HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2014-00014 for GRD2014-00002 - GEO Geological Review - 2/12/2014 ~ w
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
Geotechnical ReportReview Acceptance Letter
June 02, 2014
FAITH INACTION WESTSOUND
P O BOX 2697
BELFAIR WA 98528
Case No.: GE02014-00014
Parcel No.: 123291390042
Proiect Description: GEO SUBMITTED FOR GRD2014-00002 PHASE 1 SITE WORK FOR
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION FAITH INACTION BLDG
The Geotechnical Report for FAITH IN ACTION WESTSOUND has been received and reviewed by
the Planning Department. The report was prepared by Michael Wnek dated 9/18/2013.
Based on the certification provided by the licensed engineer/geologist, the referenced
Geotechnical Report was prepared in general accordance with the requirements in the Mason
County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Areas 17.01.100.E.5. Mason County considers the
review valid until such time as scope of project, site conditions, and/or regulations change. Should
the scope of work, site conditions, and/or regulations change after the original review, then an
addendum from the original author of the report may be required to address these changes. The
report would only be re-reviewed if a permit for development were submitted after these changes
occur. Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 365 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
Comments:
6/2/2014 Page 1 of 1 GE02014-00014
Mason County Review Checklist
For a Stormwater Plan
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Stormwater Plan. The Stormwater Plan is
reviewed for completeness with respect to the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. If an
item is found to be not applicable, the Plan should explain the basis for the conclusion. The Plan is also
reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not
understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the
application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved
with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
-e— IA^ WU J/� 1
Applicant's Name: r'Ll 11'f�l �;(V P (�
Permit# T/ Parcel# !/� 6--
600 t L —o
Date(s) of the Do ument(s) reviewed:
2�j
SECTION I—Construction SWPPP Narrative
(1) Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements:
(a) Describe how each of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Element has been
addressecVthrough the Construction SWPPP.
OK? Comment:
(b) Identify type and location of BMP's used to satisfy the required element.
OK? Comment:
(c) Written s i ication identifying the reason an element is not applicable to the proposal.
OK? Comment:
(d) 12 Required Elements—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(1) Mark Clearing Limits.
OK? Comment:
(2) Establish Construction Access.
OK? Comment:
G (3) Control Flow Rates.
OK? Comment:
(4) Install Sediment Controls.
OK? Comment:
(5) Stabilize Soils.
OK? Comment:
(6) Protect Slopes.
OK? Comment:
(7) Protect Drain Inlets.
OK? Comment:
(8) Stabilize Channels and Outlets.
OK? Comment:
(9) Control Pollutants.
OK? Comment:
(10)Control De-Watering.
OK? Comment:
(11)Maintain BMP's.
OK? Comment:
(12)Manage the Project.
OK? Comment:
Page 1 Form Effective May 2009
i
NA e. Provide typical details of gravel cone and standpipe, and/or other filtering devices.
f. Detail stabilization techniques for outlet/inlet.
NA g Detail control/restrictor device location and details.
h. Specify mulch and/or recommended cover of berms and slopes.
NA i. Provide rock specifications and detail for rock check dams.
NA j Specify spacing for rock check dams as required.
NA k. Provide front and side sections of typical rock check dams.
NA 1. Indicate the locations and provide details and specifications for silt fabric.
NA m. Locate the construction entrance and provide a detail.
6. Detailed Drawings
NA a. Any structural practices used that are not referenced in the Ecology Manual should be explained and
illustrated with detailed drawings.
7. Other Pollutant BMPs
a. Indicate on the site plan the location of BMPs to be used for the control of pollutants other than
sediment, e.g. concrete wash water.
8. Monitoring Locations
a. Indicate on the site plan the water quality sampling locations to be used for monitoring water quality
on the construction site, if applicable.
I certify that the stormwater plan submitted for this project fulfills the applicable provisions of the 2005
DOE Stormwater Manual.
Michael F. Wnek P.E. 3/22/2013
Engineer Date e � �
0 660
s
Applicant DateIONAL
Place eng. stamp and sign/date above.
Note: General site work, erosion control & stormwater mitigation already completed under Mason
County permit GRD95-0033. SWPPP and E&SC Plan are specific to this proposal.
1ACommunity Development\PAC\STORMWATER 5 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
c
(2) Project Description.
(a) Total project area (acres/square feet).
OK? Comment:
(b)Total Proposed impervious area (acres/square feet).
OK? Comment:
(c)Total proposed area to be disturbed, included off-site borrow and fill areas (acres/square feet).
OK? Comment:
(d)Total volumes of proposed cut and fill (cubic yards).
OK? Comment:
(3) Existing Site Conditions.
(a) Description of the existing topography.
OK? Comment:
(b) Description of the existing vegetation.
OK? Comment:
Description of the existing drainage.
OK? Comment:
(4)Adjacent Areas.
(1) Description of adjacent areas which may be affected by the site disturbance
(a) Streams /v
OK? Comment: r�''v,rhTIA, C
(b) Lakes
OK? Comment:
(c)Wetlands
OK? Comment:
(d) Residential Areas
OK? Comment:
(e) Roads
OK? Comment:
(f) Other
OK? Comment:
(II) Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water
(minimum distance of 400 yards).
OK? Comment:
(5) Critical Areas:
(a) Description of critical areas that are on or adjacent to the site.
OK? Comment:
(b) Description of special requirements for working in or near critical areas.
/ OK? Comment:
(6) Soils: Description of on-site soils.
(a) Soil name
OK? Comment:
(b) Soil mapping unit
OK? Comment:
(c) Erodibility
oOK? Comment:
(d) Settleability
OK? Comment:
1 , ,l. e) Permeability
( OK? Comment:
(� (f) Depth
OK? Comment:
(g) Texture
OK? Comment:
Page 2 Form Effective May 2009
• (h) Soil Structure
OK? Comment:
(7) Erosion Problem Areas.
(a) Description of potential erosion problems on site
OK? Comment:
(8) Construction Phasing.
(a) Construction sequence.
ILI OK? Comment:
(b) Construction phasing (if proposed).
OK? Comment:
Construction Schedule.
I. Provide a proposed construction schedule
OK? Comment:
II. Wet Season Construction Activities
(a) Proposed wet season construction activities.
OK? Comment:
(b) Proposed wet season construction restraints for environmentally sensitive/critical areas.
OK? Comment:
(10)Engineering Calculations. Provide design calculations.
(a) Sediment Ponds/Traps.
OK? Comment:
(b) Diversions.
OK? Comment:
(a) Waterways.
OK? Comment:
(b) Runoff/Stormwater Detention Calculations.
OK? Comment:
(11)Operations and Maintenance
(a). An operation and maintenance schedule shall be provided for all proposed stormwater facilities
and BMPs, and the party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be
identified. An operation and maintenance (O & M) Declaration of Covenant will be required to
cover all privately owned and maintained stormwater facilities. O & M Declaration of Covenant
forms are available at the Mason County Permit Assistance Center, 426 W. Cedar Street,
Shelton, WA 98584. The proponent shall record a copy of the completed Declaration with the
Mason County Auditors' office. A copy of the recorded document must be submitted to the Permit
Assistance Center together with this completed Checklist.
OK? Comment:
SECTION II—Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
(1) General.
) Vicinity Map.
