HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2016-00034 for BLD2016-00488 - GEO Geological Review - 5/3/2016 Eo bi C� -ooa�"
RE:CE;V"&'--D
J U N 0 1 2
615 W. A!der Strut
Geotechnical Report
PLANNING
for
Rasor Recreational Vehicle Cover
60 NE Anchor Way
Parcel No. 12330-50-00069
Mason County, Washington
May 3, 2016
Project#1662
Prepared For:
Don Rasor
6049 Minnig Lane G, tio wA°E STD
Seabeck, Washington 98380
Prepared By: 345
Envirotech Engineering ��.���FG SoER�°G��wv
PO BOX 984 _ SIONALE�
Belfair, Washington 98528
Phone: 360-275-9374
Mason County Department of Community Development
Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report
Instructions:
This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the
licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to
the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain
the basis for the conclusion.
Applicant/Owner Don Rasor Parcel# 12330-50-00069
Site Address 60 NE Anchor Way, Belfair
(1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
Located on page(s) 5
(b) A discussion of specific soil types
Located on page(s) 7
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions
Located on page(s) 8
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology
Located on page(s) 3
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
Located on page(s) 3
(f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the
referenced maps and records
Located on page(s) 9
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan/Soil Logs
(4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and
setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan
(5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and
which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes.
Located on Map(s) Soil Profile
(6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading
conditions.Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the
Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum
seismic safety factor is 1.1. and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15.
Located on page(s) 11
(7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features
Located on page(s) 18
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields
Located on page(s) 19
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings
Located on page(s) 15, 16
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other
slopes on the property.
Located on page(s) 18
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes on the property.
Located on page(s) 18
(8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically
identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the
method of vegetation removal.
Located on page(s) 19
(9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which
identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the
slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods.
Located on page(s) 12
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) 14
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths.
Located on page(s) 18-19
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation.
Located on page(s) 19
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location
and nature of existing and proposed development on the site.
Located on Map(s) Site Plan
Michael C Staten 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 5/3/16 , and entitled Rasor
Recreational Vehicle Cover meets all the requirements of the Mason
County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment
demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the
included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as
to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp)
CLYDC ST
'4-
r
r 4304i5
Icn:a�t.• 5/3/16
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................I
1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION AND SCOPE OF WORK.........................................................................1
2.0 SURFACE CONDPTIONS........»..........................................................................................................3
2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS..................................................................................................................3
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology.............................................................................................................3
2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................................................3
2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies.................................................................................................................3
2.4 SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................................4
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION......................................................................................................5
3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING............................................................................5
3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS....................................................................................................5
3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................7
3.3.1 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................8
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................9
4.1 SLOPE STABILITY................................................................................................................................9
4.1.1 .Slope Stability Analysis............................................................................................................11
4.2 EROSION............................................................................................................................................12
4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION.............................................................................13
4.3.1 Liquefaction..............................................................................................................................13
4.4 LANDSLIDE,EROSION AND SEISMIC HAZARDS CONCLUSIONS.......................................................13
4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES...........................................................................................................13
4.6 ON-SITE AND OFF-STPE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................14
5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................15
5.1 BUIIAING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................15
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity.......................................................................................................................1 S
5.1.2 Settlement..................................................................................................................................16
5.L3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade..........................................................................................................16
5.2 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................16
l5.2.1 Excavation.................................................................................................................................16
5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill...........................................16
5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backfill...........................................................................................................17
5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations...........................................................................::.......................18
5.3 BUILDING AND FOOTING SETBACKS.................................................................................................18
5.4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................18
5.5 VEGETATION BUFFER AND CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................18
5.6 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL.......................................................................19
5.7 SEPTIC DRAINFIELDS........................................................................................................................19
5.8 STRUCTURAL MITIGATION...............................................................................................................19
6.0 CLOSURE............................................................................................................................................20
Appendix A-Site Plan
Appendix B-Soil Information
Appendix C-Slope Stability
Appendix D—Erosion Control
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a planned
Recreational Vehicle Cover located at 80 NE Anchor Way,identified as parcel number 12330-5-
00069, Belfair, Mason County, Washington. See the vicinity map on the following page for a
general depiction of the site location.
An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech on April 4,2016.It
was determined that slopes in excess of 40%with a vertical relief of at least 10 feet were present
within 300 feet of the planned development. Based on this site characteristic, the proposed
development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason
County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.100.During the site visit by Envirotech, surface and
subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable Project
research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report which, at a minimum, conforms to the
applicable MCRO.
As presented herein,this report includes information pertaining to the Project in this Introduction
Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section;
field methods and soil descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; supporting
documentation with relation to slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and lateral earth
pressures in the Engineering Analyses and Conclusions Section; and, recommendations for
foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, retaining walls, erosion control, drainage, and
vegetation in the Engineering Recommendations Section.
1.1 Project Information
Information pertaining to the planned development of the Project was provided by the proponent
of the property during the geotechnical investigation. Other Project information was obtained by
Envirotech. Existing development consists of a septic drainfield and driveway. The planned
development consists of a 1-story vehicle cover. Approximate building footprint and other
proposed features with relation to existing site conditions are illustrated on the Site Map provided
in Appendix A of this report.
1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope of Work
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to assess geological hazards, and evaluate the
Project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations that should be implemented during
development. The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and
subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site
activities.
In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program completed for the
proposed improvements of the Project include:
• Review project information provided by the Project owner and/ or owner's
representative;
• Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction
and performance of the proposed improvements of the Project;
• Define general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils within test pits
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 1 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
and/ or cut banks, review geological maps for the general area, research published
references concerning slope stability, and review water well reports from existing wells
near the Project;
• Collect bulk samples at various depths and locations;
• Perform soils testing to determine selected index and/or engineering properties of the site
soils;
• Complete an engineering analysis supported by the planned site alterations, and the
surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation, soil
testing,and applicable project research;and,
• Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for foundations,
drainage, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements, and other
considerations.
amlwm 3 `
/ S-J aft a
�_Osxl4hLM � u y;P
2W
Proj ect
p0 _ i—� NBFERM'�Y _3
TANUYASWRRD J' '4
1
f 1 � f ;rr� NE SOUWE�11
ff e
I
® ,1
i / o 8479R
Vicinity Map from Mason County Website
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 2 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on April 4,
2016 by a representative with Envirotech. During the site visit, the type of geotechnical
investigation was assessed, site features were documented that may influence construction, and
site features were examined that may be influenced by construction. This Surface Conditions
Section provides information on general observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and
observed slope/ erosion conditions for the Project and surrounding areas that may impact the
Project.
2.1 General Observations
The property is accessed from NE Anchor Way, an existing paved roadway. The Project is
currently developed land as previously mentioned. The access road extends near the south
property line. Beyond the property, rural residential development exists. Vegetation on and near
the Project consists primarily of secondary growth firs, cedars, and other trees. and shrubbery
common to this area of the Pacific Northwest. An aerial photo of the Project and immediate
vicinity is provided on the following page.
