Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Report for BLD2007-01886 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 2/26/2008 V e c t o r E N G I N E E R I N G I N 309 WASHINGTON STREET NE • OLYMPIA WA 98501 • TEL: 360 352-2477• FAX: 360 352-0179 www.vectorengineeringinc.corn February 26,2008 tlw; 19 Mr.Robert D.Fink,AICP BAR - 4 20V0$ Mason County—Department of Community Development Mason County Bldg 1 CCD - PLANNING P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Subject: Geotechnical Report Acceptance Permit#:BLD 2007-01886 Parcel No.32136-76-00010 Applicant: Casimiro Garcia Planner: Pam Bennett-Cumming VEI#: 8001-007 Dear Mr.Fink, The geotechnical report dated January 23, 2008 and response letter received February 22, 2008 prepared by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory; 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 for a proposed addition to a single-family residence at 591 Gosser Road, Shelton, WA 98584-7311 along Deer Creek overlooking Oakland Bay were received and reviewed by Vector Engineering,Inc. It is recommended that the geotechnical report and letter be accepted. No further review by Vector Engineering is necessary. The report mentions that the site meets the requirements of an erosion hazard area. The applicant is required to submit a Soil and Erosion Control Plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. A Soil and Erosion Control Plan was not included with the report. We have enjoyed working with you on this geotechnical review to support the goals of the Department of Community Development of Mason County,Washington. We look forward to cooperating with you on any future project or review. The invoice,the geo tech work order,the geotechnical report, response letter with the revised site plan and our review are enclosed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any features need further discussion or attention. Sincerely, Russell W. La Force, P.E. Design Engineer Enc. Page 1 of 1 X:\8000 Files\8001 Mason County Geotech Reviews\8001-007_Mason_Co(Garcia)GR\Communication\Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report BLD 2007-01886 Review Acceptance.doc r a ere c to r E N G 1 N E E R I N G I N 309 WASHINGTON STREET NE • OLYMPIA WA 98501 • TEL: 360 352-2477• FAX: 360 352-0179 www.vectorengineeringinc.corn Review of Geotechnical Report February 26,2008 ,�r1 Permit#:BLD 2007-01886 MOM - PLANNING Parcel No.32136-76-00010 Applicant: Casimiro Garcia Planner: Pam Bennett-Cumming VEI#: 8001-007 The geotechnical report dated January 23, 2008 and response letter received February 22, 2008 prepared by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory; 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 for a proposed addition to a single-family residence at 591 Gosser Road, Shelton, WA 98584-7311 along Deer Creek overlooking Oakland Bay were received and reviewed by Vector Engineering, Inc. The Department of Community Development requested the review for the purpose assisting the Department in determining the amount of potential for landslide activity and the proposed development would not cause significant adverse impacts or there is adequate geological information available on the area to determine the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures. The Department of Community Development reviews all development applications to determine if they are likely to be in or near a landslide hazard area per Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO), Geologically Hazardous Areas, Landslide Hazard Areas 17.01.100, Seismic Hazard Areas 17.01.102, and Erosion Hazard Areas 17.01.104 approved December 27,2006. The geotechnical report states the proposed addition will be in an area of moderate residential development along northwest facing inland hillside. The proposed building location was graded when the residence was built and used a lawn. A site plan with locations of the proposed residence,the addition and existing septic drainfield was provided with the report. The response letter clarified parts of the report, which the reviewer made comments and included an updated site plan. Findings 1. Areas identified on the Mason County Soil Survey Map as having slopes greater than 15%is one guide used by the County to indicate areas that have a higher likelihood of meeting the classification criteria for landslide hazard areas. MCRO 17.01.100 A.2.a. • Slopes in the north and west portions of the site are over 100 percent along the stream drainage and in the road cuts. The selected addition location has a slope of approximately 5 percent. 2. A 50-foot buffer of undisturbed natural vegetation is required around the Landslide Hazard Area or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. MCRO 17.01.100 D.6.a. Page 1 of 5 X:\8000 Files\8001 Mason County Geotech Reviews\8001-007_Mason_Co(Garcia)GR\Communication\Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report BLD 2007-01886 Review.doc • A landslide hazard area with a 50-foot vegetative buffer. 3. Based upon the results of the Geotechnical Report or Geological Assessment, the Director may increase the buffer.MCRO 17.01.100 D.6.b. 4. Development 300 feet of areas with slopes greater than 40 percent will require a geotechnical report.MCRO 17.01.100 E.La. • Slopes in the north and west portions of the site are over 100 percent along the stream drainage and in the road cuts are within 200 feet of the addition. 5. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or a licensed engineering geologist. MCRO 17.01.100 E.3 • Curtis Cushman,a licensed engineering geologist,prepared the report. 