OK? Comment:
(b) Clearing and Grading Approval Block.
OK? Comment:
(c) Erosion and Sediment Control Notes.
OK? Comment:
(2) Site Plan.
(a) Legal description of subject property.
OK? Comment:
(b) North Arrow.
OK? Comment:
Page 3 Form Effective May 2009
(c) Indicate boundaries of existing vegetation, e.g. tree lines, pasture areas, etc.
OK? Comment:
(d) Identify and label areas of potential erosion problems.
OK? Comment:
(e) Identify any on-site or adjacent surface waters, critical areas and associated buffers.
OK? Comment:
(f) Identify FEMA base flood boundaries and Shoreline Management boundaries (if applicable).
OK? Comment:
(g) Show existing and proposed contours.
OK? Comment:
( (h) Indicate drainage basins and direction of flow for individual drainage areas.
G ` OK? Comment:
(i) Label final grade contours and identify developed condition drainage basins.
�. OK? Comment:
0) Delineate areas that are to be cleared and graded.
OK? Comment:
(k) Show all cut and fill slopes indicating top and bottom of slope catch lines.
OK? Comment:
(3) Conveyance Systems.
(a) Designate locations for swales, interceptor trenches, or ditches.
OK? Comment:
ri (b) Show all temporary and permanent drainage pipes, ditches, or cut-off trenches.
OK? Comment:
3 (c) Provide minimum slope and cover for all temporary pipes or call out pipe inverts.
OK?o Comment:
Cj� (d) Show grades, dimensions, and direction of flow in all ditches, swales, culverts, and pipes.
OK? Comment:
(e) Provide details for bypassing off-site runoff around disturbed areas.
OK? Comment:
(f) Indicate locations and outlets of any dewatering systems.
OK? Comment:
(4) Location of Detention BMP's.
(a) Identify location of detention BMP's.
OK? Comment:
(5) Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities.
(a) Show the Jocations of sediment trap(s), pond(s), and pipe structures.
OK? V Comment:
(b) Dimensiorr pond berm widths and inside and outside pond slopes.
OK? V Comment:
(c) Indicate tl�e trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions.
OK? V Comment:
(d) Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structure.
/f OK? V Comment:
W (e) Provide typical details of gravel cone and standpipe, and/or other filtering devices.
OK? Comment:
(f) Detail sta lization techniques for outlet/inlet.
OK? Comment:
(g) Detail control/restrictor device location and details.
OK? Comment:
(h) Specify Ich and/or recommended cover of berms and slopes.
OK? Comment:
(i) Provide rock specifications and detail for rock check dams.
OK? Comment:
(j) Specify spacing for rock check dams as required.
OK? Comment:
Page 4 Form Effective May 2009
(k) Provide front and side sections of typical rock check dams.
OK? -- Comment:
(1) Indicate the locations and provide details and specifications for silt fabric.
OK? Comment:
(m) Locate the construction entrance and provide detail.
OK? — Comment:
(6) Detailed Drawings.
(a) Any structural practices used that are not referenced in the Ecology Manual should be explained
and illustrated with detailed drawings.
OK? Comment:
(7) Other Pollutant BMP's.
(a) Indicated on the site plan the location of BMP's to be used for the control of pollutants other than
sediment . concrete wash water. /
OK? Comment: 6u7 C Lst.l G'
(8) Monitoring Locations.
(a) Indicate on the site plan the water quality sampling locations to be used for monitoring water
quality on th construction site, if applicable.
OK?Comment: �c�A
Are the Documents signed and stamped? .
Type and#of License:
pr= n
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action?
'9'awn, W'(" �)
fe
Reviewed by on
Time spent in review:
SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE:
Reviewed by on
Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/ UPDATE:
Reviewed by on
Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Stormwater Plan.
I
Page 5 Form Effective May 2009
• PLANNING RECENED
MAY 13 20%
Mason County
Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan Submittal Checlst CEDAR ST,
Project Name: Belfair Hub
Parcel #'s: 12329-133-90042
County Project No.: 6 e'd 201
Author of Report: James T. Armitage, EIT
Minimum Requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual
The Stormwater checklist identifies the minimum requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual.
The Checklist is intended to identify the locations within the plan that addresses the minimum
requirements. Mason County will not perform a technical evaluation of the submittal. Rather, the
checklist provides a guide to allow Mason County to review the submittal and determine if the applicant
has addressed the minimum features that make up a Stormwater plan.
It is incumbent upon the applicant and his/her engineer to fulfill all the applicable requirements of the
2005 Stormwater Plan as it relates to the proposed project. Review by Mason County is intended to
determine if the plan has addressed the minimum requirements. Applicant's engineer shall be responsible
for the technical accuracy of the submitted Stormwater plan.
During construction of the project, the stormwater plan engineer of record or his/her authorized
representative shall inspect the site to ensure the stormwater plan is being implemented as designed. Upon
completion of the project, the engineer or his authorized representative shall be required to certify that the
stormwater plan has been implemented as designed.
Failure to meet the minimum requirements could result in delay or rejection of the application until the
deficiencies are corrected.
Section I—Construction SWPPP Narrative
1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements
a. Describe how each of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Element has been
addressed though the Construction SWPPP.
b. Identify the type and location of BMPs used to satisfy the required element.
c. Written justification identifying the reason an element is not applicable to the proposal.
12 Required Elements—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
1. Mark Clearing Limits, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 2)
2. Establish Construction Access, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 10)
3. Control Flow Rates, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 6)
4. Install Sediment Controls, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 3 & # 4)
5. Stabilize Soils, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 1)
I:\Community Development\PAC\STORMWATER 1 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
6. Protect Slopes, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC $ 1 & # 5)
7. Protect Drain Inlets, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 8)
8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 7)
9. Control Pollutants, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 13)
NA 10. Control De- Watering, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 12)
11. Maintain BMPs, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC # 14)
12. Manage the Project, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3 (ESC #9, 11, & 15)
2. Project Description
a. Total project area. Acres 1.57 Sq. Ft. 68,372
b. Total proposed impervious area. Acres 0.37 Sq. Ft. 16,117
c. Total proposed are to be disturbed, included off-site borrow and fill areas.
Acres 1.57 Sq. Ft. 68,372
d. Total volumes of proposed cut and fill. Cubic Yards Fill 2308CY Cut 1163CY
3. Existing Site Conditions
a. Description of the existing topography. See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section C
b. Description of the existing vegetation. See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section C
c. Description of the existing drainage. See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section C
4. Adjacent Areas
1. Description of adjacent areas that may be affected by the site disturbance
V a. Streams, See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section C
NA b. Lakes, See page/paragraph
V c. Wetlands, See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section C
NA d. Residential Areas, See page/paragraph
NA e. Roads, See page/paragraph
V f. Other, See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section C (Steep Slopes)
II. Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water.
(Minimum distance of 400 yards), See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section D.7, Exhibit E-3
5. Critical Areas
a. Description of critical areas that are on or adjacent to the site.
See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section C
b. Description of special requirements for working in or near critical areas.