2.2 Topography
The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from a public lidar source,
and incorporated observations and field measurements. Where necessary, slope verification
included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site
Plan in Appendix A in this report for an illustration of general topography with respect to the
planned development.
Critical ascending slopes, with grades exceeding 40%, approximately 30 feet to the north of the
planned development. The maximum critical slope is approximately 41%with a vertical relief of
approximately 13 feet.
Descending grades are generally located to the southeast of the planned development. These
slopes are relatively minor within 300 feet of the Project,with no apparent slope grades of at least
10%.
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology
The upland area of the property and beyond is generally situated on a crest of glacial
origin.
2.3 Surface Drainage
Runoff originating upslope of the development is mostly diverted away from the property by
accommodating topography. Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past drainage
problems were not observed within the immediate vicinity of the planned development.
2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies
There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned
development that would significantly influence the Project.
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 3 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations
The slope grades near the Project signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Some
indicators that may suggest past slope movements include:
• Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope,
• Fissures,tension cracks,hummocky ground or stepped land masses on the face or top of
the slope,and parallel to the slope,
• Fine,saturated subsurface soils,
• Old landslide debris,
• Significant bowing or leaning trees,or,
• Slope sloughing or calving.
These slope instability indicators or other significant mass wasting on the property or within the
general vicinity of the Project were not observed or discovered during research. Indications of
past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems, or surficial slope failures
were not observed during the site visit.
n�
4
.Y
Aerial Photo from Google Website
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 4 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was primarily gathered on April 4,
2016 by a representative with Envirotech. Specific information on field methods, sampling, field
testing, general geologic conditions, specific subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing
are presented in this section of the report. Appendix B of this report includes pertinent
information on subsurface conditions for the Project, such as subsoil cross-section(s), test pit
log(s), and applicable water well report(s). Water well reports were utilized to estimate ground
water levels,and if sufficient,were used in identifying subsoil types.Applicable test pit locations
are depicted on the Site Plan provided in the appendix of this report.
3.1 Field Methods,Sampling and Field Testing
Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by examining soils in a
cut bank of up to 12 feet within the vicinity of the property.Information on subsurface conditions
also included reviewing geological maps representing the general vicinity of the project, and
water well reports originating from nearby properties.
Soil samples were not obtained from this project.Envirotech measured the relative density of the
near-surface in-situ soils by gauging the resistance of hand tools. Within testing locations, field
testing results generally indicated loose to medium dense soils in the upper 24 inches, and very
dense soils from 24 inches to the depth of terminous.
3.2 General Geologic Conditions
In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic
conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster,
2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qg. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated
deposits,and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is
located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably
overlie the Crescent Formation."as revealed in the Geologic Map.Initial sedimentary rocks were
formed from shales, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers.During the Quaternary period,the
Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets,with the most recent being the Fraser glacier
with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was
formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits.
The "Geologic Map of the Belfiar 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,provides the following caption(s)for the project area:
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 5 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
Vashon glacial ice-contact deposits—Sand, gravel. lodgment till. and
Qgic flow till;minor silt and clay beds; tan to gray:variably sorted: loose to
compact; massive to well stratified; locally includes over-steepened beds
that typically reflect sub-ice flow,but their dip may, along with
small-scale shears, also have developed as collapse features or due to
glaciotectonic and tectonic defornation; formed in the presence of
meltwater alongside ice, generally toward the end of the glaciation, and is
thus conulionly accompanied by stagnant-ice features. such as kettles and
less-orderly hununocky topography. eskers (also separately mapped as
subunit Qge), and subglacial or subaerial outwash channels. Deposits and
morphologies that support conceptual association with both ice and
meltwater are common in the map area and suggest that where unit Qgic is
mapped in the presence of fluted topography, it is commonly only a few
feet thick and locally could have been mapped as undifferentiated drift
(unit Qgd). Elsewhere, the unit may be over 100 ft thick. Unit Qgic also
includes poorly consolidated till commonly accompanied by underlying,
angular sand and noted as"sub-glacially reworked till" by Laprade (2003)
(see Geologic Setting), especially in fluted areas that lack dead-ice
features. See unit Qgo and Fig. 4 for discussion of similarities between
units Qgic and Qgo (and its subunits Qgos. Qgof, and Qgol).A
discrepancy between this map and the Vaughn quadrangle to the south
resulted where Logan and Walsh(2007)mapped undifferentiated
Quaternary deposits(unit Qu) because they lacked field exposures and
geomorphic signs of the dead-ice deposits that are apparent north of the
boundary. Dead-ice topography north of the boundary also reveals a sandy
deposit mapped as unit Qgos by Logan and Walsh (2007) to be a facies
within unit Qgic. Locally divided into:
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 6 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
QP Qp
7 y
oa
r
!gt i ! Project Qa
Qgt
Qpf
J
y x
Qgic
. Qp?
f OM r
Geological Map Department of Natural Resources Washington State
3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions
The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the Project subgrade utilizing
information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and .investigated
locations. Soils for this project were primarily described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification
System(USCS)and the National Resources Conservation Service(MRCS)descriptions.
The Project is currently composed of native soils without indications of borrowed fill.Within test
pit locations, soils within the upper 6 feet of natural ground were observed to be moist, brown
silty sand with gravel(SM).
The relative densities of the soil within selected test pits are provided above in Section 3.1.
Expanded and specific subsurface descriptions, other than what is provided in this section, are
provided in the soil logs located in Appendix B of this report.
According to the "Soil Survey of Mason County," by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, the site soils are described as Everett
Gravelly Sandy Loam, E., with 5% - 15% slopes, and Indianola Loamy Sand, L, 5% - 15%
slopes. The soil designations are depicted in the aerial photograph below, and descriptions are
provided in Appendix B of this report.
Envi otech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 7 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
d'
s'
r
WIW
Soil Survey From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
3.3.1 Groundwater
From the water well report(s)and knowledge of the general area,permanent groundwater
is at least 50 feet directly below the property at the building pad location.Surface seepage
or perched groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on-site,nor indicated on the
well reports.
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 8 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS
The following sections present engineering analyses and conclusions with relation to the existing
conditions and proposed improvements of the Project. This section includes slope stability,
erosion, seismic considerations, lateral earth pressures, and impacts to both on-site and off-site
properties.
4.1 Slope Stability
Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of
adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. Geotechnical engineering
cannot eliminate these risks for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly
inducing strain on the sloping soil mass. Excessive wet weather and/ or earthquakes will
exacerbate these strains. Geotecbnical engineering considers excessive wet weather and `design'
earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping
terrain with relation to current engineering protocol. These factors of safeties are based on
engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil, topography, water
conditions,seismic acceleration and surcharges.
Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep-
seated structural capability of the slope. However, excessive and/or repeated surficial slope
movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. If this
situation does arise, the slope shall be inspected by a geotechnical engineer. Subsequently,
maintenance may be required in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated
slope movements that may be damaging to life and property.
According to the Coastal Zone Atlas of Mason County, Washington, the Project is within and
near terrain labeled `Stable' regarding potential landslide activity. Stable slopes are generally not
prone to landslides due to small grades and accommodating geology. However, this site is
considered inherently hazardous due the existing geology and/ or topography, and additional
analyses and recommendations concerning the slopes are presented herein.A Stability Map from
the Coastal Zone Atlas for the general area of this Project is provided below:
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 9 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
S
r.
Project >'
t- is
0
Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Website
According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), the Project is not within terrain labeled `highly unstable' relating to soils. DNR labeled
portions of this project as medium slope instability with relation to slopes. This delineation is
primarily dependent upon slopes and convergence. Secondly, lithology and precipitation are
modeled within this delineation. In summary,this designation is based on mapping without field
observations or knowledge of the specific site geology or soils. A Resource Map from the DNR
Forest Practices Application Review System is provided below:
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 10 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
", �(
_l
Project
fop
S
I
Resource Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website
SOILS—On Resource\Iap only
Hvdric Soils
Fh2Ny Unstable
Hi@W Erodible
F izNy Unstabte t
FSehh•Erodible
10 Data or Gravel
Pits
SLOPE—On Resource Map only
Mediurn Slope
Instability
High Slope Instability
4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis
The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing `STABLE' software, was used to analyze the
static stability of the site slopes. Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case
scenario values from the static analysis, a quasi-static analysis coefficient of at least 0.1,
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 11 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
and applying the applicable values to STABLE software. Various radii's and center
points of the circle were automatically selected, and produced factor of safeties in a
graphical and tabular format. Worst case scenario values were used in the slope stability
analysis in regards to topography, surcharges, water content, internal friction and
cohesion of the site soils. STABLE software has been repeatedly checked with manual
calculations, and consistently proved to be a very conservative program. The following
soil properties were used in the analysis, and are based on observed conditions, known
geology,and/or published parameters:
Upper 5 feet soil depth
Soil unit weight: 120 pcf
Angle of internal friction: 32 degrees
Cohesion: 0 psf
Soils below 5 feet in depth
Soil unit weight: 140 pcf
Angle of internal friction: 40 degrees
Cohesion: 400 psf
Based on the slope stability analysis, minimum factors of safety were determined to be
less than 1.5 relative to static slope failures, and less than 1.1 with relation to seismic
conditions. These factors of safety were primarily limited to the face of the slope,and do
not reflect conditions where development is expected to occur. For this Project, at the
location of the proposed development,minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic
conditions were estimated to be 2.4 and 1.7, respectively. See the slope stability
information in Appendix C for a depiction of input parameters and example of outputs.
4.2 Erosion
Based on the USCS description of the Project soils, the surface soils are considered moderately
erodible. According to the Resource Map from the Washington State DNR, as provided above,
the Project is not within terrain labeled `highly erodible.' This Project is not within an erosion
hazard area as defined by the MCRO. Erosion hazard areas are those with USDA SCS
designations of River Wash (Ra), Coastal Beaches (Cg), Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam on
slopes 15% or greater (Ac and Ad), Cloquallum Silt Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Cd),
Harstine Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Hb), and Kitsap Silt Loam on slopes
15%or greater(Kc).
It is our opinion that minor erosion control recommendations provided in this report is sufficient
for the development of this Project, and additional engineered erosion control plans are not
required. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures are required for site development.
Extents of temporary erosion control will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction,
moisture content of the soil,and amount of rainfall during construction. Soil erosion typical to the
existing site conditions and planned disturbance of the Project include wind-borne silts during dry
weather, and sediment transport during prolonged wet weather. Sediment transport could be from
stormwater runoff or tracking off-site with construction equipment.
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 12 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
The Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Section (Section 5.6) of this report consist of
specific erosion controls to be implemented. Additional erosion control information and
specifications may be found in the latest addition of the "Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality
Program.
4.3 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction
There are no known faults beneath this Project. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this
property is the Tacoma Fault Zone,in which is approximately 5 miles to the south of this Project.
This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States.
Potential landslides due to seismic hazards have been considered, and are addressed in the Slope
Stability Analysis Section provided earlier in this report.
Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this Project are generally Type D,
corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. According to the IBC, the
regional seismic zone is 3 for this Project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from
0.50g to 0.60g.This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey(USGS)National
Seismic Hazard Project in which there is an estimated 2% probability of exceedance within the
next 50 years.
4.3.1 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction is believed to be low for this Project. This is based, in part,
on the subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent
shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems
caused from liquefaction include submerged, confined, poorly-graded granular soils (i.e.
gravel,sand, silt).Although gravel-and silt-sized soil particles could be problematic,fine
and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No
significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of
the subsoil for this Project.
4.4 Landslide,Erosion and Seismic Hazards Conclusions
DNR did not indicate historic landslide activity near the Project. Mapped slope conditions, as
delineated by the Departments of Ecology and/ or Natural Resources, were considered in our
slope stability assessment. Based on the proximity and severity of mapped delineations with
respect to the proposed development, results of the aforesaid slope stability analysis, observed
surface conditions, and other pertinent information, it is our opinion that the proposed
development may occur in accordance with the recommendations in this geotechnical report.
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures
Lateral earth pressures exerted through the backfill of a retaining wall are dependent upon several
factors including height of retained soil behind the wall, type of soil that is retained, degree of
backfill compaction, slope of backfill, surcharges, hydrostatic pressures, earthquake pressures,
and the direction and distance that the top of the wall moves. Significant retaining structures are
not anticipated for this Project. If retaining walls are later planned for this Project, prescriptive
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 13 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
requirements from the County should be adhered to. For retaining structures with a height
exceeding County prescriptive requirements, additional design parameters must be accounted for
in the retaining wall analysis, and recommendations should only be provided by a qualified
engineer after the type of backfill is acquired, inclination of backfill slope is estimated, and the
fmal wall height is determined.
4.6 On-Site and Off-Site Impacts
From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the subject property and adjacent
properties to the proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all
recommendations in this report are followed. This opinion is based on the expected site
development, existing topography, existing nearby development, land cover, and adhering to the
recommendations presented in this report. Future development or land disturbing activities on
neighboring properties or properties beyond adjacent parcels that are upslope and/or downslope
from the subject property could cause problems to the subject property. For this reason, future
development or land disturbance near the subject property should be evaluated by a geotechnical
engineer.
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 14 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements of
the Project. These recommendations have been made available based on the planned
improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations
including drainage and topography as recapitulated in the Surface Conditions Section; soil/
geologic conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in
the Subsurface Investigation Section; and, Project research, analyses and conclusions as
determined in the Engineering Analysis and Conclusions Section. Recommendations for the
Project that is provided herein,includes pertinent information for building foundations,earthwork
construction, building and/ or footing setbacks, drainage, vegetation considerations, and erosion
control.