6. The report includes a discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity, including soil types, groundwater conditions, upslope geomorphology, location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, and a history of the landslide activity. MCRO 17.01.100 E.5. (1). • The report states the site is within the Puget Sound glacial upland with Alderwood gravelly sandy loam underlain with advance outwash deposits. Two seepages were observed within 12 feet of the site and one by the well downslope of the site. No groundwater was encountered in the boring, however, the soil from 2.5 feet below the ground surface was saturated. Upslope of the site is sandy silt. No upland water bodies or wetlands were observed.The water flows and ponds across the addition site. Onsite slumping and landsliding were limited to the road cut along Gosser Road. 7. The report is to include a site plan identifying important development or geologic features.MCRO 17.01.100 E.5. (2). • A site plan identifying the access driveway, proposed addition location, existing drainfield,seeps,slump,contours,and property boundaries was provided. • The revised site plan revised the location of the profile of the seepage profile 8. The report is to include the locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. MCRO 17.01.100 E.5.(3). • One boring log was in the report. The boring log location was shown on the site plan. 9. The report is to include a geologic map of the site showing the area of the proposed development with the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks delineated on the map.MCRO 17.01.100 E.5. (4). • Geologic features were included in the site plan. Boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks were shown on the site plan. Page 2 of 5 XA8000 Files\8001 Mason County Geotech Reviews\8001-007_Mason Co(Garcia)GR\Communication\Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report BLD 2007-01886 Review.doc 10. The report is to include a cross-section at a scale adequately depicting the subsurface profile.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S. (5). • The cross-section in the report is at a scale adequately depicting the subsurface profile.Two soil profiles were used. 11. The report is to include a description and results of the slope stability analysis. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static factor of safety is 1.5. The minimum seismic safety factor is I.I. The quasi- static analysis coefficient should be 0.15.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S.(6). • The report states slope stability was modeled using GeoStudio 2004 program (version 6.20), which uses the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static factor of safety was determined to be 2.60. The minimum dynamic safety factor was determined to be 1.69. The site was modeled using saturated conditions. 12. The report is to include appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, septic drainfields and compacted fill and footings,including recommended buffers and setbacks from the landslide hazard areas.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S.(7). • The report included restrictions on placement of a features and Po drainage recommendations on buffers and setbacks from the landslide hazard and seepage areas. 13. The report is to include recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. MCRO 17.01.100 E.S. (8). • The report includes recommendations for clearing and grading. 14. The report is to include recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan, which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented. MCRO 17.01.100 E.S. (9). • The report includes recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan. 15. The report is to include an analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts. MCRO E 17.01.100 .5. 10 . • No adverse on-site or off-site impacts were described in the report. 16. The report is to include specifications of final development conditions, such as, vegetative management, drainage control, and buffer widths. MCRO 17.01.100 E.S. (10). • The report includes recommendations for vegetation management and drainage control. The report includes specifications for buffer widths. Page 3 of 5 XA8000 Files\8001 Mason County Geotech Reviews\8001-007_Mason_Co(Garcia)GR\Communication\Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report BLD 2007-01886 Review.doc 17. The report is to include recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S.(11). • The report includes recommendations for retaining walls, cut and fill slopes, foundation support, structural fill, floor slab support, roof drains, and footing drains. 18. The report is to include a site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of the proposed development on the site.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S.(12). • A site plan showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of the proposed development on the site is a part of the report. 19. If the site is in a Seismic Hazard Area, then the Geological Report shall include a description of the geology of the site,conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geological conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations for compensating for the seismic hazards present. MCRO 17.01.102 D.3.a. • The report includes an analysis of the seismic hazard and the site was determined to be not susceptible to liquefaction. 