See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Plan Sheet C-3
I:\Community Development\PAC\STORMWATER 2of5 Updated May 20,2009
6. Soils
Description of on-site soils.
a. Soil name(s), See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section G
b. Soil mapping unit, See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section G
c. Erodibility, See page/paragraph Drainage Report, Section G
d. Settleability, See page/paragraph Geotech Report, Envirosound Consulting 9-18-13
e. Permeability, See page/paragraph Geotech Report, Envirosound Consulting 9-18-13
f. Depth, See page/paragraph Geotech Report, Envirosound Consulting 9-18-13
g. Texture, See page/paragraph Geotech Report, Envirosound Consulting 9-18-13
h. Soil Structure, See page/paragraph Geotech Report, Envirosound Consulting 9-18-13
7. Erosion Problem Areas
NA Description of potential erosion problems on site. See page/paragraph
8. Construction Phasing
a. Construction sequence, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3
NA b. Construction phasing (if proposed) , See page/paragraph
9. Construction Schedule
I. Provide a proposed construction schedule, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3
NA Il. Wet Season Construction Activities
NA a. Proposed wet season construction activities, See page/paragraph
NA b. Proposed wet season construction restraints for environmentally sensitive/critical areas. See
page/paragraph
10. Engineering Calculations
Provide Design Calculations.
NA a. Sediment Ponds/Traps, See page/paragraph
NA b. Diversions, See page/paragraph
NA c. Waterways, See page/paragraph
NA d. Runoff/Stormwater Detention Calculations, See page/paragraph
11. Operations and Maintenance.
An operation and maintenance schedule shall be provided for all proposed stormwater facilities and
BMPs, and the party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. An
operation and maintenance (O&M) Declaration of Covenant will be required to cover all privately
owned and maintained stormwater facilities. O&M Declaration of Covenant forms are available at
the Mason County Permit Assistance Center, 426 W. Cedar Street, Shelton, WA 98584. The
proponent shall record a copy of the completed Declaration with the Mason County Auditors' office.
A copy of the recorded document must be submitted to the Permit Assistance Center together with
this completed Checklist. See page/paragraph
IXommunity DevelopmentTACWORMWATER 3 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
Section II—Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
1. General
� a. Vicinity Map, See page/paragraph Drainage Report, A-1; Plan Sheet C-1
NA b. Clearing and Grading Approval Block, See page/paragraph
� c. Erosion and Sediment Control Notes, See page/paragraph Plan Sheet C-3
2. Site Plan
a. Legal description of subject property
b. North Arrow
c. Indicate boundaries of existing vegetations, e.g. tree lines, pasture areas, etc.
NA d. Identify and label areas of potential erosion problems, See page/paragraph
V e. Identify any on-site or adjacent surface waters, critical areas and associated buffers
NA f. Identify FEMA base flood boundaries and Shoreline Management boundaries (if applicable), See
page/paragraph
g. Show existing and proposed contours
h. Indicate drainage basins and direction of flow for individual drainage areas
i. Label final grade contours and identify developed condition drainage basins
j. Delineate areas that are to be cleared and graded
k. Show all cut and fill slopes indicating top and bottom of slope catch lines
3. Conveyance Systems
a. Designate locations for swales, interceptor trenches, or ditches
b. Show all temporary and permanent drainage pipes, ditches, or cut-off trenches required for erosion
and sediment control
c. Provide minimum slope and cover for all temporary pipes or call out pipe inverts
d. Show grades, dimensions, and direction of flow in all ditches, swales, culverts, and pipes
NA e. Provide details for bypassing off-site runoff around disturbed areas
NA f. Indicate locations and outlets of any dewatering systems
4. Location of Detention BMPs
� a. Identify location of detention BMPs.
5. Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities
a. Show the locations of sediment trap(s), pond(s), and pipe structures.
b. Dimension pond berm widths and inside and outside pond slopes.
c. Indicate the trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions.
d. Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structure.
IACommunity Development\PAC\STORMWATER 4of5 Updated May 20,2009
. C1' Eo ZOIL4 - OnOt�
for 6rd BUILDING
RECEIVED
MAY 13 20%
O
426 SAL CEDAR ST, Cn
O
Q
0
O
Project Information CCn
Project Name: Faith In Action Development r+
Geotechnical Engineering Report �
Project Location: Belfair, Washington
Client: Faith In Action
Project #: ESC 13-GO45 C7
Date: September 18, 2013 M G)
O < CD
o CD
cO (D
Z v
_ Q0
Company Information
3388 Byron Street NW Suite 200
Silverdale, Washington 98383
Phone: 360-698-5950
Fax: 360-698-5929
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
FAITH IN ACTION DEVELOPMENT
OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY
BELFAIR, WASHINGTON
Prepared for:
FAITH IN ACTION
P. O. Box 2697
BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528-9411
Prepared by:
ENVIROSOUND CONSULTING,INC.
3388 BYRON STREET NW SUITE 200
SILVERDALE,WASHINGTON 98383
Project No.ESC13-GO45
September 18, 2013
EnviroSound Consulting Geotechnical & Environmental Consulting
September 18, 2013 Project: ESC13-GO45
Mrs. Patti Kleist
Faith In Action
P.O.Box 2697
Belfair,Washington 98528-2697
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report
Faith In Action Thrift Store & Senior Center
Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, Washington
Tax Parcel#123291390042
Dear Mrs.Kleist,
Submitted herewith is a report for EnviroSound Consulting's limited geotechnical engineering investigation for the
subject project. The report presents findings from our limited geotechnical engineering investigation and provides
recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further assistance, or if you have any
questions regarding this project,please contact our office.
Sincerely yours,
Shawn E.Williams, L.E.G. Michael F.Wnek,P.E.
Senior Engineering Geologist a o{ WaSh� Michael F. Wnek,P.E.P.S.
Enclosures Gip L
r ginwdng Gook)g w y
2208
d Geoff oq'
Shawn E. Williams
q Al.
I_r /� FxPiREf O
-) -)S
EnviroSound Consulting - 3388 Byron Street Ste 200 • Silverdale, WA 98383 Office (360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929
Project: ESC 13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Site Location 1
1.2 Proposed Construction 1
1.3 Purpose 1
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 1
2.1 Site Description 1
2.2 Geologic Setting 1
2.3 Subsurface Exploration 2
2.3.1 Soil 2
2.3.2 Groundwater 2
2.3.3 Laboratory Testing 2
2.4 Seismic Information 3
2.5 Tacoma Fault 3
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
3.1 General 3
3.2 Erosion Control 3
3.3 Drainage 4
3.4 Foundations 4
3.5 Floor Slabs 4
3.6 Lateral Earth Pressures&Retaining Walls 5
3.7 Asphalt Pavement 5
3.8 Earthwork Considerations
3.8.1 Groundwater Concerns 6
3.8.2 Excavations&Constructed Slopes 6
3.8.3 Grading 7
3.8.4 Structural Fill 7
3.8.5 Utility Trench Fill 7
3.9 Infiltration 8
4.0 LIMITATIONS 8
5.0 REFERENCES 9
FIGURES
APPENDIX A—Test Pit Logs
Project: ESC 13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No.iii
APPENDIX B—Laboratory Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
1 Site Vicinity Map
2 Site Map
Project No. ESC13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EnviroSound Consulting (EnviroSound) was retained by Faith In Action to conduct a limited geotechnical engineering
investigation for the proposed development off of Old Belfair Highway in Belfair, Washington. The investigation was
completed for a proposed 2-story commercial building and associated parking.