5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations
Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one-story
residential structure. The recommended allowable bearing capacities and settlements as presented
below, consider the probable type of construction as well as the field investigation results by
implementing practical engineering judgment within published engineering standards.
Evaluations include classifying site soils based on observed field conditions and soil testing for
this Project. After deriving conservative relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal
friction of the in-situ soils, the Terzhagi ultimate bearing capacity equation was utilized for
determining foundation width and depth. Foundation parameters provided herein account for
typical structural pressures due to the planned type of development. A structural analysis is
beyond the scope of a geotechnical report, and a structural engineer may be required to design
specific foundations and other structural elements based on the soil investigation.
Stepped foundations are acceptable, if warranted for this Project. Continuous,isolated,or stepped
foundations shall be horizontally level between the bottom of the foundation and the top of the
bearing strata. The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12 inches below the
ground surface for this Project under normal circumstances and anticipated design features.
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity
Existing in-situ soils for this Project indicates that the structure can be established on
shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively
undisturbed native soil. Alternatively, foundations may be constructed on selective re-
compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as described in the Earthwork
Construction Recommendations Section of this report.
For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 1500 psf, a standard thickened slab
foundation per County requirements. Foundation recommendations are made available
based on adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report.
Alterations to the aforementioned foundation recommendations may be completed upon a
site inspection by a geotechnical engineer after the foundation excavation is completed.
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 15 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
5.1.2 Settlement
Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the
subsurface conditions,type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the
structure,reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances,the infiltration of free
moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, anticipated development, and
construction abides by the recommendations in this report, the assumed foundation
system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement,and a maximum differential
settlement of 0.75 inch.
5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of compacted
coarse, granular material (Retained on U.S. Sieve #10 or greater) that is placed over
undisturbed, competent native subgrade or engineered fill per the Earthwork
Recommendations Section below.
The recommendations for interior concrete slabs-on-grade as presented herein are only
relevant for the geotechnical application of this Project. Although beyond the scope of
this report, concrete slabs should also be designed for structural integrity and
environmental reliability. This includes vapor barriers or moisture control for mitigating
excessive moisture in the building,if necessary.
5.2 Earthwork Construction Recommendations
Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed native soils to the
specified foundation depths. Compacted engineered fill, or selective re-compacted native soils
may be used to the extents provided in this Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section.
The following recommendations include excavations, subgrade preparation, type of fill, and
placement of fill for building foundations.
5.2.1 Excavation
Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious
material, if present, beneath foundations and to achieve appropriate foundation depth.
Additional sub-excavation will be required for this Project if the soils below the required
foundation depth are loose, saturated, not as described in this report, or otherwise
incompetent due to inappropriate land disturbing, or excessive water trapped within
foundation excavations prior to foundation construction.All soils below the bottom of the
excavation shall be competent, and relatively undisturbed or properly compacted fill. If
these soils are disturbed or deemed incompetent, re-compaction of these soils below the
anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered,
compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or
structural concrete.
5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill
For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly
beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is required prior to
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 16 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
foundation construction. The following placement and compaction requirements are
necessary.
For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath foundations, limits of compacted or
re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of
one horizontal foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill depth beneath the
foundation. See the illustration below.
FOOTING
COMPACTED
NATIVE SOILS
OR ENGINEERED i
FILL
1
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE,
Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and
other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Because of
moisture sensitivity, importing and compacting engineered fill may be more economical
than compacting disturbed native soils. Engineered fill shall include having the soils
retained on the No. 4 sieve crushed (angular), and should consist of the following
gradation:
U.S.Standard Sieve %Finer(by weight)
6" 100
3" 60— 100
No.4 20—60
No.200 0-8
Table 1
Partical Size Distribution of Engineered Fill
Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6 inches for both native
soils and engineered fill,respectively.Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least
90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and within 3% of
optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained during
construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding.
Temporary earth cuts and temporary fill slopes exceeding 4 feet in height should be
limited to a slope of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Utility trenches or other confined
excavations exceeding 4 feet should conform to OSHA safety regulations. Permanent cut
and fill slopes shall be limited to a slope of 2:1, unless otherwise approved by an
engineer.
5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backfill
As previously mentioned, significant retaining structures are not anticipated for this
Project. However, if used, native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this
Project. Backfill may also consist of engineered fill or borrow materials approved by a
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 17 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
geotechnical engineer. Placement, compaction and extents of retaining wall backfill
should also be specified by a geotechnical engineer or qualified professional.
5.2A Wet Weather Considerations
Due to the types of subsurface soils, additional provisions may be required during
prolonged wet weather. Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free
moisture from saturating the soils within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used
for footing placement changes from a moist and dense/hard characteristic as presented in
this report to muck or soft, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for
foundation bearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be
notified, and these soils should be completely removed and replaced with compacted
engineered fill or suitable native material as presented in this section.
5.3 Building and Footing Setbacks
Due to potential debris flow,the building location should have a minimum setback from the local
ascending slope toe equal to V2 the slope height.The toe of the ascending slope is delineated as a
grade break in which the ascending slope is in excess of 40%.Envirotech recommends the garage
setback to be at least 7 feet from the toe of the nearby ascending slope.
5.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential buildings.
Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface, driveways and sidewalks away from the
Project structures.All constructed surface and subsurface drains should be adequately maintained
during the life of the structure.If drainage problems occur during or after construction,additional
engineered water mitigation will be required immediately. This may include a combination of
swales, berms, drain pipes, infiltration facilities,or outlet protection in order to divert water away
from the structures to an appropriate protected discharge area.
If impervious thresholds are exceeded per Mason County code, then engineered stormwater
management plans are required for this project. The drainage engineer must coordinate with a
geotechnical engineer for input with relation to slope stability prior to submitting drainage plans.
If stormwater management plans are not required for this project, then the following
recommendations should be followed.
For this project, we recommend that roof infiltration is located at least 10 feet to the southeast of
the proposed house, conforming to the Mason County Small Parcel Stormwater Plan. Splash
blocks are acceptable for roof areas contributing to less than 700 sf of each downspout collection
system.
5.5 Vegetation Buffer and Considerations
For this project, we believe that a detailed clearing and grading plan is not warranted unless
Mason County thresholds are exceeded, and basic vegetation management practices should be
adhered to.
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 18 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
Vegetation buffer is zero for this project, and vegetation should not be removed from slopes
greater than 40%.
5.6 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control
Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the
least extent possible. Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling
cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other
standard controls. Although other controls may be used, if adequate, silt fencing is presented in
this report as the first choice for temporary erosion control.Any erosion control should be located
down-slope and beyond the limits of construction and clearing of vegetation where surface water
is expected to flow. If the loss of sediments appears to be greater than expected, or erosion
control measures are not functioning as needed, additional measures must be implemented
immediately. See Appendix D for sketches and general notes regarding selected erosion control
measures. The Site Map in Appendix A depicts the recommended locations for erosion control
facilities to be installed,if necessary.