20. If the site is in an Erosion Hazard Area,then the Geological Report may include a Soil Erosion and Control Report as an attachment.MCRO 17.01.104 D.3. • The report mentions that the site meets the requirements of an erosion hazard area. The applicant is required to submit a Soil and Erosion Control Plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. A Soil and Erosion Control Plan was not included with the report. Conclusions and Recommendations In the reviewer's opinion, the report and letter were prepared by a qualified engineering geologist and does provide sufficient information to determine the proposed residence will not decrease slope stability at the site or on adjacent properties and the risk for such occurrence would be minimal. It is recommended that the geotechnical report, response letter, and revised site plan be accepted. No further review by Vector Engineering is necessary. Adequate erosion and sediment control features need to be implemented during land disturbing activities to protect neighboring properties and State waters from adverse stormwater runoff impacts. The migration or release of silty water or mud from the applicant's property will be considered a violation of County and State water quality protection regulations. Page 4 of 5 XA8000 Files\8001 Mason County Geotech Reviews\8001-007 Mason_Co(Garcia)GR\Communication\Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report BLD 2007-01886 Review.doc The conclusions presented in this report are based on Vector Engineering,Inc.' understanding of the project requirements.Vector Engineering,Inc.warrants that its services were performed with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other warranty or representation,expressed or implied,is included or intended hereunder. Sincerely, (Signature) (Date) Russell W. La Force, P.E. Seal: Design Engineer Vector Engineering, Inc. 309 Washington Street NE Olympia, WA 98501 (360) 352-2477 XN of wr s� • k O �y o rn 10 10 0 9 42651 � NAL .: (EXPIRES _21-ofl Page 5 of 5 XA8000 Files\8001 Mason County Geotech Reviews\8001-007_Mason_Co(Garcia)GR\Communication\'Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report BLD 2007-01886 Review.doc Groncnta r.AL TnTiNG eopwFoRy RUSSELL LAFORCE f VECTOR ENGINEERING 309 WASHINGTON STREET NE OLYMPIA,WA 98501 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GARCIA RESIDENCE BLD 2007-01886 591 E GOSSER ROAD SHELTON,WA 98584-7311 Mr. LaForce: I would like to thank you for getting your comments to us in a timely manner. I would like to address these comments in order. 1. The report was watermarked "draft" so as to ensure we would be paid before issuing our final report. We assume the proceedings wouldn't be halted by the watermark. If desired, we can submit a final, non-draft, report on request. 2. The confusion in the dates is a typographical error and this letter may be taken as an amendment to that. The actual dates are December 28 and 29 of 2007. 3. Similarly the second date of reconnaissance is amended to be January 15, 2008. We apologize for the confusion created. 4. The calculation was indeed wrong for the total bearing capacity of soil. The total bearing capacity should have been 8798 psf yielding 2930 psf with a factor of safety of 3. 5. The source of the contours is Mason County Geodata site combined with our field observation and we believe the contours depict the land profile accurately. 6. The soil moisture can be attributed to the unusual rains experienced last year. Record rainfall preceded the drill date is the most likely factor for the saturation of the soil. An additional factor was the related snow melt. 7. The shear test was done according to ASTM D 3080 standards, direct shear test under consolidated drained conditions. The test requires representing the field conditions. 8, Unit values of soil were determined in the lab using applicable ASTM C 29 standards. 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 A Gz®ucHNI r.AL TnTmG sotu Ry 9. We have noted the drainage situation on the Garcia property. The standing water and the seeps will require engineering to remediate. In addition, we strongly recommend that the drainage of the entire residence be improved, including the eave drainages. These currently daylight into the air directly beside the stem walls with one exception, one at the SW corner of the house. 10. Please refer to the attached site plan. 11. Please refer to the attached site plan. If there are any questions,please contact me. Respectfully submitted p Y Geotechnical Testing Laboratory,Inc. e of W ash; f0 Engineering Geologist �� 2439 Ed GE°\.° Curtis D Cushman S - Senior Engineering Geologist CURTIS 1EAN CUSHMAN 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 RUSSELL LAFORCE p E W E VECTOR ENGINEERING 309 WASHINGTON STREET NE FES 2 2 2008 OLYMPIA,WA 98501 VECTOR ENGINEERING, INC. RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GARCIA RESIDENCE BLD 2007-01886 591 E GossER ROAD SHELTON,WA 98584-7311 Mr. LaForce: I would like to thank you for getting your comments to us in a timely manner. I would like to address these comments in order. 1. The report was watermarked "draft" so as to ensure we would be paid before issuing our final report. We assume the proceedings wouldn't be halted by the watermark. If desired, we can submit a final, non-draft, report on request. 2. The confusion in the dates is a typographical error and this letter may be taken as an amendment to that. The actual dates are December 28 and 29 of 2007. 3. Similarly the second date of reconnaissance is amended to be January 15, 2008. We apologize for the confusion created. 4. The calculation was indeed wrong for the total bearing capacity of soil. The total bearing capacity should have been 8798 psf yielding 2930 psf with a factor of safety of 3. 5. The source of the contours is Mason County Geodata site combined with our field observation and we believe the contours depict the land profile accurately. 