1.1 Site Location
This building site is located off the western side of NE Old Belfair Highway on a parcel which occupies 2.8 acres.
According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 7.5 minute Belfair Washington topographic quadrangle map,
the property is located in the City of Belfair in Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 1 W, 47.27 degrees N and 122.49
degrees W. The site location is shown on the Vicinity Map,Figure 1.
1.2 Proposed Construction
Based on our discussions and review of the preliminary site plan, we understand that the proposed site work includes the
construction of one 2-story building with a 11,691 square foot footprint and associated parking and landscaping on the
central and eastern portion of the parcel. Preliminary designs also show a retaining wall to the west of the proposed
building. There is an approximately 5.0 foot grade change through the building footprint from 55 feet to 50 feet. It is our
understanding that the final building subgrade elevation will be at approximately 50 feet. The proposed location of the
building is shown on the Site Plan,Figure 2.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for construction of the
building and parking areas. Specific recommendations are provided for site preparation, earthwork, excavations,utilities,
drainage, erosion control,foundations and retaining structures.
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Site Description
The proposed location of the building is on a vacant lot which is located off of Old Belfair Highway in Belfair,
Washington.The eastern portion of the parcel is grass covered with secondary brush on the western portion of the lot.The
majority of the site gently slopes toward the east with an elevation change of 56 feet to 50 feet with the western edge of
the parcel sloping toward the west with an elevation change of 56 feet to 38 feet. The site is bordered by single family
residences to the north and south,by Old Belfair Highway to the east and forested vacant land to the west.
2.2 Geologic Setting
The subject site lies within the central Puget Lowland. The lowland is part of a regional north-south trending trough that
extends from southwestern British Columbia to near Eugene, Oregon. North of Olympia, Washington, this lowland is
glacially carved with a depositional and erosional history including at least four separate glacial advance/retreats. The
Puget Lowland is bounded on the west by the Olympic Mountains and on the east by the Cascade Range. The lowland is
filled with glacial and nonglacial sediments consisting of interbedded gravel,clay, sand,silt,till,and peat lenses.
The geologic map of the Belfair 7.5 minute quadrangle shows the site being located in an area mapped as Vashon
recessional lake marginal outwash(Qgal). Recessional outwash is a complex of poorly to moderately sorted and stratified
gravel and sand with localized areas of silt and clay.
The Soil survey of Mason County shows the eastern portion of the site mapped as Saxon silt loam,typically found on 5 to
15 percent slopes. The soil has moderate drainage capacity and is generated from volcanic ash and lacustrine deposits.
Project No. ESC 13-GO45
September 18,2013
Page No.2
The western portion of the site in the forest is mapped as Norma sandy loam and Norma silt loam, typically found on 0 to
3 percent slopes.The soils have moderate drainage capacity and are generated from volcanic ash and alluvial deposits.
2.3 Subsurface Exploration
Eight test pits were excavated and sampled on August 23, 2013 to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the project site.
Test pits were excavated within the building foot print of the site and in the proposed parking areas. Test pit locations are
located on the site, approximately as shown on Figure 2. The test pits reached a maximum depth of 8.0 feet below
existing grades, and were excavated and sampled using a rubber tired backhoe. Soil samples were collected from select
depths for laboratory analysis. Peninsula Topsoil,under the direction of EnviroSound, excavated the test pits. Logs of the
test pits are presented in Appendix A.
2.3.1 Soil
Test pits Sl-1, SL-2, SL-4 and SL-6 were excavated within the proposed building footprint. Test pit SL-1 encountered
building debris in the upper 1.5 feet of the soils. Test pits SL-2, Sl-4 and SL-6 had a thin mantle of topsoil underlain by a
soft to medium stiff slightly sandy Silt ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 feet in depth. Medium stiff or medium dense soils were
located below the soft soils in each of the test pits.
Test pits SL-3, SL-7 and SL-8 were excavated in the east parking area. The test pits had a mantle of grass and topsoil
underlain by 2.5 to 3.0 feet of loose to medium dense sandy Silt. Alternating layers of medium dense sandy Silt, stiff
slightly sandy Silt with trace clay and stiff silty Clay were beneath the Silt layer to the terminated depths of the test pits.
Test pit SL-5 was excavated west of the proposed building and parking area for a proposed retaining wall. Loose and soft
soils were encountered to a depth of approximately 2.0 feet. Stiff sandy Silt was encountered to the terminated depth of
8.0 feet for the test pit.
Some mottling was observed in test pits SL-3, SL-4, SL-5, SL-6, SL-7 and SL-8.
2.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was not encountered in exploratory test pits excavated on the subject site at the time of the site visit.
Groundwater seepage was encountered at 3.0 feet in depth during a January 2012 field investigation on the site. Water
table elevations fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic
conditions, as well as other factors. Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary
from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope
of this report.
2.3.3 Laboratory Testing
To aid in classifying the soils and to determine general soil characteristics, laboratory tests were performed on selected
samples. The index tests were also used to estimate the infiltration capability of the in-situ soils. Test method references
are shown in the following table. Phoenix Soil Research of Kingston, Washington was retained to provide geotechnical
laboratory analysis.
Parameter Testing Method Reference
USDA Triangle from sieve data 2010 USDA
ASTM D422 Sieve only ASTM D4318
200 Wash ASTM D-1140
The results of the laboratory testing are provided in Appendix B.
Project No.ESC13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. 3
2.4 Seismic Information
EnviroSound has reviewed table 1613.5.2 of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). Site specific data is not
available to a depth of 100 feet. The near surface site soils consisted of interlayered silt and sand soils which ranged in
depth from 0.5 to 10.0 feet in the excavated test pits. The subsurface exploration program did not include blow counts
and the maximum depth of exploration was on the order of about 9.0 feet. However based on a review of the mapped
geology of the site as well as our experience with soils in the area of the site, we estimate that the average Standard
Penetration Resistance for the upper 100 feet of site soils is less than 50. Therefore, for seismic design of structures the
site should be considered class D,"stiff soil profile", as defined in the IBC.
Ground motion accelerations for the site were obtained from the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website and are
presented in the following table. The latitude/longitude method was used to obtain the ground motions with a latitude of
47.27 degrees and a longitude of 122.49 degrees using the 2010 data tables.
Probability of Exceedance 2%in 50 years
Peak Ground Acceleration(PGA) L l g
0.2 second period(S.) 0.94
1 second period S1 0.343
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water
pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, fine-grained sand and
silty sand below the groundwater table. The underlying stiff/medium dense soil is considered to have a low potential for
liquefaction and amplification of ground motion.
2.5 Tacoma Fault
Based on our review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) information for the Tacoma Fault Zone and
available LIDAR (Puget Sound LIDAR Consortium) information for the Belfair area, the site lies within the generally
delineated area of the Tacoma Fault Zone. A fault surface rupture (Catfish Lake Scarp) has been mapped in the Allyn
area.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General
The proposed building appears to be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations provided in
this report are followed. It is our understanding that the existing grades inside the building footprint will be lowered
(excavated)to elevation 50 feet which will require up to 6.0 foot excavations in portions of the building. Some additional
excavation will be required along the west(lower)portion of the building pad due to the presence of building debris in the
upper 1.5 feet of test pit SL-1.