Permanent erosion control may also be necessary if substantial vegetation has not been
established within disturbed areas upon completion of the Project. Temporary erosion control
should remain in place until permanent erosion control has been established. Permanent erosion
control may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching,
seeding or an equivalent measure. Selected recommendations for permanent erosion control are
provided in Appendix D. Additional erosion control measures that should be performed include
routine maintenance and replacement, when necessary, of permanent erosion control, vegetation,
drainage structures and/or features.The following Surface and Subsurface Drainage Section may
have additional recommendations with relation to permanent erosion for surface drainage
features.
5.7 Septic Drainfields
The approximate location of the septic drainfield is presented on the Site Plan in Appendix A of
this report. Based on the septic drainfield location with relation to the existing and proposed
topography, the drainfields are not expected to adversely influence critical slopes. This is also
based on compliance with all recommendations in this report.
5.8 Structural Mitigation
With respect to landslide alleviation or slope improvements, structural mitigation is not necessary
for this project. This determination is based on the anticipated improvements of the project,
engineering conclusions,and compliance with all recommendations provided in this report.
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 19 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3,2016
6.0 CLOSURE
Based on the project information provided by the owner, the proposed development, and site
conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's opinion that additional geotechnical
studies are not required to further evaluate this Project.
Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical
subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during
construction are different than those described in this report. It is not recommended that a
qualified engineer performs a site inspection during earthwork construction unless fill soils will
influence the impending foundation.However, if native,undisturbed subsurface conditions found
on-site are not as presented in this report,then a geotechnical engineer should be consulted.
This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner, or
owners' representative,and location of project described herein.This report should not be used to
dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility.
Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid in conjunction with the compliance of
all recommendations provided in this report. Semantics throughout this report such as `shall,'
`should' and `recommended' imply that the correlating design and/or specifications must be
adhered to in order to potentially protect life and/or property. Semantics such as `suggested' or
`optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed, but is
provided for optimal performance. The recommendations provided in this report are valid for the
proposed development at the issuance date of this report. Changes to the site other than the
expected development, changes to neighboring properties, changes to ordinances or regulatory
codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the long-term conclusions
and recommendations of this report.
The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael
Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate education and
experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards,
earthquake hazards,and general soil mechanics.
Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
Envirotech Engineering
Robert McNearny,E.I.T. Michael Staten,P.E.
Staff Engineer Geotechnical Engineer
Envirotech Engineering 60 NE Anchor Way
PO Box 984 page 20 Parcel 12330-50-00069
Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington
Ph. 360-275-9374 May 3.2016
Jun 14 17 08:44a Jeff& Phyllis Bishop 360-277-0459 p.2
Mdrld HILIS
v XIUN5[ddv
SCALEi 1'=30'-G'
A m%ieTT-
U lb 30
lUP OF SLOPE
4 5L
0)
C? TOE OF SLOPE
ZERLJ VEGETATION
0 BUFFFR
TPI
cl)
7' CONSTRUCTU-R/
SETBACK +I
C-) \-- EXISTING GLENDON
CD
SEPTIC DRAINP-IEI--D
SILT FENCE
ti
PROPOSED RV STRUCTURF
0 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
(n ANCHOR
CL
cd NOTESi
— I. EROSION CONTROL MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE. GENERAL LOCATIONS PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION,
a) ARE DEPICTED, AND ALTERNATIVES MAY BE UTILIZED AS EXPLAINED IN THE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
2. CONTOURS WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND
INCORPORATED FIELD MEASUREMENTS AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL RASOR
REPORT. 60 NE ANCHOR WAY
co Lo 3. BOUNDARIES WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. LOCATIONS LEGEND PARCEL 12330-50-00069
OF SITE FEATURES THAT ARE SHOWN HERE, SUCH AS TOP OF SLOPES, TOE MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
00 OF SLOPES, WATER FEATURES, ETC_ WITH RELATION TO THE PROPERTY SILT FENCE ENGINEER,
0 LINES MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE OWNER. RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROVIDE SETBACKS, BUFFERS, DEPTHS, ETC.. WITH SLOPE INDICATOR PO BOX 984
RELATION TO GEOLOGIC FEATURES, NOT PROPERTY LINES. THESE GEOLOGIC BELFAIR, W ASHINGTON 98528
FEATURES MAY BE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UR NEIGHBORING EXISTING CONTOUR 360-275-9374
PROPERTIES. TP TEST PIT
SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
SOIL INFORMATION
ti'd 69t,0-LLZ-09P, doysi8 sillA4d '8 jjer e9t,:80 L L t,L unf
11, PROP11"ED Rv
STRUM:l URf-
EXISTING GRADE
0) SILTY SAND
WITH GRAVEL
o
N 1
o
(y)
Q ICI
0
m SECTION A-A
CL
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIDNi
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
GE❑TECHNICAL REP❑RT
RASUR
60 NE ANCHOR WAY
PARCEL 12330-50-00069
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Lo
cr NOTES,
00 ENGINEER,
0 1) MINOR GRADE CHANGES REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
POSITIVE DRAINAGE PO BOX 984
27 THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 96528
THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS. 360-275-9374
LOWER DFPTHS ARE BASED ON SITE GEOLOGY, -
WELL LOGS?, AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL AREA. -� Sf7IC. PROFIL-E
TEST PIT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1
PROJECT: Rasor Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 4/4/2016
PROJECT NO: 1662 LOGGED BY: RJM
CLIENT: Don Rasor EXCAVATOR: NIA
LOCATION: Parcel 12330-50-00069 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
501E STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION ILL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
SM Brown, moist, loose to medium dense
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL. Gravel is
primarily well-graded and subangular.
1 Sand is mostly medium. Low plasticity_
2
3
4
5
6 Excavation terminated at approximately
6.0 feet
7
8
9
i
10
No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering
intetpreted as being indicitive of the entire site. _j
9'd 65ti0-LLZ-09£ doyslg siIIAgd '8;f9f e9t,:90 L 6 tq unr
Map Unit Description:Indianola loamy sand,5 to 15 percent slopes--MasonCounty,Washington
Mason County, Washington
lb—Indianola loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol., 2t635
Elevation: 0 to 980 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 81 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 170 to 210 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Indianola and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the
mapunit.
