunset Beach scarp and the Tacoma Fault Zone. An excerpt of the DNR fault map is included as
Figure 8. An excerpt of this map is included as Figure 8. No evidence of ground fault rupture was
observed in the subsurface explorations or out site reconnaissance. In our opinion, the proposed
structure should have no greater risk for ground fault rupture than other structures located in the
area.
Foundation Support
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the locations explored and our
understanding of the preliminary plans, we recommend that spread footings be founded on the
dense advance outwash, the dense glacial till, or on appropriately prepared structural fill that
extends to suitable native soils. The soil at the base of the excavations should be disturbed as little
as possible. All loose, soft, or unsuitable material should be removed or recompacted, as
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23 2021
page 1 13
appropriate. A representative from our firm should observe the foundation excavations to
determine if suitable bearing surfaces have been prepared.
We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated spread footings and at least 18
inches for continuous wall footings. All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches
below grade for frost protection. Footings founded as described above on the gravelly outwash soils
or on structural fill may be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf
(pounds per square foot). This value is for combined dead and long-term live loads. The weight of
the footing and any overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be
increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs and as
passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of
0.40 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure
may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot).
Factors of safety have been applied to these values.
We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be
less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between
comparably loaded footings of 1/2 inch or less. Given the granular nature of the soils encountered at
the site, most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied; however,
disturbance of the foundation bearing surface during construction could result in larger settlements
than estimated.
Floor Slab Support
The medium dense to dense advance outwash, dense glacial till, or compacted structural fill
would provide a suitable subgrade for floor slabs constructed on grade. Where underlain by fill, we
recommend that the slabs be supported by a subgrade consisted of a minimum 12 inches of clean
structural fill. We recommend that a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 200 pounds per
cubic inch (pci) be used in the design of the floor slab-on-grade on the dense glacial till, medium
dense to dense advance outwash or on compacted, structural fill.
To provide firm bedding for floor slab, we recommend areas be prepared as described
above. The exposed soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD as determined by
Modified Proctor(ASTM D1557) and to a dense and unyielding condition. All fill under slab-on-grade
floors, including backfill for footing excavations, over-excavated areas, utilities, etc., should consist of
compacted structural fill.
Assuming below-grade building areas are constructed with long-term drainage, a capillary
break should be installed. We recommend that at-grade structures have a capillary break also. For
capillary break, we recommend that a minimum 4 inch thick layer of washed pea gravel (3A-inch to
US No. 8 sieve size) or clean %-inch crushed rock (less than 2 percent passing the US No. 200 sieve)
and a vapor retarder be placed beneath floor slabs. If pea gravel is used, a 2-inch layer of clean
crushed rock can be placed over a 4-inch minimum layer of washed pea gravel to provide a firmer
working surface on which to place the slab reinforcement.
A synthetic vapor retarder is strongly recommended to control moisture migration through
the slabs. This is of particular importance where the foundation elements are underlain by the silty
native soils, or where moisture migration through the slab is an issue, such as where adhesives are
used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab.
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG '
November 23, 2021
page 1 14
Prior to placing pea gravel and/or crushed rock for a working surface or capillary break, the
exposed subgrade surface should be evaluated by a representative of our firm and compacted as
need to achieve a dense, unyielding condition.
Cast-in-Place Retaining Walls
The lateral pressures acting on retaining walls (such as basement or grade separation walls)
will depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall as well as the presence or absence
of hydrostatic pressure. Below we provide recommended design values and drainage
recommendations for retaining walls.
Design Values
For walls backfilled with granular well-drained soil and a level backslope, the design active
pressure may be taken as 35 pcf (equivalent fluid density). For walls that are braced or otherwise
restrained, the design at-rest pressure may be taken as 55 pcf. For the condition of an inclined back
slope, higher lateral pressures would act on the walls. For a 3H:1 V(Horizontal to Vertical) slope above
the wall, the active pressure may be taken as 48 pcf; for a 2H:1V back slope condition, a wall design
pressures of 55 pcf may be assumed If basement walls taller than 6 feet are required, as seismic
surcharge of 15H should be included where required by the code. If walls will be constructed with a
backslope and will be braced or otherwise restrained against movement, we should be notified so that
we can evaluate the anticipated conditions and recommend an appropriate at-rest earth pressure.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and as passive pressure on
the sides of footings and the buried portion of the wall, as described in the "Foundation Support"
section of this report.
Wall Drainage
Adequate drainage behind retaining structures is imperative. Positive drainage which
controls the development of hydrostatic pressure can be accomplished by placing a zone of
drainage behind the walls. Granular drainage material should contain less than 2 percent fines and
at least 30 percent retained on the US No. 4 sieve. A geocomposite drain mat may also be used
instead of free draining soils, provided it is installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions.
A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be placed in the drainage
zone along the base and behind the wall to provide an outlet for accumulated water and direct
accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a nonwoven
geotextile filter fabric be placed between the soil drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to
reduce silt migration into the drainage zone. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can, with
time, reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed such that it
fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the
drainage zone. Typical wall drainage and backfilling details are shown on Figure 9.
A soil drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall.
The drainage zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the
wall. The soil drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry
density(MDD), as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Over-compaction should be avoided
as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures on the wall.
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23, 2021
page 1 15
Site Drainage
All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks at the site should be sloped away from the
structures. The site should be graded to ensure positive drainage away from all structures, property
lines, and the steep slopes on and adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. Surface water runoff
from the roof areas, driveways, perimeter footing drains, and wall drains should be collected,
tightlined, and conveyed to an appropriate discharge point. We recommend that footing drains be
installed for the proposed structures in accordance with IBC 1805.4.2.
Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations
Mason County has adopted the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (2012 SWMMWW). Based on the results of our site reconnaissance, observations,
subsurface explorations, and laboratory test results, it is our opinion that onsite infiltration of the
stormwater runoff is feasible in the advance outwash soils encountered in test pits TP-16, TP-19, TP-
20, and TP-22 through TP-28. However, infiltration does not appear feasible within the glacial till or
glaciolacustrine soils encountered at the site.