3.2 Erosion Control
The soils on the site in and near the subject property may erode in the disturbed state or under conditions of channelized
water flow. The size of the project will warrant a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) incorporated into the
project construction plans. Best Management Practices for erosion control will need to be implemented according to the
SWPPP.
� a
Project No.ESC13-GO45
September 18, 2013
Page No. 4
3.3 Drainage
Ground surfaces should be sloped a minimum of 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from buildings in
accordance with Section 1803.3 in the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). Runoff should be directed into an
appropriately designed stormwater disposal system. Design of stormwater disposal and/or mitigation systems shall be
according to local codes and regulations.
3.4 Foundations
We recommend that the proposed structure be founded upon column or continuous wall footings bearing on the
undisturbed,competent native soils. Footings founded upon the medium dense or medium stiff in-situ soil could be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2.0 ksf. This soil pressure may also be used for footings founded upon
structural fill compacted as recommended in the fill placement and compaction section of this report. Minimum footing
widths should be 24 inches for individual square footings and 12 inches for continuous footings.Footings should have
adequate embedment for local frost penetration requirements. In the area of this project,the minimum depths are
typically 18 inches for exterior footings and 12 inches for interior footings. If footings are supported by structural fill,the
fill should extend beyond the outer edges of footings a minimum distance equal to the thickness of the fill beneath the
footing.
The allowable bearing pressures given could be increased by one-third for wind or earthquake loads.
Footing excavations should be cleaned of all loose soil,leveled,and protected from water. Footing excavations should be
kept free of water at all times.
Each footing excavation should be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical engineer to confirm suitable bearing conditions
and to determine that all loose materials have been removed. Assuming compliance with the above recommendations,we
expect settlements to be less than 3/4 inch,with differential settlements(between adjacent footings or over a 20-foot span
of continuous footing)less than 1/2 inch.
Lateral footing displacement can be resisted by friction along the base of the foundation and passive pressure acting
against the appropriate footing faces. We recommend an allowable friction factor of 0.4 and an allowable equivalent fluid
passive pressure of 240 psf/ft of depth. These values include a factor of safety of 1.5 for the allowable friction factor and
2.0 for the allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure.
3.5 Floor Slabs
Floor slabs for the proposed apartment buildings should be constructed over suitable subgrade surfaces. The subgrade
should be structural fill placed over suitable native soil. Floor slab subgrade areas should be evaluated by a representative
of the geotechnical engineer. Replacement of in place, moisture sensitive soils, with aggregate or a sand and gravel
mixture may be recommended for subgrade improvement. The layer should consist of at least 4 inches of clean, free-
draining coarse sand or gravel. A capillary break consisting of at least 4 inches of clean,pea gravel or 5/8 inch of crushed
rock should placed beneath the floor slabs.
We recommend that concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a water vapor barrier in areas where it is critical to
reduce moisture intrusion, such as those with moisture sensitive floor coverings. The moisture barrier system should be
installed in accordance with ASTM guidelines.
Any loose soil encountered beneath slab areas should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Because ground
surfaces may be unintentionally disturbed during construction activities, we recommend that all slab subgrades be
compacted prior to slab construction.
Project No.ESC13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. 5
3.6 Lateral Earth Pressures&Retaining Walls
Lateral pressures will be exerted on retaining walls by backfill soils, surcharge loads, and hydrostatic pressures caused by
groundwater. Lateral earth pressures on walls depend upon the type of wall,type of backfill material and allowable wall
movements. For walls that are restrained at the top, lateral earth pressures should be estimated for an"at rest"condition.
For walls that are free to rotate away from the retained soil, lateral earth pressures should be estimated for an "active"
earth pressure. For walls that are compressing the retained soil, lateral earth pressures should be estimated for a"passive"
earth pressure. Recommended lateral earth pressures coefficients are provided in the following table along with
equivalent fluid pressures. These pressures are calculated assuming a moist unit weight for the backfill soil of 110 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf) and an angle of internal friction of 25 degrees. These values are representative of the on site
materials,however we recommend that imported structural fill be used for wall backfill.
Lateral Earth Pressures,no slope above or below the wall
"Active"Condition "At Rest"Condition "Passive"Condition
Equivalent Fluid Unit Equivalent Fluid Unit Equivalent Fluid Unit
Coefficient Ka Weight Coefficient Ko Wei t c Coefficient K Weight c
0.41 45 0.59 65 1.28 140
The recommended equivalent fluid unit weights do not include hydrostatic pressure due to groundwater accumulated
behind walls. The recommended fluid pressures assume a horizontal ground surface above and below the wall and do not
include seismic loading, or any surcharge due to nearby loading from structures, equipment or traffic. The passive
pressure has been reduced by a factor of 2 to limit wall translation.
The potential seismic force on the wall can be modeled as a uniform pressure on the back of the wall equal to 7H(H is the
height of the wall(in feet)), for active conditions, with no slope above the wall. For walls designed for at rest conditions,
with no slope above the wall,the uniform pressure for the seismic increase should be increased to 18H. The units for this
pressure are pounds per square foot(psf).
Continuous drains with cleanouts should be installed at the base of retaining walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic
pressure behind the structure. These drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated rigid pipe (with
perforations placed down)with a minimum thickness of 6 inches of pea gravel around the pipe. The pipe and pea gravel
should be wrapped in filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines into the drainage zone. The backfill soils within 1 foot
of the walls should consist of free-draining sand and gravel material. This drainage system should be designed to
transport water away from the structure and discharge into an appropriate area.
3.7 Asphalt Pavement
Preliminary recommendations for asphalt pavement thicknesses are based on the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures. We presume that the primary traffic on the site will be passenger cars. We used the section on Low-Volume
Road Design for Flexible Pavement with a 50 percent inherent reliability level, as recommended in the Guide for local
roads. We further assumed that the traffic level would be low, corresponding to 50,000 to 100,000 Equivalent Single
Axle Load (ESAL) applications over the lifetime of the pavement. Note that one ESAL is for an 18-kip axle load. One
passenger car is approximately 0.008 ESALs. Therefore, the low traffic level corresponds to at least 6,250,000 passenger
car trips over the pavement. In the test pits, we encountered loose to medium dense silty Sand with trace clay. We
assigned these soils a relative quality of"Fair".
Based on the previous assumptions,we preliminarily recommend 2 inches of surface course Asphaltic Concrete(AC)over
6 inches of granular base course. Surface course AC can be substituted for base course and vice versa at a rate of 1 inch
of AC per 3 inches of base course. We recommend that the AC thickness not be reduced below 2 inches. The final
Project No.ESC 13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. 6
pavement section can be adjusted based on estimated vehicle loading and desired design life. In consideration of heavier
traffic such as garbage trucks or maintenance trucks we recommend 3 inches of AC over 8 inches of base course.
In preparing the preceding recommendations,we assumed that the Elastic Modulus of the Asphaltic Concrete would be at
least 400,000 psi, and that the Base Course would be a well graded crushed rock with a California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
of 100. If materials with different strengths than presented will be used, we should be contacted to adjust the pavement
section recommendations accordingly.
If a porous type of AC is proposed, the available literature indicates that while the pore space of the porous AC is
approximately 16 percent, compared to about 2 to 3 percent for conventional AC, the strength properties are similar.