6. The soil moisture can be attributed to the unusual rains experienced last year. Record rainfall preceded the drill date is the most likely factor for the saturation of the soil. An additional factor was the related snow melt. 7. The shear test was done according to ASTM D 3080 standards, direct shear test under consolidated drained conditions. The test requires representing the field conditions. 8. Unit values of soil were determined in the lab using applicable ASTM C 29 standards. 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#:(360) 754-4848 Grmuctun iL llwtm LABORATORY 9. We have noted the drainage situation on the Garcia property. The standing water and the seeps will require engineering to remediate. In addition, we strongly recommend that the drainage of the entire residence be improved, including the eave drainages. These currently daylight into the air directly beside the stem walls with one exception, one at the SW corner of the house. 10. Please refer to the attached site plan. 11. Please refer to the attached site plan. If there are any questions, please contact me. Respectfully submitted Geotechnical Testing Laboratory,Inc. �m °t Wash;�i 2-2+ ' t.-,jY Engineering Geologist 2439 Curtis D Cushman s d G CO 0 Senior Engineering Geologist CURTIS DEAN CUSHMAN 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 coPERMIT CTR 10/29/2007 18:05 FAX 360 427 7798 MASON . �e 'r® 100 a qJ . 1 A-aar '" W �'�®N Ad1 Aj 45�" �s c` • • . . ;, sir, ���' '!LAB✓ F*R �wG�' 9y oea�► . , ; � �i �ryerg4 -� 3�t�3(.`7G'`0,40�0 _• ;'... . ' . • , .. . ' . •,•` 10/29/2007 16:05 FAX 960 427 7798 MASON CO PERMIT CTR wvu:l SC.t4 4� Ad 00 • e spa a �, q00 RECEIVED E=20- GEOTECHNICAL REPORT �� I�� - PLANNING 591 GoSSER ROAD TO BE KEPT IN THE SHELTON, WASHINGTONPARGL-1 FILE PREPARED FOR CAS IM I RO GARCIA BY GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON JANUARY 23, 2008 G EOTEC'HNICAL TESTING LABORATORY CONTACT INFORMATION PREPARER INFORMATION GTL PROJECT NUMBER: 07-0662 CONTACT: CURTIS D.CUSHMAN OR LANCE LEVINE ADDRESS: 10011 BLOMBERG STREET SOUTHWEST OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON 98512 TELEPHONE: (360)754-4612 FACSIMILE: (360)754-4848 EMAIL ADDRESS: GEOTESTLAB@COMCAST.NET CLIENT INFORMATION CLIENT: CASIMIRO GARCIA TELEPHONE: (360)427-6624 BILLING ADDRESS: 591 EAST GOSSER ROAD SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 SITE ADDRESS: 591 EAST GOSSER ROAD SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 PARCEL: 321367600010 GPS LOCATION: N47° 15.521' W 123"00.528' 407-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 2 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING CASIMIRO GARCIA 591 EAST GOSSER ROAD SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 591 EAST GOSSER ROAD SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 PARCEL 321367600010 N47o 15.5211 W123°00.5281 Mr. Garcia: As per your request, we have conducted a soils exploration, foundation evaluation, and slope stability analysis for the above-mentioned parcel. The results of this investigation,together with our recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We have provided three(3)copies for your review and distribution. Several representative soil samples were submitted for laboratory testing from the project site (B-1). The data have been carefully analyzed to determine soils bearing capacities and footing embedment depths. The results of the exploration and analysis indicate that conventional spread and continuous wall footings appear to be the most suitable type of foundation for the support of the proposed addition(24' x 24'). Some variability was encountered in comparing the soil profiles of the site. Net allowable soil pressures, embedment depth, and total expected settlements have been presented for the site later in the report. We are also a full service laboratory that can meet all your building, testing (compaction, asphalt, concrete), and inspection needs. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and we look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions concerning the above items, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call us at the phone number listed below. Respectfully Submitted, W 8 shjn GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY �O Curtis D. Cushman, L.G.,L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist � ngmeering Geologist 2439 CURTIS DEAN CUSHMANI EXPIRES ^3 _1-JY SIGNED 3- S - #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia,WA 98512 3 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TES TINc LABORATORY TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTACTINFORMATION..................................................................................................................................... 2 SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING............................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 SITECONDITIONS................................................................................................................................................... 