Infiltration Rate:
Volume III, Section 3.3.6 of the 2012 SWMMWW allows for the infiltration rate to be
determined using the soil gradation based on the work done by Massmann. Per Method 2 Soil
Gradation Testing at Full Scale Infiltration Facilities, we recommend a preliminary design infiltration
rate 4 inches per hour in silty sand with trace gravel advance outwash soils (encountered in test pits
TP-19, TP-23, TP-24, and TP-25) and up to 20 inches per hour in the sandy well graded gravel advance
outwash soils (encountered in test pits TP-20, TP-22, TP-26, TP-27 and TP-28). Appropriate factors of
safety have been applied to this value in accordance with the 2012 SWMMWW. We recommend that
in-situ verification tests be performed at the time of construction to verify the provided infiltration
rate. We recommend all infiltration facilities be constructed in accordance with the 2012 SWMMWW.
The 2012 manual will require onsite infiltration testing for glacially consolidated soils. The
above rate can be used for plan and design of the system but actual measured rates will be required
for final design.
Treatment
Per the 2012 SWMMWW, soils are required to have greater than 5meq per 100 grams of
cation exchange capacity and greater than 1 percent organic content for treatment. We had an
independent testing company perform testing for cation exchange capacity and organic content on
shallow samples obtained from test pits TP-2, TP-10, TP-19, and TP-27. Based on the test results, the
soils in the areas sampled exceed to the necessary organic content for treatment but do not meet or
exceed the threshold for cation exchange capacity, so soil amendments will be necessary.
Erosion Control
No evidence of surficial raveling or sloughing was observed at the site at the time of our
visits. To manage and reduce the potential erosion at the site, we recommend erosion protection
measures will need to be in place prior to construction activity on the site. Erosion hazards can be
mitigated by applying Best Management Practices (BMPs)outlined in the 2012 SWMMWW.
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustrial.RG
November 23, 2021
page 1 16
Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow land sliding are natural
processes that affect slope areas. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural processes,
we recommend the following:
• No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto or near the
slope area.
• Grading should be limited to providing surface grades that promote surface flows
away from the top of slope to an appropriate discharge location beyond the toe of the
slope.
Erosion protection measures should be in place prior to the start of construction activity on
the site and should be maintained throughout construction and until final site stabilization is
established. Where native vegetation is removed, a dense vegetative groundcover, grass lawn, or
native vegetation should be reestablished as soon as feasible. Erosion control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) contained in the adopted 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington, such as jute matting or straw wattles, should be installed and maintained until
vegetation has been reestablished.
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation
All areas of the site to be repaired should be stripped of organic surface soils and other
deleterious materials. We anticipate stripping depths for the development to be on the order of
about 1/2 to 1 3/4 feet. Where placement of fill material is required,the stripped and exposed subgrade
areas should be compacted to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of any fill.
Excavations for debris removal should be backfilled with structural fill compacted to the densities
described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. Any utility lines that are being replaced or
abandoned should be removed, and/or plugged or capped, as appropriate.
We recommend that a member of our staff evaluate the exposed subgrade conditions after
stripping is completed and prior to placement of structural fill and or base coarse material for the
parking areas. The exposed subgrade soil should be probed with a 1/z-inch-diameter steel T-probe.
Any soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during probing should be
recompacted, if practical, or over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. The depth and extent
of overexcavation should be evaluated by our field representative at the time of construction.
Structural Fill
All material placed as fill associated with mass grading under building areas should be
placed as structural fill or as utility backfill. The structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of
appropriate thickness to allow adequate and uniform compaction of each lift. Fill should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM D1557.
The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and the compaction
equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field
representative during construction, and that our representative be present during site grading
activities to observe the work and perform field density tests, as appropriate.
GEORESOURCES
Rush,Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23,2021
page 1 17
The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture
content of the soil. As the percent of fines (material passing US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil
becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction
becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend use of well-graded sand
and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the US No. 200 sieve based on that fraction
passing the 3/4-inch sieve, such as "Gravel Backfill for Walls"(9-03.12(2)) or"Bank Run Gravel for Trench
Backfill' (9-03.19). If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation
installation phase of construction, higher fines content(up to 10 to 12 percent) may be acceptable.
Material placed as structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter, trash, and cobbles
greater than 6-inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as
necessary for proper compaction.
Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill
During dry weather construction, non-organic onsite soil may be considered for use as
structural fill, provided it meets the criteria described above in the "Structural Fill" section and can
be compacted as recommended. If the soil material is over optimum moisture at the time of
excavation, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural fill.
The advance outwash and glacial till soils encountered in our explorations are generally
comparable to "Common Borrow" (WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-03.14(3)), while the gravelly
outwash soils encountered is generally comparable to "Select Borrow" (WSDOT Standard
Specifications 9-03.14(2)). These soils may be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the
moisture content is maintained within 2 percent of the optimum moisture level. It should be noted
that because of the amount of fines content in the glacial till soils, they may become difficult or
impossible to adequately compact during periods of wet weather or if they become saturated.
The glaciolacustrine soils encountered at the site are generally not suitable for use as
structural fill. Because of the high fines content, these soils are extremely moisture sensitive, and
will be difficult to impossible to compact during wet weather conditions or where seepage occurs.
After excavation, these soils should be used in limited applications for nonstructural fill in
landscaping areas.
We recommend that completed graded-areas be restricted from traffic or protected prior to
wet weather conditions. The graded areas may be protected by paving, placing asphalt-treated
base, a layer of free-draining material such as pit run sand and gravel or clean crushed rock material
containing less than 5 percent fines, or some combination of the above.
Temporary Excavations
All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor providing
services/work. The following temporary cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes
only. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations or utility installation.
Where there is not enough area for sloped excavations, temporary shoring should be provided. If
shallow temporary shoring is required, we recommend that it be designed to withstand the lateral
earth pressures provided in the "Cast-in-Place Retaining Walls"section of this report.
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and
retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements including
the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfair Ind ustria1.RG
November 23,2021
page 1 18
Administration (WISHA). Excavation, trenching, and shoring is covered under the WAC 296-155 Part
N.