Current construction practices recommend replacing 2 inches of standard asphalt pavement with 3 inches of porous
asphalt pavement. Base course materials used for porous pavement may have a lower CBR than standard materials due to
the lack of fines,however this is typically compensated for by the increase in depth required for stormwater storage.
Concrete pavement design recommendations are based on methods provided by the American Concrete Pavement
Association for residential-type streets on fine grained soils. A minimum concrete thickness of 6.0 inches is
recommended for the parking areas with a base course of 2.0 inches. Pervious concrete typically achieves similar
strength characteristics as standard concrete,by increasing the cement ratio;therefore no increase in the depth of concrete
pavement is required for porous concrete.
Prior to the placement of standard pavements we recommend that the subgrade be proof rolled with heavy construction
equipment such as a loaded dump truck or water truck to ensure that the subgrade is relatively dense and unyielding.
Subgrade conditions for porous pavement shall be per the design engineers recommendations and details.
3.8 Earthwork Considerations
During wet weather conditions, which are typically present from October through April, subgrade stability problems and
grading difficulties may develop due to high moisture content in the soil, disturbance of sensitive soils. Therefore, we
recommend that earthwork activity be performed during the dry season.
3.8.1 Groundwater Concerns
Groundwater seepage was not encountered in the exploratory test pits at the time of excavation. Groundwater seepage
had been encountered at approximately 3.0 feet in depth in test holes excavated during January 2012. If groundwater
seepage is encountered, we anticipate that excavations will need to be sloped at gentler angles or shoring will need to be
installed to reduce the potential for caving of excavation sidewalls.
3.8.2 Excavations& Constructed Slopes
It is our opinion that the soils encountered in the test pits, within the upper 3 to 5 feet, are Type C material as defined by
the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act's (WISHA) regulations on excavation, trenching and shoring. It is our
opinion that the soils encountered below 5 feet below existing grades are Type B material, due to the presence of medium
dense/stiff soils. Temporary slopes excavated in Type B material should be inclined no steeper than 1 H:1 V (horizontal:
vertical). Temporary slopes excavated in Type C material should be inclined no steeper than 1.5 H:1 V, and these slopes
may need to be reduced due to the presence of groundwater. A representative of our firm should evaluate temporary and
permanent slopes to ensure that they are appropriate for the soils encountered during construction.
In areas where it is not possible to maintain the recommended slopes due to space constraints, temporary shoring would
be required. Such shoring would need to be properly designed by an engineer.
The Contractor should be familiar with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current
WISHA regulations on excavation, trenching and shoring. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the
Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations.
Project No.ESC13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. 7
EnviroSound is providing this information only as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information
provided above be interpreted to mean that EnviroSound is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the
Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
3.8.3 Grading
If earthwork takes place during wet weather periods, the stockpiled soils will need to be covered in visqueen. If the
earthwork is to take place during the normally wet period of the year, provisions should be in place for export of wet,
moisture sensitive soil and import of granular structural fill material. Imported structural fill should consist of well-
graded gravel and/or sand with a maximum grain size of 1%z inches and less than 5 percent fines(material passing the U.S.
Standard No. 200 Sieve).
3.8.4 Structural Fill
The majority of the near surface on site soils are likely to be suitable for use as structural fill but due to the amount of
fines of the soils care will need to be exercised when grading. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts no more than
12 inches thick, moisture conditioned as necessary (moisture content of soil should be within 2 percent of optimum
moisture) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D-
1557. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions
are not stable. Note that, although in place density testing of fill is frequently used as the primary criterion for acceptance
of fill, it should not be the only criterion. If, in the judgment of the geotechnical engineer or his representative,placed fill
is not suitable it should be rejected regardless of in place density test results. As an example, fill that is compacted wet of
the optimum moisture content may exhibit "pumping"behavior even if in place density test results indicate greater than
95 percent compaction has been achieved. In such a situation,the fill should be removed and replaced with drier material.
3.8.5 Utility Trench Fill
Excavations for utilities should be completed and maintained during utility installation and backfilling, in accordance with
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. The utility contractor should be responsible for
maintaining safety within open trenches. Care should be taken to reduce surcharge loads and vibrations adjacent to utility
excavations. Although groundwater seepage was not encountered during excavation,the contractor should still allow for
shoring in the event that the groundwater destabilizes the trench sidewalls.
The subsurface soils at this site generally included soft/loose soils in the upper 3.0 feet with medium dense/stiff soils
underneath. The majority of the soils encountered within the test pits have low cohesion. We expect that the potential for
significant caving within open excavations will be moderate in the upper 0 to 3 feet, such that the utility contractor should
exercise caution and be prepared to slope excavation sidewalls at gentler angles or install temporary shoring, if conditions
indicate that caving may occur. The factors that may influence the potential for caving could include the depth and length
of trench that is opened at any one time, along with the length of time the trench is to remain open and surface and
groundwater conditions. The utility contractor should be aware of these factors and observe the excavation for signs of
possible caving,such as heavy seepage and tension cracks within and above the excavation sidewalls.
Backfill for utility trenches should consist of suitable material, as described in the Structural Fill section of this report.
Utility trench backfill placed beneath building and pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D-1557. The utility trench backfill placed beneath pavement areas,
at depths greater than 2 feet below the final grade may be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry
density, as defined by ASTM Test Method D-1557. The bedding material for utility pipes should be in accordance with
the manufacturer's specifications. The utility contractor should use equipment and backfill placement methods, which
will reduce the possibility of damage to utilities or structures during placement and compaction.
Project No.ESC 13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. 8
3.9 Infiltration
The near surface soils encountered in the test pits generally consisted of sandy silts and silty sands with trace clay. Some
mottling was observed in test pits SL-3, SL-4, SL-5, SL-7 and SL-8. The high fines content of the majority of the near
surface soils will generally provide low infiltration rates; however when spread over a large surface area, such as porous
pavement, can be successful if adequate storage capacity is provided. Gravelly sand layers were encountered in test pit
SL-1 at 4.0 feet in depth and in test pit SL-5 at approximately 4.5 feet in depth. There were sporadic deposits of sand
layers and clay layers across the site.
Two grain size distribution tests were performed on samples from two test pits from various areas of the site to estimate
the USDA Textural Classification of the soils encountered. The results of the tests are attached to this report in Appendix
B. The test pit samples result were "Silt Loam" and "Sand" under the USDA textural classification system. Based on
USDA textural classification recommended infiltration rates, infiltration in sand is 8 in/hr and infiltration in silty loam is
0.5 in/hr.
4.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for Faith In Action regarding the subject project. Information presented in this report has
been collected and interpreted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of
the profession currently practicing under similar conditions, and in accordance with sound and generally accepted
principles consistent with normal consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, including(but not limited
to)any warranty or merchantability or fitness for a particular use has been made.
Faith In Action and ESC discussed the risks and rewards associated with this project, as well as ESC's fee for services.
Faith In Action and ESC agreed to allocate certain of the risks so that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, ESC's total
aggregate liability to Faith in Action is limited to $50,000 or the fee, whichever is less, for any and all injuries, claims
(including any claims for costs of defense or other incurred costs), losses, expenses, or damages whatsoever arising out of
or in any way related to ESC's services for this project, from any cause or causes whatsoever, including but not limited to,
negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract,breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, or other
acts giving rise to liability based upon contract tort, or statute.