Description of Indianola
Setting
Landforrn: Eskers, kames, terraces
Landform position(three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Linear
Acrnss-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Sandy glacial outwash
Typical profile
Oi-0 to 1 inches: slightly decomposed plant material
A - 1 to 6 inches. loamy sand
Bwl- 6 to 17 inches: loamy sand
Bw2- 17 to 27 inches: sand
BC-27 to 37 inches: sand
C-37 to 60 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 5 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature. More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to
very high (5.95 to 99.90 inihr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available waterstorage in profile: Low (about 3.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrofogic Soil Group: A
Othervegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA), 'a
Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA)
}
LsDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 412V2016
"iiii Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 a
i
L-d 69-�0-LLZ-09`; doysio sillAud '81jer e9tr:20 L t t,l unr
Map Unit Description Indianola loamy sand,5 io 15 percent slopos Grlason County,Washington
Minor Components
Alderwood
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Hills, ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position(three-dimensional): Nose slope,talf
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Everett
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Eskers, kames, moraines
Landform position(two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest; base slope
Down-scope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Norma
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform.- Depressions, drainageways
Landform position(three-dimensional): Dip
Down-slope shape: Concave, linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 15, 2015
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/21/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2
e-d 65b0-LLZ-09£ doysl8 s,iiAqd jjer e9t, 80 L 1 t, unr
Map Unit Description:Everett gravelly loamy sand,5 to 15 percent slopes—Mason County,
Washington
Mason County, Washington
Ee—Everett gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
!National map unit symbol: 2hk7
Elevation: 50 to 500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 55 to 90 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 160 to 180 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Everett and similar soils. 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the
mapunit.
Description of Everett
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Parent material. Glacial outwash
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly ashy loamy sand
H2- 7 to 21 inches: extremely gravelly sand
H3-21 to 60 inches very gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Scope: 5 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class. Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to
very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 2.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group. A
Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA)
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 15, 2015
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/21/2016
conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1
6-d 65ti0-LLZ-09E doyslg slllAud '8 33ar eLti:80 L 1- t,1. unr
Saint card no.Fk hlfa5�6Ra
06MIrl flit ordflr�ICopyWllh WATER WELL REPORT UfIIOUEWELLI.D.s ABA955
Oepflrtrnefu of 6l:abpy
9eCOnd to Pv—OviiiCopY 57ATE OF WASHING7011
Third Copy—DMpor's Copy WH*r Right PfI i No. -
I �
(1) OWNER: Nam. Lynn Thompson _ �... 1 ?21 1 72nc Ave. NE RP1 1 PVllA F WA oAnO�
L
(2) LOCATION OF WELL: cm-ray M a n n )T F ,a qP v4 Sect_1--23—H..Rj_RWlA.
(2n) STREET ADDRESS OF WELL iormamoaddrem) Min ji k Mpg T n
1
(3) PROPOSED USE: D 1)"n"' is IndusltlSl ❑ Munidpel ❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION
r [.l Irrigation --
I ❑ DeWaier Test Well ❑ Other 2 Fornarion:Deacribe try color.character.l is or marenal and struculre.and sAow th chneas of afludli
and ma kind and fte ure of the material in iii taraWin penstnted,will at east one entry tr each
i (4) TYPE OF WORK: Owner's numEer of war chly ps of inAlrmattan.
pf more Star+one) _
twaTewuL F►loae To
Abandoned] New well (X Melhod.Duo C Bored C.
Deepened ❑ Cabli Driven a Brown loos e. sand 0.. 2
Remnrnvoned❑ Rotary _ Jetltad❑
► (5) DIMENSIONS: Diamatsrofwell fi incihas. Brown till 711
Driller} 1 i feel. Depth of wmpleted we11_ 1 ri7 h.
j (a) CONST•RUCriON DETAILS:
Calling k'tatlwied: —._�' Diam.from in--a to fi_ 11 'h T 01v n r 1 d� & S
Wolded - t7+am,from_ ft,to_ tt.
lmtavtrd
ThreatlsreAins C Oiam Irpm ft.to—ft.
�i
1 LL��.
PerloradoDf: Yes C No 5FJ
Type of pertcrator used
I SIZE cl perfoeallons _in.by
R1 Ark S a_n rt k Tr A 1LS 1 r/h
I peirforanons troll n.to —n,
r
l peAoraliolta from _ft-t' _ .. _tt. -r
I 'sn hltt�� ay _
semirw Yes Ey No❑
ManulacyiNama .7nhnson k
' Type stainless --steel /� 7 Model No.
Clam. 5 slol 91Le 7 —from—- 1._-2—ff.to Ii ff. -
Olam. r Sfo;sire 'h I ank, --from t r5 1 n.to__ 757 -ft.Ge•avat yatked: Yas❑ Na La Sire or Brevet
i Gravel placed from _ ._._- h.lo -.-. —n. NJ
r 9urfs"sad: Yes Iwo'7 Townplemp:n?
1 MateirW used In seat .. _.$Q[ 't rii t e __ - W
Did any shaw Conti unusabe WSW, Yes❑ No® —
i Typealwatars_ _.... Depth of strata
1 Method ofsealiiiafratsa" _. -- — Ll'1.Vf -
i
(7) PUMP: Meal+aaurereNlune--
Type- _ S11 bl i r-S 1-h I P _ N.P.
(6) WATER LEVELS: Land-eudaceebvmillion n _
above mean cad level— . ..
Si lsra 10 A n.below too of wan Date f1/1 22�19 A _
Artesian pressure .. .._Ib■.per aware inch Date- _ -
Artetrdinvaawrtsconhaasdby . .._ _ -
' '(� v'la r'e,etc-7—
• Wank sr.n.d 1 fI/fi - .t 4. Camdeled
(9) WELL TESTS: arawdown is arnoarrt ware level is lowered below static lave)
Was a pump lost made?Yes[ No❑ tf yes.by whom?fl l i n r l WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION:
vleid; ___2�pal.rmin.Ywih.__2b —n.drawdown after_Q _his. I constructed and/or aoci tesponSibiNy for cOnsvuctron 01 this well, and its
compliance with all Washington weal construction standards.fatafenals used and
iha intormation reported above are Into to my best knowk)dge end belief.
Recovery data(time taken as Taro wirer,pump turned oil)(water Level measured from wall
aop to wstef level) NAME C}1 Gen I &A oa c�T.rnri CA KKTI
Time Water I" 7mm Water Level Time Water Level
1 g 4 m i ni 122 — 2b r q —10 8--- Address a ha rc� 4 E136�i__..
1 rn i n _ - — —1.0 m i n T t Q ISiflnadl License No, 1 2 1 5
172 1 fi.1r 1 h�- 5"� aorta n
Date of test
Smiles test---Lg gel.nmin.w t?t a_h.drawdown Alw —� hra.