Based on the WAC 296-155-66401, it is our opinion that the upper weathered soils and
lacustrine soil at the site would be classified as Type C soils, while the lower glacially consolidated
soils would be classified as Type A soils. According to WAC 296-155-66403, for temporary
excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be sloped at a
maximum inclination of 11/zH:1V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope, and Type A soils should
be laid back at a slope inclination of 0.751-1:1V or flatter. All exposed slope faces should be covered
with a durable reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent slope raveling and
rutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a
minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that
significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where
significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled along the slope
crest.
Where it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a retaining structure
should be considered. Retaining structures greater than 4-feet in height(bottom of footing to top of
structure) or that have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them, should be engineered per
Washington Administrative Code (WAC 51-16-080 item 5). This information is provided solely for the
benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that
GeoResources assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the
sole responsibility of the project contractor.
Construction Observation
We recommend that GeoResources, LLC be retained to observe the geotechnical aspects of
construction including foundations. This observation would allow us to verify the subsurface
conditions as they are exposed during construction and to determine that work is accomplished in
accordance with our recommendations. If conditions encountered during construction differ from
those anticipated, we can provide recommendations and mitigation for the conditions encountered.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this revised report for use by Rush Development, Apex Engineering, Mr.
David Overton, and other members of the design team to address code compliance requirements
imposed by Mason County. The data used in preparing this report and this report should be provided
to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes only. Our report, conclusions and
interpretations are based on data from others and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be
construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also occur
with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to
provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ
from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities
comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services
related to environmental remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23, 2021
page 1 19
not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as
specifically described in our report for consideration in design.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No
other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.
—..''�—�_
GEORESOURCES
Rush.Belfairindustria1.RG
November 23,2021
page 120
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any
questions or require additional services, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoResources, LLC
Davis Carlsen, GIT
Staff Geologist
t
L
/ IA►�I
Engineeriny Geologid �G925
j$jti�gCjti`
KEITH SCOTT SCHEMES
Keith S. Schembs, LEG Eric W. Heller, PE, LG
Principal Senior Geotechnical Engineer
DC:KSS:EWH/dc
DoclD:Rush.Belfairindustrial.RG
Attachments: Figure 1:Site Location Map
Figure 2:Site&Exploration Plan
Figure 3:Site Vicinity Map
Figure 4:NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5:Geologic Map
Figure 6:Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area Map
Figure 7:Liquefaction Susceptibility of Mason County
Figure 8:DNR Fault Hazard Map
Figure 9:Typical Wall Drainage&Backfilling Detail
Appendix A:Subsurface Explorations
Appendix B:Laboratory Test Results
GEORESOURCES
I
e r6merton
I 111du Sh uI
e` I Parh
Y`
Bre"rton Coutler Creek Scrwre Greek
.fi Lake State
National Airport Heritage Park 5„11 Falk 4'
4N
I
- J
Wicks
Lake!
Ea IlalI I Preserve
I
1
� 4
I U`
I
I .z
1 �
h--u:.II I
Slate j
irk I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ho r ee shoe
Lake Golf
j PIERCE _t11
I
Lakeland
V it laW
Golf
Course I
�.Il:il 1
Approximate Site location
Map created from Mason County Public GIS (https://gis.co.mason.wa.us/mason/)
A
1
Not to Scale
Site Location Map
_ Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechilical eligmeering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure 1
r
I
1
1,
II
/
Notes: Site & Exploration Plan
Site Plan prepared by Apex Engineering Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
TP-# Exploration number and approximate locations (G Mason County, Washington
321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
rindustriaLF November 2021 Figure 2
r - -
\ZA
xIN
1 s
66
or
1 I
Approximat Site Location
Map created from Mason County Public GIS(https://gis.co.mason.wa.us/mason/)
Approximate area of proposed development
�R
6 Not to Scale
Site Vicinity Map
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 F Figure 3
46
01
YV
'� �� a j, R; J `..• � ' �F', ' � ��-. �' �"'-�'�`i�"`..,.� R,r;-1.f• •�-!` I,
F t ►• �`. e k "4�" ,• ., "M "*M•
UPAW
, a �. .,.d. ~ r�y `4,1 gyp+!' •. t ;C. •'/' j� y.��• ` t,
' •. � �t 1 ''s rr'.���,, fi, + � y1,':`ti fir. �r +
PV
Approximate Site Location
Figure created from shapefile AOI downloaded from Web Soil Survey
(http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx)
Soil Soil Name Parent Material Slopes (%) Erosion Hydrologic
Type Hazard Soils Group
1 Alderwood 0 to 8 Slight
gravelly sandy Glacial Drift and/or glacial outwash over dense loam B
Ab glaciomarine deposits 8 to 15 Moderate
Ed 0 to 5 Slight
Everett gravelly Glacial Outwash A
Ee loamy sand 5 to 15 Moderate
Not to Scale
NRCS Soils Map
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geoteclimcal engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rock,
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure 4
r-'' ty,��1 Ir✓'y.
Ogic
og-
i
i:1�Z 4
�O-OG
l
r up
} _6
;>•� �� r 1J
J�f °°
Q a _
P
OwQJI ap, r,� �•;��.��
r I
,Cow
Opd0
..�-aa1 f ` ' ,-�OF � b9d�� rl
rl 1
� f
J , O l r.
LOV
Approximate Site Location
An excerpt from the Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington
by Michael Polenz, Katelin Alldritt, Nicholas J. Hehemann, Isabelle Y. Sarikhan, and Robert L. Logan (July 2009)
Qgic Vashon glacial ice-contact deposits
Qgt Vashon till
A
1
Not to Scale
Geologic Map
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure 5
1} I .J -E
!` R
f) 1M
A�tL7EM L 9.YNG'w �;
f
Approximate Site Location
Map created from Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington by Mackey Smith and R.J. Carson WA
Department of Natural Resources
Class 2:Areas believed to be stable under normal conditions
Class 3: Areas inferred to be unstable
`\
%V+i
Not to Scale
Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood
Canal Area Map
Proposed Commercial Development
G E O R E S O U R C E S xxx - State Route 3
Mason County, Washington
Paclsce Fre & geo253.896.1011 alengineering
ggo e ring PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809ie w9 I rock5
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 T Figure 6
f 0,.,ff
r �
! I f r A ( a
;i
Approximate Site Location
Map created from Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington
By Stephen P. Palmer, Sammantha L. Magsino, Eric L. Bilderback,James L. Poelstra, Derek S. Folger, and Rebecca A.