In the event that change in the nature,design, or location of the proposed construction is made,or any physical changes to
the site occur, recommendations are not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by ESC and conclusions of
this report are modified or verified in writing.
The subsurface exploration logs and related information depicts conditions only at the specific locations and at the
particular time designated on the logs. The passage of time may result in a change of subsurface conditions at these
exploration locations. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the exploration
locations. The nature and extent of variations of subsurface conditions between explorations are not known. If variations
appear during additional explorations or construction,reevaluation of recommendations in this report may be necessary.
Stratification lines designating the interface between soil types in subsurface exploration logs represent approximate
boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual.
Analyses and recommendations provided in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the subsurface
explorations.
The scope of ESC services did not include an environmental assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or
toxic materials, in the soil and groundwater.
Project No.ESC13-G045
September 18,2013
Page No. 9
5.0 REFERENCES
U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series topographic map "USGS Belfair Topographic Map".
"Soil Survey of Mason County Washington", United States Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington by Polenz &
others, dated July 2009.
The Catfish Lake Scarp, Allyn, Washington by Sherrod & others, Open File Report 03-0455, U. S. Geological Survey,
2003.
j wl $
i
i'
SITE '
NE FOSTER
D R
L.
r• J
LU
5}
r io, ;
FXX
Map adapted from Mason County parcel search 09/13
FIGURE 1. Vicinity Map
Project Name: Faith In Action
Location: Belfair, WA
Project: ESC13—GO45
Client: Faith In Action
EnviroSound Consutti N.T.S.
� Date: September 2013
i
1`` A.,
� tom*
�\ \// '^\ \ \^-`` ♦ „�/ \ /` �, -dam---- ,-� \ \// / /
Its
� \\ l •/ \\ � �\ \4, .z f�✓ �\ \-'-/ -"�� -v'/^ors__ L �\ /���/ /
\✓`/ \\\ \ it /✓'N_/
1
\fir \ / r+�l I\ 1 I I (n
V �1 I\✓/\/1 rl\� \\ a Il j M r�r I /- as �, \` rl 1 11/ I 1 / � n
N
r CA
A / T / O
I \,IJ �\,.,,/ U IIII \I „j N \V �A/ O �\✓/ /' j // 1 I II �
I
1
s
\ 1
� I I\ I \ r — \
rt7 V 1 _ -V ---- _-A-------
1 �'� I -----
l\ A v l I I K vI I I
lL I I Iv ry I
51 !;2
li i 11 1\`�/// � I I�i\ "' � � � III \'• \J I � �"\ .1 .�I \ \\ �\\ ,�dr
IN N
I
4
�� 36 I 3e 19 .I `
1 62 Q Its � I
Co
I v/I D \
1 41 \\I \�\ y y I \II
I \ \ 1 I / 1
�l � I J
46.68
OP
I 4
Lar—I —eP
V \� - - ---I- - --�� ,+�-- 1 �\ I sa saw
'' r.—t �--NE—u10_LD_B_E' ' �► R�flwy \I i I �I - -------\di----- -.=
---------I-----_ I \L Il -——__ L J I I
Prepared By. SCALE:1"=20' Revisions: Prepared for:
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
DATE: 09-07-12
n MICHAEL F.WNEK,P.E.,PS ORIGINAL DRAWING: 01-31-12 Faith In Action West Sound
CONSULANG C'NL EN67NEER CHECKED BY: HGB
FAITH IN ACTION THRIFT WA. 98311 DRIVE DESIGN BY: MFW P.O. Box 2697
STORE & SENIOR CENTER BREMERTON, WA.
1665 NW SHE DRAWN BY. CJR Belfair, WA 98528-2697
MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON (360)692-3802 (fax)692-1051 MFW PROD-k 543
APPENDIX A
ESC Test Pit Logs
TEST PIT SL- 1
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @50'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
W
w o Z H LABORATORY
VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w TESTING
H a a a H RESULTS
w w FOR SAMPLE
0 SM 0-1.5'Loose dark brown sandy Silt with building debris(Fill)dry.
�4 1.5'-2.5'Stiff tan,sandy SILT,dry.
S-1 Grab 2.5
2.5'4.5'Soft to medium stiff tan and gray slightly sandy SILT,
SM slightly moist.
5
4.5'-7.5'Medium stiff to stiff,gray sandy(fine)SILT,moist.
SM
S-2 Grab 6.0
TD 7.5'
Minimal sloughing.
10 No groundwater encountered
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
TEST PIT SL- 1
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @50'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
W
w o z H LABORATORY
18 18 VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION W W W TESTING
`9 RESULTS
W W FOR SAMPLE
A A U rn rn A
0 sM 0-1.5'Loose dark brown sandy Silt with building debris(Fill)dry.
ML 1.5'-2.5'Stiff tan,sandy SILT,dry.
S-1 Grab 2.5
2.5'4.5'Soft to medium stiff tan and gray slightly sandy SILT,
SM slightly moist.
5
4.5'-7.5'Medium stiff to stiff,gray sandy(fine)SILT,moist.
813
S-2 Grab 6.0
TD 7.5'
Minimal sloughing.
No groundwater encountered.
10 I
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
TEST PIT SL-2
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 55'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
W
w o Z w LABORATORY
VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION W W W TESTING
Ex, '4 '4 a H RESULTS
W Cn W FOR SAMPLE
A A U Qn U) ( A
0 sm 0-0.5'Grass TOPSOIL,dry.
0.5'-2.5'Loose,tan,sandy(fine)SILT,slightly moist. S-1 Grab 1.5
ML
2.5'-6.0'Medium dense gray sandy SILT, moist.
ML- S-2 Grab 3.5 Silt/Clay=57.3%
SM Sand increases with depth. Sand=42.7%
5
S-3 Grab 5.0
TD 6.0'
Sloughing upper 2.0'.
No groundwater encountered
10
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
TEST PIT SL-3
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 51'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
W
E" °
.. LABORATORY
x VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION a a a �" TESTING
RESULTS
W d W FOR SAMPLE
A A U A
0 SM 0-1.0'Grass,TOPSOIL,dark brown sandy Silt,dry.
ML 1.0'-3.0'Soft to medium stiff, gray sandy SILT,dry.
SM 3.0'-5.0'Medium stiff mottled tan and gray slightly sandy SILT,
trace clay,moist.
5
CL 5.0'-6.0'Stiff mottled tan and gray silty CLAY,moist.
- . Medium ense molt tan an gray silty tine ,
�S�L moist.
ML
7.0'-8.0'Stiff,mottled tan and gray SILT,moist.
TD 8.0'
10 Minimal sloughing.
No groundwater encountered.
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
,
TEST PIT SL-3
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 51'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
W
w c Z w LABORATORY
VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w TESTING
RESULTS
w � ¢ W FOR SAMPLE
A U
0 SM 0-1.0'Grass,TOPSOIL,dark brown sandy Silt,dry.
1.0'-3.0'Soft to medium stiff, gray sandy SILT,dry.
ML
SM 3.0'-5.0'Medium stiff mottled tan and gray slightly sandy SILT,
trace clay,moist.
5
CL 5.0'-6.0'Stiff mottled tan and gray silty CLAY,moist.
- . Medium dense mottled tan and gray silty fine SAND,
SP moist.