Attgirstretion Aatest. fle I.'mm.w;fn stem sar at ft.for_ hn No. 0 Tl S E%I D 101 L J Date 2/21 .19 9.5
Artesian flow D•O•'f'• Date 1
7emperaturb of wafer kiss a dtemcd anetysis made? Yes No ❑ (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
ECL(150-120 t2A3)"t '-q11P' 0
06'd 69b0-LLZ-09E doysi8 s,iiAgd v;je RLV:20 L L t'L U1`ll'
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY
L L'd 69t0-LZZ-09E doysi8 slllAud '8 JJ8r ez v 20 Z L t,L u
STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System
New User
Project : Rasor
Dalafile= Dynamic Bishop
STAB-,E Verson 5.03.00u
Bishop
r#}#rlrr�**.*}►.y#rr*yr{r#!#►*.#w#yy}###*#r*r4rrr4#wrYwrrw
TITLE
Dynamic
#R#rftwra#{.4*#Yfe#*1**{ri##*4r#r*d4*�##Yk*#*#kr*rrv#4 Y4 I.#Ir
UNITS (Metric/Imperial) I
GEOMETRY DEFINITION
POINTS
NO. X Y
1 0.000 0.000
2. 50.0r.0 0.000
3 82.00 -13.000
4 132.000 -13.000
5 0.000 -6.000
6 50.0±'0 -6.000
1 82.0i:0 -19.000
8 132.000 -19.000
9 13.200 0.0c0
10 18.160 0.000
11 24.320 0.000
12 29.870 0.000
13 35.430 O.C.00
14 40.990 0.000
15 46.550 0.000
16 52.110 -0.860
17 57.6'c0 -3.110
18 63.220 -5.370
19 68.780 -7.630
20 74.340 -9.890
21 79.890 -12.140
22 85.450 -13.000
23 91.010 -13.000
24 96.570 -13.000
25 102.130 -13.000
26 107.680 -13.000
27 113.240 -13.000
28 118.800 -13.000
L;NES
Lo X Hi X Q.L
1 2 1
2 3 1
3 4 1
5 6 2
6 7 2
7 8 2
*rrr*ryrlww.r}{rysfyyrrr{#,.{r}s#wry#rYr!}{.{{{............
SOIL---
SOIL NAVE LINETYPE-PEN COHESION FRICTION UNIT SOT.
STABLE02W2 MZAssociates Ltd Printed on: 27/O4/16 @ 08,56:12 Page: 1
Z L'd 69t0-LLZ-099 doysi8 S1JJAgd 'R 44E)r ebb 20 Z l b l urn!'
STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System
New User
Project : Rasor
❑atafilc: Dynamic Bishop
1 SM CONTINUOUS-BLACK 0.00 32.0 120.000
2 Hardpan CONTINUOUS-BLUE 400.00 40.0 140.000
rx*x..xffxwr+r+............+rr.r•x,ef rfrrf}xxrxfr*rx+rfx..x
FORE PR3SSURB SPECIF:CATIOW
SOIL PIEZO RU EXCESS
Y/K/P Value Value
1 K 0.000 C.000
2 N 0.000 C.03C
PrEZCMETRIC SURFACE
POINT
POINT PORE PRESSMS
POINT PRESSURE
.x.xlrr.•rfwrfx*x:r+:r.rf rf}}*+Rr*RrRfR++.rRr+f RrrRrff.R+. ..
SLIP DI12EC._Ord (•/- XI T
*}k*+ff.AwrxR}xxr}rf1r++R*r}w**wkaRRr wif wrfwwRr++f xrrw+r♦.
SLIP-C--RCLES
AUTOMATIC
Circle Centre Grid Extremi-ies
105.600
YrRx*fxx.f.f x};
13.200 * 118.800
+*xr+Rf*A*.rRr.
0.P.
X spacing -- no. of co-s lmax 10)_
Y spacing -- no. cf rows imax 20)- 20
:rid 1 Circles through point 9
Grid 2 Circles through point 10
Grid 3 Circles through point 11
Grid 4 Circles t`t_ough point 12
Grid 5 Circles through point 13
Grid 6 Circles throt:gh point 14
Grid 7 Circles through point 15
Grid a Circles through point 16
Grid 9 Circles through point 17
Grid 10 Circles through point 18
Grid 11 Circles though point 19
Grid 12 Circles through point 20
Grid 13 Circles through point 21
Grid 14 Circles through point 22
STABLE12002 MZAssocWes Ltd Printed on: 27104/16 0 08:56.12 Page: 2
9 L'd 69b0-ZZZ-09E doysl8 slllA4d w mef s9t1:80 Z l b l u r
CL
1 0 0
110
LD
1 . 20
1 - 30
40
I so
6 C)
1 -70
I P- 0
9 0
2 0 G
CC)
.�2
06
:L 5.14 4
00
00
O
Project It at n co
D'a-t EL:E 1 1. Static
74
lu X-- u ie-4 1--a
49 C)
O
00
OD
ty Nla
T
(D
Uj
D
00 Z7
06 T
02 T
0 L L
09 T
09 T
0 t7 I
0 r 1 N)
CD
0 T T:
00
l
9 i
i
is
i
1
.i
G
I
t
k
k€.
H
5
£97
APPENDIX D
EROSION CONTROL
� I
i
f
S
i
i
rrA
t
9L'd 69b0-LLZ-09E doqsig sillAqd 1p j;er e6b:90LLVL
iLUTEXTILE FABRIC 2'X2' WORD POST (TYP) GEDTEXTILL FABRIC
/RAP AROUND TRENCH OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH
FO AT LEAST ENTIRE
1OT70H OF TRENCH E 6 FT MAX. O.C. RS FT
BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL L'=5' WOOD POST OR �--- 6 FT
'72' DEEP, 8' 3/4' TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER EXISTING
`[LIED WITH 3/4' 7O k 1/Z' GROUND SURFACE
/ASHED GRAVEL or VEGETAT 2 T
DIRECTCCN OF EXISTING
12' DEEP, 8' DWIDE W
WATER FLOW GROUND SURFACE TRENCH FILLED WITH 1 T
12' 3/4' TO 1 1/2' 23 FT
2.51FT WASHED GRAVEL OR
VEGETATION
0 BOTTOM EXTENTS OF
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SILT FENCE - DETAIL
SILT FENCE - CR SS SECTION N.T.S.
N,T.S, HAY OR STRAW MATTING
ENERAL NOTES- 1. STRAW SHALL BE AIR DRIED, AN➢ FREE FROM WEED SEEDS AND
COARSE MATERIAL.
SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON 2. APPLY AT APPROXIMATELY 75 TO 100 POUNDS PER 1000 SQUARE
HESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR FEET OF GROUND.
HALL 114STALL ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. 3. MINIMUM THICKNESS SHALL BE 2 INCHES.
1. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE 4. HAY OR STRAW IS SUBJECT TO BLOWING. KEEP MOIST OR TIED
NSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED, IF NECESSARY. DOWN.
LACE
A��L��L EROSION AND SS�E❑❑DIEMEENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE LEFT IN
LACE UNTIL
N ERT14E PSLOPE AREAS
HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES
EMPOR ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED LAND SEEDING FOR RAV SLOPES
ISTURBING ACTIVITIES, AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A 1. BEFORE SEEDING, INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL
ERIOD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR DIKES,
4MEDIATELY STABD_IZED VITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED SVALES, LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS.
R❑SICN CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR. GRASS SEEDING 2. THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE,
LONE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH FOLLOWING SURFACE ROUGHENING, PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS ACCROSS
EPTEMBER. HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE.