Niggemann
Liquefaction susceptibility: VERY LOW
Liquefaction susceptibility: LOW
Not to Scale
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Mason
County
,.� Proposed Commercial Development
G E O R E S O U R C E S xxx - State Route 3
a Mason County, Washington
4809 Pa ific Hwy.Erth .
e1 Fife,WA 98424 01 253.896.1011 11 I 1 engineering
glor souircegrocks
PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure 7
a
/+ R 1 o
,S
Belfair
0
., SW L Au Helena Rd
P,q,'
/ SW
•
Y
h
N
0�
� C
- i
Sunset Beach Scarp i Z
3 I _
a
13621
Allyn I -
I t -Sr 302 N
Approximate Site location
An excerpt from the WA DNR Geologic Information Portal (https://matterhornwab.co.pierce.wa.us/publicgis/)
Not to Scale
DNR Fault Hazard Map
- Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 I Figure 8
SLOPED TO DRAIN ELOW GRADE WALL
AWAY FROM STRUCTURE
RAINAGE SAND AND GRAVEL
(SEE NOTE 3)
PAVEMENT OR 18' _
DAMP PROOFING
IMPERVIOUS SOILS
WEEP HOLES (SEE NOTE 1)
WALL BACKFILL
SEE NOTE 2
F' LOOR SLAB
fir.•.
EXCAVATION SLOPE •. —VAPOR RETARDER
CONTRACTOR'S REPSONSIBILITY 5Z '`.' "'''' ''.�."' ''•' = -:)=
00
Z
6" MIN ON SIDES OF PIPE; ?
2" BELOW Z Zn
Q � 00
WASHED PEA GRAVEL/CLEAN
N CRUSHED GRAVEL
ERIMETER / SUBDRAIN PIPE
1. Washed pea gravel/crushed rock beneath floor slab could be 6. The subdrain should consist of 4"diameter(minimum),
hydraulically connected to perimeter/subdrain pipe.Use of 1" slotted or perforated plastic pipe meeting the requirements
diameter weep holes as shown is one applicable method.Crushed of AASHTO M 304;1/8-inch maximum slot width;3/16-to 3/8-
gravel should consist of 3/4"minus.Washed pea gravel should consist inch perforated pipe holes in the lower half of pipe,with
of 3/8"to No.8 standard sieve. lower third segment unperforated for water flow;tight joints;
sloped at a minimum of 6"/100'to drain;cleanouts to be
2. Wall backfill should meet WSDOT Gravel Backfill for Walls Specification provided at regular intervals.
9-03-12(2).
7. Surround subdrain pipe with 8 inches(minimum)of washed
3. Drainage sand and gravel backfill within 18"of wall should be pea gravel(2"below pipe"or 5/8"minus clean crushed gravel.
compacted with hand-operated equipment.Heavy equipment should Washed pea gravel to be graded from 3/8-inch to No.8
not be used for backfill,as such equipment operated near the wall standard sieve.
could increase lateral earth pressures and possibly damage the wall.
The table below presents the drainage sand and gravel gradation. 8. See text for floor slab subgrade preparation.
4. All wall back fill should be placed in layers not exceeding 4"loose
thickness for light equipment and 8"for heavy equipment and should
be densely compacted.Beneath paved or sidewalk areas,compact to Materials
at least 95%Modified Proctor maximum density(ASTM:01557-70 Drainage Sand and Gravel 1/4"Minus Crushed Gravel
Method Q.In landscaping areas,compact to 90%minimum. Sieve Size %Passing by Sieve Size Rio Passing by
Wei ht Wei ht
5. Drainage sand and gravel may be replaced with a geocomposite core '/4" 100 3/4" 100
sheet drain placed against the wall and connected to the subdrain No 4 28-56 vJ^ 75-100
pipe.The geocomposite core sheet should have a minimum No 8 20-50 v4" 0-25
transmissivity of 3.0 gallons/minute/foot when tested under a gradient No 50 3-12 No 100 0-2
of 1.0 according to ASTM 04716. No 100 0-2 (b wet sievin ) I (non-plastic)
Typical Wall Drainage & Backfill Detail
amp � Proposed Commercial Development
0"
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy,E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 I www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure 9
Appendix A
Subsurface Explorations
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
COARSE
GRAINED More than 50% GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS Of Coarse Fraction WITH FINES
Retained on GC CLAYEY GRAVEL
No.4 Sieve
SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND,FINE TO COARSE SAND
More than 50% SP POORLY-GRADED SAND
Retained on
No.200 Sieve More than 50% SAND SM SILTY SAND
Of Coarse Fraction WITH FINES
Passes Sc CLAYEY SAND
No.4 Sieve
SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT
FINE CL CLAY
GRAINED
SOILS Liquid Limit ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT,ORGANIC CLAY
Less than 50
SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY,ELASTIC SILT
More than 50% CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAY
Passes
No.200 Sieve Liquid Limit ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY,ORGANIC SILT
50 or more
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry- Absence of moisture,dry to the touch
in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
Moist- Damp,but no visible water
2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on
ASTM D6913. Wet- Visible free water or saturated,usually soil is
obtained from below water table
3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data,visual appearance of
soils,and or test data.
Unified Soils Classification System
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-1
Test Pit TP-1
Location: Northern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:347 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/4 3 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
3 15 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 1 S feet below ground surface(bgs).