ML 7.0'-8.0'Stiff,mottled tan and gray SILT,moist.
TD 8.0'
10 Minimal sloughing.
No groundwater encountered.
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
TEST PIT SL-4
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 54'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
w
E~ o Z H LABORATORY
w t8 VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION W w W TESTING
x a a a RESULTS
�a Cn 2 �- W FOR SAMPLE
A A U A
0 SM 0-1.0'TOPSOIL,dark brown sandy Silt,dry scattered roots,rootlets.
1.0'-3.0'Soft to medium stiff, tan sandy SILT,dry.
ML
SM 3.0'-5.0'Medium stiff mottled tan and gray slightly sandy SILT,
trace clay,moist.
5
SM 5.0'-7.0'Stiff mottled tan and gray sandy(fine)SILT,moist.
TD 7.0'
Minimal sloughing.
No groundwater encountered.
10
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
TEST PIT SL-5
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 45'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
W
w ° z 171 LABORATORY
U
VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w v TESTING
RESULTS
H � H
w w FOR SAMPLE
A AU
0 SM 0-0.5'TOPSOIL,dark brown sandy Silt,dry scattered roots,rootlets.
- .0-Nott to medium s sandy SILL,dry. S-1 Grab 1.0'
1.0'-2.0'Loose,sandy SILT,roots,rootlets,dry,(Original Topsoil?).
2.0'-5.0'Stiff mottled tan and gray slightly sandy(fine)SILT,moist.
SM S-2 Grab 3.5'
5
5.0'-8.0'Stiff mottled tan and gray,SILT,trace clay,moist. S-3 Grab 6.0'
ML
TD 8.0'
Minimal sloughing.
10 No groundwater encountered
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
TEST PIT SL- 6
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 5P
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
W
w ° z H LABORATORY
VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w TESTING
RESULTS
W ¢ W FOR SAMPLE
A U cn V) v� A
0 SM 0-0.5'Loose dark brown sandy Silt with roots,rootlets,dry.
SM 0.5'-2.5'Soft to medium stiff tan and gray slightly sandy SILT, S-1 Grab 1.5
scattered roots down to 3.0',slightly moist.
SM 2.5'-3.5'Medium stiff,sandy(fine)SILT,moist.
5 TD 3.5'
Minimal sloughing.
No groundwater encountered.
10
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
TEST PIT SL-7
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 53'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
w
w o Z H LABORATORY
14 VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w TESTING
H ` a a a H RESULTS
w ¢ Q w FOR SAMPLE
A �D U A
0 SM 0-0.5'Grass,dark brown sandy Silt,(TOPSOIL),dry.
ML 0.5'-3.0'Loose to medium dense,tan sandy SILT,dry to moist. S-1 Grab 1.5' Silt/Clay=74.9%
Sand=24.5%
Gravel=0.6%
SM 3.0'-5.5'Medium dense,gray slightly sandy(fine)SILT,moist.
5
SM 5.5'-7.0'Stiff mottled tan and gray,sandy(fine)SILT,moist.
TD 7.0'
Minimal sloughing.
10 No groundwater encountered.
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
,
r
TEST PIT SL-8
Project Name: Faith in Action Parcel Test Pit Elevation: @ 51'
Client: Faith In Action Test Pit Location: See Site Plan.
Project Number: ESC13-GO45 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered.
a
F-� o Z H LABORATORY
w VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w TESTING
RESULTS
W d W FOR SAMPLE
A �D U Cn A
0 sM 0-0.5'Grass,TOPSOIL,dark brown sandy Silt,dry.
SM 0.5'-2.5'Loose to medium dense,tan sandy SILT,slightly moist.
SM 2.5'-3.5'Medium dense gray,silty fine SAND,moist. S-1 Grab 3.0
3.5'-5.0'Medium stiff to stiff mottled tan and gray slightly sandy
5 ML SILT,trace clay,moist.
- . mm ense,mottled tan and gray slightly sandy SIL 1,
SM_ moist.
ML 6.0'-7.0'Stiff,mottled tan and gray,slightly sandy SILT,trace clay,
moist.
SM - , Medium dense,mottled tan and gray sandy(fine) ,
very moist.
TD 8.0'
Minimal sloughing.
10 No groundwater encountered.
15
Excavation Contractor: Peninsula Topsoil Excavation Date: 8/23/13
Excavation Equipment: Back hoe ESC Representative: SEW
Operator: Tom Page 1 of 1
r
• 1
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Reports
EnviroSound Consulting
Faith in Action
ESC13-GO45
Percent Passing 75 micron
ASTM D-1140
Table 1
Exploration Number Depth(ft) Percent Passing 75
Micron
SL-1 S-1 2.5 81
SL-5 S-2 3.5 97
Phoenix Soil Research
PS R 13-9-0810
Page 1
Particle Size Distribution Report
8 O
O O O O O
(0 c) N
100
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
80
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
Z 60
LL
I I I I I I I I
Z 50
U I I I I I I I I I I
ry
I I I I I I I
w 40
a 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 I I I
20
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 I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3" %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL
0 0.0 0.0 42.7 57.3 ML A-4(0) NP NV
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description
inches O number O 0
sizeu
#10 100.0
#20 99.9
#40 99.9
#60 99.6
#140 85.2
#200 57.3
75< GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:
D60 0.0773 0
D30
D10
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
C,
0 Depth: 3.5 Sample Number: SL-2 S-2
Phoenix Soil Research Client: EnviroSound Consulting
Project: Faith in Action
ESC13-GO45
Kingston, WA Project No.: PSR13-9-0810 Figure 1
Particle Size Distribution Report
< <
N 8
(0y (0� t 0� t0� o v (y I
100 I I l l
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
80
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
w 60
Z
ILL
I I I I I I I I I I I
Z 50
v 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
a 40
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 I I I
20
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 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
+3" %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL
0.0 0.6 24.5 74.9
I -
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description
inchessize 0 number O
size
#4 100.0
#10 99.4
#18 98.3
#35 97.3
#60 94.9
#140 87.7
#200 82.3
GRAIN SIZE #270 74.9 REMARKS:
D60 O
D30
D10
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
0 Depth: 1.5 Sample Number:SL-7 S-1
Phoenix Soil Research Client: EnviroSoundConsulting
Project: Faith in Action
ESC 13-G045
KIrIgStOrl, 1IN/�1 ProiectNo.: PSR13-9-0810 Figure 2
f
r
USDA Soil Classification
7 ^Q
clay
4�C A
sil a, �
s ndy y
clay Qp
I ay loam silty
cay o m o
sandX
la I m NZ V
2 $
I am
silty,
and loa oa
loamy
s nd sand ilt
0� 8
`b 0 00 `ro 'b a0 �0 0
Percent Sand
SOIL DATA
Source Sample Depth Percentages From Material Passing a#10 Sieve
No. Sand Silt Clayy Classification
• SL-7 S-1 1.5 24.6 70.3 5.0
Silt loam
Phoenix Soil Research Client: EnviroSoundConsulting
Project: Faith in Action
' ESC13-G045
i
Kingston, WA Project No.: PSR13-9-0810 Fi ure 3
i
t
EnviroSound Consulting , INC.
9339 Bayshore Drive
Silverdale, WA 98383
Phone:(360) 698-5950
Fax: (360) 698-5929