HE OWNER/CONTRACTOR, BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING 3. SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS, AS SHOWN BELOW, AND SHOULD BE
R OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT. APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 120 POUNDS PER ACRE.
RY SEASON (MAY l THRU SEPTEMBER 30) -- THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE 4, SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN MAY I AND UCT13BER 31 WILL
EMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER, MUST BE LIMITED TO REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO
FOSTER AND PROTECT THE ROOT STRUCTURE
NLY AS MUCH LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE
THER BE NE ER 1 AND APRIL 30,
WISE STABILIZED, AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED , 5. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN N
Y NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 OF A GIVEN YEAR. UNLESS IMMEDIATE GEOTEARMORING OF THE SEED BED WILL BE NECESSARY, ).
TABILIZATION IS SPECIFIED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, ALL 6. FER FERTILIZERS
JUTE MAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING).
REAS CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED 6. FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING IZ SUPPLIERS'
HROUGH THE USE OF MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSIIIN BLANKETS, RECOMMENDATIONS. AMOUNTS SHOULD T MINIMIZED, ESPECIALLY
REE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., BY SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS.
LAN OF ACTION. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSION
ERTILIZING AND MULCHING OF CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE CONTROL, OR A COUNTY APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTURE.
ERFORMED DURING THE FOLLOWING PERIODS. MARCH I TO MAY 15, AND AUGUST 15 TO
CTOBER 1. SEEDING AFTER OC70BER 1 WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION PROPORTIONS PURITY GERMINATION
F THE PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVIROMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE NAME BY WEIGHT(%.) (n (7.)
❑ SATISFACTORY GROWTH. IN THE EVENT THAT PERANENT STABILIZATION IS NOT
OSSIBLE, AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF GROUND COVER, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, REDTOP (AGROSTIS ALBA) 10 92 90
LASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED BY NO LATER THAN ANNUAL RYE <LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) 40 98 90
EPTEMBER 30. CHEWING FESUE 40 97 80
4 THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT (FESTUCA RUBRA COMMUTATA>
CTIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE E BANNER, SHADOW, KDKET)
INNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL EROSION WHHITIT E DUTCH
UTCH CLOVER IO 96 90
ND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORM EVENTS, AND AT CTRIFOL[UM REPENS)
EAST ONCE EVERT WEEK. THE OWNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MULCHING,
HE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES,
(ET SEASON COCTOBER 1 THRU APRIL 30) -- N SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED 1. MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE WOOI1
O
ONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS, THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE FIBER CELLULOSE, AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF f000
POUNDS PER ACRE
'EMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER, SHALL BE LIMITED
O AS MUCH LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS IN 2. MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED 2N ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED SLOPES
CALX
HE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT GREATER THAN SHOULD
CHOR[ZON D IMMEDITEL
RANSPORT OFF-SITE IS OBSERVED. 3. MULCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN
AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON. ALL I
ALL CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SHALL BE COVERED BY NOVEMBER 1.
'OVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC
'HEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER
IAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED IF NOT BEING ACTIVELY VORKED.
'ILT FENCING, SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, ETC., WILL NOT BE VIEWED AS
MCQUATE COVER IN AND OF THEMSELVES. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NCT
SING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY
:TABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON
HE SITE, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL C
M14EDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFOREMENTIONED LAND AREA HAS BEEN
.PPROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED.
'ILT FENCE
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION-
GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SHALL BE PER SPECIFIED IN THE 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
'OR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN,' OR APPLICABLE COUNTY STANDARDS
I GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL Bf PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
"ACH BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS. IF JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED RASOR
FOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT 60 NE ANCHOR WAY
30TH ENDS TO THE POST. PARCEL 12330-50-00069 '
3. STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FASTENED USING V STAPLES OR TIE WIRES (HOG RINGS) @ 4 IN MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
FP POTS S SHALL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET, AND ENGINEER,
)RIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
D. WIRE MESH SHALL BE Z'X2'X14 GAUGE OR EQUIVILENT. THE WIRE MESH MAY BE ELIMINATED IF PO BOX 984
:XTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC (MONOFILAMENT>, AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED. BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 d
S. A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE 360-275-9374
'OSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE SILT FENCE.
7. SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DOWNSLOPE FR13M THE CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. EROSION CONTROL
3
L l'd 65�0-LLZ-09£ do1{si8 S!11�4d '8 dlaf e6t,:80 L l t,L urlr
GE02O(to - 00O3y
Mason County Review Checklist
for a Geotechnical Report
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed
for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should
explain the basis for the conclusion. The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings,
discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally
consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If
resolution is not achiievved�with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
Applicant's Name: i)
Permit#: l�.?�ll�'V0�{Qj8 Parcel#: -5Q —000(Q�
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed:
1. (a) A discus sio f general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK? Comment: !.)
(b) A discuss io f specific soil types
OK? I Comment: 7
(c) A discuss�io Yof ground water conditions
,
OK?�Comment: 1:1'5
d A discussio of the u sloe geomorphology
O y�' up slope 9 p 9Y
OK? ✓ Comment:
(e) A discussion the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
OK? Comment: �wQ_
(f) A discussiowof history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records
OK? y Comment: � &44W 45 9�� —V1cWe*t tl r�ln�.�ra��[�- Vl ct2arJ605
2. A site plan t at identifies the important development and geologic features.
OK? Comment: '; .
3. Locations ar d logs of exploratory holes or probes.
OK? Comment: Si�e c
4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall
be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site.
OK? L/Comment: 5 V=._
5. A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which
incorporates the details of proposed grade changes.
OK? V Comment:
6. A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.
Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of
Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1 and the quasi-static
analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15.
OK? /Comment: i I
7. (a) Appropriate r strictions on placement of drainage features
OK? L Comment: A reoF :ysL; AyLb -- 4
(b) Appropriate r�strictions on placement of septic drain fields
OK? ✓ Comment: i°1
(c) Appropriate festrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings.
OK? ✓ Comment: i4N
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
(d) Recomme ed buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? I Comment: 146
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landsli a hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? ✓ Comment: a W `? -pvw, ty c !E (;�j ox�_
0
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. I
OK? V Comment: KO he- Vy Q r r 11.v�-c.d/ rko x Elv'
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 7sComment:
truction methods.
OK?� 1'2
10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
OK? Comment: I c
11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widt
OK? Comment: I P -l 1
12. Recom7'Comment-. -LI
ations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
OK? V1, - CSSa�r l/Y
13. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of
existing an roposed development on the site.
OK? Comment: `
Are the Documents signed and stamped? \ By whom? k-�CLCLLI
License#: ?mac` + { S License type: (✓
FIRST REVIEW Approved ❑ Need more info.
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action?
Reviewed by CAI*, on U1 DI I Le . Time spent in review: 1
SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by , on . Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by , on . Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008