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 3 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-2
Location: Northern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:346 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 - 1 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1 - 23/4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
23/4 - 133/4 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 133/4 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 21h feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 7, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx — State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www,georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-2
Test Pit TP-3
Location: Northern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:340 feet
Depth (ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 13/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
13/4 31h SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
31/2 151/2 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 151/2 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 41/4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-4
Location: Northeastern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:347 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 3/4 - Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
3/4 21h SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,occasional cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered
Glacial Till)
21/2 14 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 14 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 31/4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 7, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. 1 Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www,georesources.rocks
DodD: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-3
Test Pit TP-5
Location: Northern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:345 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 3/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
3/4 31/4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
31/4 151/2 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 151/2 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 3 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-6
Location: Western Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:340 feet
Depth (ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
Y2 23/4 ML Brown sandy SILT(medium stiff, moist)(Weathered Glaciolacustrine Deposits)
23/4 - 41/2 ML Grey sandy SILT(medium stiff, moist)(Glaciolacustrine Deposits)
4Y2 16 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 16 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 1 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 7, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy,E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-4
Test Pit TP-7
Location: Eastern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:350 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1 - 21/4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
21/4 111/2 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 11 Y2 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 41/2 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-8
Location: Central Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:348 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 3/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
3/4 33/4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
33/4 133/4 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 133/4 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 7, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-5
Test Pit TP-9
Location: Central Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:345 feet
Depth (ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/2 41/4 sM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
41/4 14 SM Grey poorly graded gravelly SAND with some silt, occasional cobbles(dense to very dense,
moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 14 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 5 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-10
Location: Western Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:337 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 3/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
3/4 21/2 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
21/2 14 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 14 feet below ground surface(bgs).
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 3 Y2 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 8, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx — State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife.WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-6
Test Pit TP-11
Location: Southeastern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:355 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1/2 - 13/4 ML Brown sandy SILT(medium stiff, moist)(Weathered Glaciolacustrine Deposits)
13/4 3 ML Grey sandy SILT(medium stiff, moist)(Glaciolacustrine Deposits)
3 15 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 15 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 1 foot bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-12
Location: Central Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:349 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 Y2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1/2 - 3 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
3 151/2 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 151/2 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 8, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. i Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-7
Test Pit TP-13
Location: Central Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:344 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1 23/4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
23/4 133/4 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 133/4 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 3'/4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-14
Location: Southwestern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:339 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 '/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
'/2 1'/2 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
1'/2 14 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 14 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 3 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 8, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
"""' xxx — State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy,E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DodD: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-8
Test Pit TP-15
Location: Southeastern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation: 352 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 3/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
3/4 - 2 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
2 131/z SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 13Yz feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 31/z feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-16
Location: Southeastern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:349 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1/2 - 3 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
3 121/2 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
121/z 141/2 SP-SM Grey poorly graded sand with some silt and gravel(dense, moist)(Advance Outwash)
141/2 161/z ML Grey SILT(very stiff, moist)(Glaciolacustrine deposits(Pre-Vashon))
Terminated at 161/2 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 31/4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 8, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-9
Test Pit TP-17
Location: Southern Portion, Rush Industrial
Approximate Elevation:346 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1/2 11/4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
11/4 15 SM Grey gravelly silty SAND,with some occasional cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial
Till)
Terminated at 15 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 2 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-18
Location: Southwestern Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:337 feet
Depth (ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/2 3 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, occasional cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered
Glacial Till)
3 14 SM Grey silty gravelly SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
Terminated at 14 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 8, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-10
Test Pit TP-19
Location: Utility Tract, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation: 320 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/4 31/4 SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with some silt and trace gravel(medium dense, moist)
(Weathered Advance Outwash)
31/4 161/2 SP-SM Grey poorly graded SAND with increasing silt with depth,trace gravel(dense, moist)
(Advance Outwash)
Terminated at 161/2 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 14 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-20
Location: Utility Tract, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:322 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/4 31/4 GP Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with some sand(medium dense to dense,dry to moist)
(Weathered Advance Outwash)
31/4 14 GP Tan-brown sandy poorly graded GRAVEL(dense,dry to moist)(Advance Outwash)
Terminated at 14 feet bgs.
No Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at time of excavation
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 8, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx — State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-11
Test Pit TP-21
Location: Central Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:332 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1 23/4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,occasional cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered
Glacial Till)
23/4 113/4 SM Grey silty gravelly SAND,with some occasional cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial
Till)(hit rock>4 feet in diameter)
Terminated at 113/4 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 3 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-22
Location: Southeastern Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:317 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1 21h SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered
Advance Outwash)
21/2 - 15 GW Grey sandy well-graded GRAVEL, some cobbles(dense, dry to moist)(Advance Outwash)
Terminated at 15 feet bgs.
No Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at time of excavation
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 8, 2021
Test Pit Logs
�� '° Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy,E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-12
Test Pit TP-23
Location: Southeastern Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:321 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/4 - 31/2 sM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered
Advance Outwash)
31/2 14 SM Grey silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Advance
Outwash)
Terminated at 14 feet bgs.
No Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at time of excavation
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-24
Location: Western Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:315 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
1 3 SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with some Silt and gravel(medium dense, moist)(Weathered
Advance Outwash)
3 143/4 SM Grey silty SAND with trace gravel, increase in silt with depth(dense, moist)(Advance
Outwash)
Terminated at 143/4 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 9 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 9, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx — State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 1 2321-41 00000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID:Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-13
Test Pit TP-25
Location:Western Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:317 feet
Depth (ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/4 3 SM Brown fine silty sand with trace gravels(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Advance
Outwash)
3 141/4 SM Grey silty SAND with trace gravel, increase in gravel with depth (dense to very dense, moist)
(Advance Outwash)
Terminated at 141/4 feet bgs.
No Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at time of excavation
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-26
Location: Western Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:320 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 11/2 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
11/i 4 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
4 10 SM Grey silty gravelly SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
10 161/4 GP Grey poorly graded GRAVEL with some sand(dense,dry to moist)(Advance Outwash)
Terminated at 161/4 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 31h feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 9, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. i Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 Figure A-14
Test Pit TP-27
Location: Northern Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:335 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 1 Dark brown top soil/forest duff
1 3 GM Brown sandy silty GRAVEL,some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial Till)
3 11 SM Grey silty gravelly SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
11 151/2 GP Grey poorly graded GRAVEL with some sand (dense, dry to moist)(Advance Outwash)
Terminated at 15Y2 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 4 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation
Test Pit TP-28
Location: Northwestern Portion, Belfair Gateway
Approximate Elevation:332 feet
Depth(ft) Soil Type Soil Description
0 3/4 Dark brown topsoil/forest duff
3/ 2 SM Brown silty SAND with some gravel, some cobbles(medium dense, moist)(Weathered Glacial
Till)
2 9 SM Grey silty gravelly SAND,with some cobbles(dense to very dense, moist)(Glacial Till)
9 16 GP Grey poorly graded GRAVEL with some sand (dense, dry to moist)(Advance Outwash)
Terminated at 16 feet bgs.