6 SurfaceConditions..................................................................................................................................................6 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS............................................................................................................ 10 LandslideHazard Classification............................................................................................................................10 Seismic Hazard Classification...............................................................................................................................10 Erosion Hazard Classification...............................................................................................................................I I SiteGeology..........................................................................................................................................................12 SiteSoils................................................................................................................................................................13 SubsurfaceExplorations........................................................................................................................................13 SubsurfaceConditions...........................................................................................................................................14 Recommendations for Suitability of Onsite Soils as Fill ......................................................................................15 TerzaghiEquation..................................................................................................................................................15 SlopeStability and Analysis..................................................................................................................................15 Recommendations for Building Setback...............................................................................................................19 LiquefactionHazard..............................................................................................................................................19 SeismicHazard......................................................................................................................................................19 Recommendations for Erosion Control.................................................................................................................20 EARTHWORK.........................................................................................................................................................21 Recommendations for Site Preparation.................................................................................................................21 Recommendations for Structural Fill ....................................................................................................................21 Recommendations for Cut and Fill Slopes............................................................................................................22 Recommendations for Foundation Support...........................................................................................................22 Recommendations for Floor Slab Support............................................................................................................23 Recommendations for Retaining Walls.................................................................................................................23 Mason County Prescribed Wall Design.................................................................................................................24 Recommendations for Retaining Wall Alternatives..............................................................................................26 Recommendations for Site Drainage.....................................................................................................................26 SepticImpact.........................................................................................................................................................26 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................27 General...................................................................................................................................................................27 REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE....................................................................................................27 References.............................................................................................................................................................29 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................................................................31 AdditionalSite Photos...........................................................................................................................................32 BoringLog.............................................................................................................................................................34 LaboratoryResults.................................................................................................................................................35 ShearResults.........................................................................................................................................................39 WellLogs...............................................................................................................................................................40 Figure1 Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................................................43 Figure 2 Site Plan Attached Figure 3 Erosion Control Notes Attached Figure 4 Cross-section Attached #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 4 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING UeoRATORY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of our geotechnical consulting services a proposed addition to the existing single-family residence. The addition will be constructed on a cleared area south of and adjacent