Iron oxide staining/mottling observed at approximately 3 feet bgs.
No groundwater seepage observed at the time of excavation.
No caving observed at time of excavation.
Logged by: DC Excavated on:July 9, 2021
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Commercial Development
xxx - State Route 3
GE 0 R E S 0 U R C E S Mason County, Washington
earth science & geotechnical engineering PN: 12321-4100000, -4300130, -4400000, -1400001
4809 Pacific Hwy.E. I Fife,WA 98424 1 253.896.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks
DocID: Rush.Belfairindustrial.F November 2021 1 Figure A-15
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
Particle Size Distribution Report
pp o�yy {p� pp pp g �Q
100 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
90 1 I I I I I
I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1
I 1 I t I 1 I 1 I I I I I I
80 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
� 70
UJ
IT
Z 60 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
L.L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Z 50 1 1
11.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
40 I I I I I I I I I I I
w I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I
30 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I
I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
�+— ° 3. %Gravel %Sand %Flnes
4) E °; Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
0.0 3.8 9.8 6.2 1 17.0 34.6 1 28.6
ASTM D 6913& ASTM D 1140
)�g c ( Material Description
Test Results
c v Opening Percent Spec.' Pass? Gravelly Silty SAND(SM)
a Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
(D 1 100.0
co .75 96.2 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 43181
.5 94.8 PL= NP LL= NV PI= NP
occ 0.375 91.9
c #4 86.4 Classification
) #10 R02 USCS(D 2487)= SM AASHTO(M 145)= A-2-4(0)
#20 74.3 Coefficients
c c #40 63.2 D90= 7.8684 D85= 3.8817 06o= 0.3780
m #60 47.4 D50= 0.2732 D30= 0.0891 D15=
0 c #100 36.0 D10= Cu= Cc=
E #200 28.6 Remarks
p Natural Moisture:8.2%
H a)
y Date Received: 7/8/21 Date Tested: 7/9/21
m Tested By: MAW
X _
Checked B KSS
a) E y' — - --
' vim, Title: PM
(no specification provided)
co o Location:TP-11,S-1 Date Sampled: 7/8/21
Sample Number: 102216 Depth: 10'
� o
_ GeoResources, LLC Client: Rush Development
y Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
N t0
d
Fife, WA Project No: RU H.BelfairIndustrial Figure B-2
Tested By: --- Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
CE �" AA
gg
100 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
80 I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
70 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Z 60 I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LL I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
Z 50
w I I I I I I I t 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Of 40 I I I I I I I I I I
L1.1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I
10 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O I I 1 I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
>,- %Gravel %Sand _ _ %Fines
E /,+3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
d _ 0.0 1 21.9 44.9 K.7 10.7 11.9 1.9
Test Results(ASTM D 6913& ASTM D 1140) Material Description
o v Opening Percent Spec.` Pass? Sandy poorly graded GRAVEL with trace Silt(GP)
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fall)
3 2.0 100.0
co 1.5 90.9 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318�
1.25 86.0 PL= NP LL= NV Piz NP
f0 1 84.2
0 0 .75 78.1 Classification
L > S 59.3 USCS(D 2487)= GP AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-a
3 y,
`o •2 0.375 48.9 Coefficients
c c #4 33.2 D90= 37.0732 D85= 29.1641 D60= 12.8879
y #10 24.5 D50= 9.8630 D30Q 3.7515 D15= 0.4656
c #20 19.4 D10= 0.3389 Cu- 38.03 Cc= 3.22
at o #40 13.8 Remarks
#60 5.2
0 -0 #100 2.6 Natural Moisture:2.7%
fA M #200 1.9
Date Received: 7/8/21 Date Tested: 7/9/21
xTested By: MAW
0) a Checked By: KSS
m E -
v�i Title: PM _
w o
$ (no specification provided)
co ° Location:TP-20,S-1 Date Sampled: 7/8/21
4e SaInDle Number: 102217 h:7'
� o
GeoResources, LLC Client: Rush Development
Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
y �
N
Fife, WA Project No: RUSH.BelfairIndustrial Figure B-
Tested By: Checked By:
>t �
Particle Size Distribution Report
100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I
90 I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
80 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
70 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LU
I I I I I I I I I I
Z 60 I I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I
Z 50 I I
W I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
U I I I I I I I I I I I I I
40 I I I I I I 1 I I I
W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
20 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
0 I I I I I I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE mm.
- ,��+3„ %Gravel %Sand %Fines
E Coarse Flno Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
N 0.0 1 45.6 1 26.1 8.2 12.7 7.1 0.3
m @
Test Results(ASTM D 8913 8 ASTM D 1140) Material Description
C Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Sandy well-graded GRAVEL(GW)
d Z Size Finer (Percent) (X-Fall)
3.0 100.0
co 2.5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 43182
2.0 100.0 PL= NP LL= NV Pin NP
m
1.5 90.5
0 c 1.25 81.0 Classification
3 a 1 65.5 USCS(D 2487)= GW AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-a
.75 54.4 Coefficients
.5 44.1 D90= 37.6447 D85= 34.0039 D60= 22.6842
y 0.375 39.5 D50= 16.2857 D300 5.3236 D19= 1.0249
v c #4 28.3 D10= 0.5630 Cum 40.29 Cc= 2.22
a� #10 20.1
IT Remarks
o v #4# 00 17.4 Natural Moisture:2.6%
0 coo #60 2.5
#100 0.8
#200 0.3 Date Received: 7/9/21 Date Tested: 7/9/21
Tested By: MAW
x _
(D F Checked By: KSS
h Title: PM
m
$ (no specification provided)
co ° Location:TP-22,S-1 Date Sampled: 7/9/21
40 - S8MDie Number: 102218 a th:6'_
75 o
_ Client: Rush Development
GeoResources, LLC
Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
W
l` Fife, WA Pro Oct No. RUSH.Belfairindustrial Fi ure B-4
Tested By: Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
100 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
80
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
70 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
LU
I I I I I I I I I I I
_Z 60 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
Z 50
w I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I
40 I I I I 1 I I I
ll.l I 1 I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
d I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
30 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
10 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
0 I I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
4) GRAIN SIZE-mm
>+ a y0° +3. %Gravel %Sand %Fines
2 E Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
y 0.0 0.0 1 2.6 6.7 18.3 60.1 12.3
m
'fig
Test Results ASTM D 6913& ASTM D 1140 c ( ) Material Description
o :2 Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Silty SAAND with trace Gravel(SM)
d Z Size Finer (Percent) (X■Fall)
3 0.375 100.0
> to #4 97.4 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 43181
#10 90.7 PL= NP LL= NV Pin NP
co #20 82.9
Classification
t 4) #40 72.4 USCS(D 2487)= SM AASHTO(M 145)= A-2-4(0)
3 > #60 47.0
`o :� #100 25.5 Coefficients
c c #200 12.3 D90= 1.8647 Dgge 1.1117 D60= 0.3209
m } D50= 0.2650 D30e 0.1711 D15= 0.0916
v c D10= cu. cc=
Remarks
o v Natural Moisture:6.1%
0 W
yDate Received: 7/9/21 Date Tested: 7/9/21
Xm Tested By: MAW
m Checked By: KSS
a) E —
" 0 Title:PM
42 m
Z (no specification provided)
Location:TP-25,S-1
Date Sampled: 7/9/21
.4 Sam le Number: 102219 Deoth: IO'
N C
_ GeoResources, LLC Client: Rush Development
at Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
W
Fife, WA Pro ect No: RUSH.BelfairIndustrial --Figure B-5
Tested By: Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
2 8 4 8
100 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
90 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
80 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I t I I I I
70 I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I I
W I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I
Z 60 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I
FL I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Z 50
W I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
U I I I I I I I I I I I I I
40 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
d I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
30 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
10 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
0 I 100 10I 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
ui GRAIN SIZE-mm.
>• %Gravel %Sand %Fines
+3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Cla
_ 0.0 26.1 17.7 8.3 13.6 18.9 15.4
° Test Results ASTM D 6913 8 ASTM D 1140
° ( ) Material Description
c Opening Percent Spec.' Pass? Silty Gravelly SAND(GM)
4 a Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fall)
3 m 3.0 100.0
> co 2.5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318)
£ 2.0 100.0 PL= NP LL= NV PI= NP
ca 1.5 100.0
Classification
3 ; L;5 1OR30,� USCS(D 2487)= GM AASHTO(M 145)= /\-i-1,
.75 73.9
Coefficients
.5 68.2
D90= 27.6299 D85= 26.0726 D60= 6.614K
y c 0.375
64.2 p50= 2.5509 D30= 0.3285 D15=
10= CuZ cc=
Iv ("DM #10 47.9 Remarks
#20 41.4
° �
'~ 0 #40 34.3 Natural Moisture:6.3%
0 m #60 25.3
d #100 19.4
#200 15.4 Date Received: 7/9/21 Date Tested: 7/9/21
dW Tested By: MAW
axi
° B Checked By: KSS
y Title: PM
w d
4 (no specification provided)
o -S° Location:TP-27,S-1
Date Sampled: 7/9/21
am leNumber: 102220 Depth:2'
d ° Client: Rush Development
GeoResources, LLC
° Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
to
d
r` Fife, WA Project No: RUSH.Belfairindus •al Fi ure B-6
Tested By: Checked By:
• it
Particle Size Distribution Report
aa NN $ s Q�j
100
I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1
90 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
80 I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
70Of
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I
Z 60 I I I 1 I I I I I I I
LL I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I
Z 50
W 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
U I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I
40 I I I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I
d I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30 I I I I I
1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I
10
I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
0 I I I I I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
ui GRAIN SIZE-mm.
at
>+— %Gravel %Sand %Fines
E /.+3" Coarse Fine Con Medium Fine Slit Clay
rse
_ 0.0 5.8 19.3 11.4 15.0 25.5 1 23.0
c Test Results ASTM D 6913& ASTM D 1140
'+g c ( ) Material Description
o v Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Silty Gravelly SAND(SM)
d Z Size Finer (Percent) (XwFall)
c
1 100.0
cc .75 94.2 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318)
.5 90.8 PL= NI' LL= NV P1= NP
M
0.375 86.4
0 0 #4 74.9 Classification
p #10 63.5 USCS(D 2487)■ SM AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-1,
#20 55.7 Coefficients
c c #40 48.5 D90= 11.8600 1385- 8.8244 D60= 1.4021
at Z #60 39.8 D50= 0.4775 D300 0.1415 D15=
#100 30.8 D10= Cu. Cc=
,G y #200 23.0 Remarks
0 v Natural Moisture:6.5%
N (t7
7 �
Date Received: 7/9/21 Date Tested: 7/9/21
Tested By: MAW
X _
0 a Checked By: KSS
o E
y Title: PM
d
-S (no specification provided)
mo Location:TP-27,S-2 21 De :5' Date Sampled: 7/9/21
Sample Numb-or:c
N 0 Client: Rush Development
_ GeoResources, LLC
y Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
d
Fife, WA Pro ect No: RUSH.BelfairIndustrial Figure B-7
Tested By:— - __ Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
N pp pp g (Q�j
fO t0 N C �
100 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
80 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
70 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LLJ
I 1 I I I I I I
Z 60 I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I
c.L I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I
I i I i I i I 1 I i I I
Z 60 I I I I
W I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
W 40 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1
w I I I 1 I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
d I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
30 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1
I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
20 I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I
I O I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE mm.
N %,+3'. %Gravel %Sand %Fines
I= E Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
co 1
0.0 2.6 10.3 5.1 1 21.5 57.0 3.5
' ASTM D 6913& ASTM D 1140
)g c ( Material Description
Test Results
c Opening Percent Spec.' Pass? Gravelly poorly graded SAND with trace Silt(SP)
d p Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
c
1 100.0
m .75 97.4 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318)
5 92.7 PL= NP LL= NV PI= NP
Lra 0.375 90.8
m #4 87.1 Classification
3 #10 82 0 USCS(D 2487)= SP AASHTO(M 145)= A-3
`o .2 #20 74.4 Coefficients
c c #40 60.5 D90= 8.1827 D85= 3.1784 D60= 0.4204
#60 29.0 D50= 0.3514 D30- 0.2546 D15= 0.1771
0 #100 10.9 D70= 0.1430 Cum 2.94 Cc= 1.08
m m #200 3.5
$ Remarks
c v Natural Moisture:3.3%
yc
lD
7 -0
Date Received: 7/8/21 Date Tested: 10/7/21
Tested By: MAW
X _
0 B Checked By: KSS
-
u�i Title: PM
o d
-S (no specification provided)
m ° Location'TP-19,S-2 Date Sampled: 7/8/21
Sample Number 102538 Depth: 10'
ayi GeoResources, LLC Client: Rush Development
Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
rn �
Fife, WA Pro ect No: RUSH.BelfairIndustrial Fi ure B-8
Tested By:__ Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
80
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
70 I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Z 60 I I I 1 I I I I
LL I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
Z 50
W I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
40 I I 1 I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
d I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30 I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
0 I I I I I 1 I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
Gravel %Sand %Fines
4) E /0+3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silty Clay
cu
0.0 9.3 15.3 7.5 18.9 47.3 1.7
c Test Results ASTM D 6913& ASTM D 1140
'fig c ( ) Material Description
c Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Gravelly poorly graded SAND with trace Silt(SP)
d a Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fall)
°t+y 1.5 100.0
m to 1.25 94.7 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318)
1 91.8 PL= NP LL= NV Piz NP
.75 90.7
0 0 .5 87.9 Classification
3 p 0.375 83.9 USCS(D 2487)- SP AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-b
#4 75.4 Coefficients
c c #10 67.9 D90- 16.2105 D85= 10.2415 D60= 0.7866
#20 61.0 D50= 0.4445 D30= 0.2314 D15= 0.1627
0 - 0.1397 C 5.63 C 0.49
'� � #40 49.0 D70 u= c=
42 #60 33.2 Remarks
#100 12.1
0 v #200 1.7 Natural Moisture:2.4%
y c
N N
Date Received: 7/9/21 Date Tested: 1017/21
m Tested By: MAW
X
0 E Checked By: KSS
y Title: PM
w d
Z (no specification provided)
f° $ Location:TP-24,S-1
Date Sampled: 7/9/21
wSample Number: 102539 Depth: 10'
y 0 Client: Rush Development
22 GeoResources, LLC
y Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
fN
N
Fife, WA Project No: RUSH.BelfairIndustrial Figure B-9
Tested By:_ Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
�O 0V 0p 8 g Q�j
100
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I
90 I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
80 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
7U I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LIJ
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
Z 60 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
ll I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Z 50 I
L1_I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
U I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I
40 I I I I I I I I I I I I
W I I 1 I I I I I
30 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
�+ ° %Gravel %Sand %Fines
E �0+3. Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
cc
aV 0.0 26.4 21.5 10.0 12.6 18.0 11.5
a Test Results ASTM D 6913& ASTM D 1140
( ) Material Description
c v Opening Percent Spec! Pass? Poorly graded Gravelly SAND with some Silt(GP-GM)
d a Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fall)
3 3.0 100.0
too 2.5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 431 )
2.0 76.8 PL= NP LL= NV Piz NP
eo
0 0 1125 76.8 Classification
? 1 76.8 USCS(D 2487)= GP-GM AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-a
:5 .75 73.6 Coefficients
.. 5 67.2 D90= 57.3922 1385= 55.0761 D60= 7.9751
y Z 0.375 62.8 D50= 4.0889 D30• 0.4415 D95= 0.1402
73 c #4 52.1 D10= CUM Cc=
-S ` #20 35.7 Remarks
0 v #40 29.5 Natural Moisture:6.6%
u°ri two #60 21.4
v
#100 15.5
y #200 11.5 Date Received: 7/8/21 Date Tested: 7/9/21
Tested By: MAW
x _ -- -- -
a4i E Checked By: KSS
y Title: PM
to
6 (no specification provided)
co $ Location:TP-9,S-1 Date Sampled: 7/7/21
Sample Number: 102215 Depth: 12'
GeoResources, LLC
Client: Rush Development
y0 Project: Proposed Office/Warehouse Buildings
N �
IL
N
Fife, WA Pro e t No: RUSH.Belfairindustrial FI ure B-I
Tested By: Checked By:
SPECTRA RA Laboratories ...Where experience matters
2221 Ross Way Tacoma, WA 98421 (253) 272-4850 Fax (253) 572-9838 • www.spectra-lab.com
10/19/2021
Project: Rush.Belfair
GeoResources, LLC Sample Matrix: Soil
4809 Pacific Hwy E Date Sampled: 07/07/2021
Fife, WA 98424 Date Received: 10/07/2021
Spectra Project: 2021100218
Client ID S Vqctra# Anal SKe Result Units Method Analyzed
TP-2,S-1,D-2' 1 Organic Matter 3.76 wt.%Dry ASTM D-2974-13 10/19/2021
TP-2,S-1,D-2' 1 Cation Exchange Capacity 1.84 Na,mEq/IOOg SW846 9081 10/19/2021
TP-10,S-1,D-2- 2 Organic Matter 2.30 wt.%Dry ASTM D-2974-13 10/19/2021
TP-10,S-1,D-2- 2 Cation Exchange Capacity 2.08 Na,mEq/ IOOg SW846 9081 10/19/2021
TP-19,S-1,D-2- 3 Organic Matter 2.44 wt.%Dry ASTM D-2974-13 10/19/2021
TP-19,S-1,D-2- 3 Cation Exchange Capacity 1.87 Na,mEq/I OOg SW846 9081 10/19/2021
TP-27,S-1,D-2' 4 Organic Matter 2.21 wt.%Dry ASTM D-2974-13 10/19/2021
TP-27,S-1,D-2' 4 Cation Exchange Capacity 2.54 Na,mEq/I OOg SW846 9081 10/19/2021
SPECTRA LABORATORIES
Ben ra s, Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 1
Marie dolt, Customer Support & Prej. Manager a7/k1h