to the back of the residence. The report has been commissioned by Casimiro Garcia. The parcel (5.70 acres) is located along a northwest-facing inland hillside overlooking the Oakland Bay (see site photo below). The site is approximately 5.1 miles northeast of Shelton, Washington. The site will be accessed from the existing driveway off East Gosser Road from Agate Road. The GPS location of the site is shown relative to the surrounding area on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 (at the end of this report). Gxistina Septic L" Proposed $uilding Location View Looking Northwest Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with Casimiro Garcia and Jack Frost (Contractor). We understand that the parcel is to be developed with an addition to the existing single-family residence. The one story(presumed) addition will measure 24 feet by 24 feet. The addition will attach to the existing structure at the southeastern corner. In general, grading will consist of the excavation of the foundation, footings, and drainage control elements. The approximate layout of the site is shown on the Site Plan,Figure 2. The purpose of our services is to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the project and to satisfy the requirements of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory is therefore providing geologic and hydrogeologic services for the project. Specifically,our scope of services for this project includes the following: 1. A review of the available geologic,hydrogeological,and geotechnical data for the site area. 2. A geologic reconnaissance of the site area and surrounding vicinity. 3. Investigation and identification of shallow subsurface conditions at the site by characterizing the exposed soil and by reviewing published well logs. 4. Comparison of site to published geologic maps, previous field investigations, and open file reports. Inspection of aerial photographs to determine the geomorphology of the site. 5. Laboratory grain size and shear angle analysis for the soil samples collected from the site. 6. Evaluation of the landslide, erosion, and seismic hazards at the site per the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance regulations(December 27, 2006). 7. Building setbacks determined from dynamic slope stability modeling. 8. Geotechnical recommendations for site grading including site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria (including hillside grading), temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, drainage and typical erosion control measures(Figure 3). #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 5 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 <J EOTECHNICAL ftwtm LABovtATORY Along Gosser Road near the driveway, the slope is approximately 5 percent. Otherwise, road cuts along Gosser Road range from 100 percent to near vertical in the northern portion of the parcel. In the western portion of the parcel, the slope is over 100 percent along the stream drainage. The road cuts are located approximately 125 feet from the proposed building location. Therefore, Mason County requires that a geotechnical report be prepared in accordance with the Critical Areas Ordinance. 17.01.100ES(1) -- A discussion of general geologic conditions, specific soil types, ground water conditions, the upslope geomorphology and location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, and history of landslide activity in the vicinity. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is located in an area of moderate residential development along the inland (upland) hillside overlooking the Oakland Bay (see aerial photos below). The site is near the Deer Creek confluence into the northeastern corner of Oakland Bay. I crraServer-USA Aerial Photo 0, e *.fto i �r WA Department of Ecology,View Looking North At the project site, exploration (test boring) was conducted on December 28 and 29, 2007; the soil boring was logged by Neil Lorenzo and Jaycee Lawrence. A site reconnaissance was conducted on December 21, 2007 and January 15, 2008 by Lance Levine. The purpose of the site inspections was to physically observe the property and adjacent properties and to identify any recognized geologic conditions. Photographs and visual observations were documented. Site-specific features wereAM mapped and the vegetation noted. January 9, View Looking North 2008 by Curtis D. Cushman. No fill material was observed onsite. No grading has occurred recently. Immediately outside the proposed building location, the vegetation is unaffected, see photo right. Alder trees were trimmed or removed at the proposed building location, see photo next page. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 6 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LAeoRATORY - Ie - Proposed BUIldim-,1,ocatirol At. op View Looking North ' The southern end of the existing single-family residence will be developed with an addition. The existing septic drainfield is located to the northwest of the existing residence. The site has a predominant northwestern exposure and is well vegetated. Site elevations range from approximately 10 to 150 feet. The general topography of the site area indicates that drainage flows toward the west and northwest from the proposed building location. The site plan is included as Figure 2. A steep road cut borders Gosser Road, see photo below. 1 umti Landslide Hazard Area 6 ' ? i -r,a• yv 4i a P!,1` fk View Looking South A small seasonal seepage was observed flowing from a cut slope approximately 12 feet from the proposed addition, see photos below and next page. Minor surface water flow and ponding was observed across the proposed building location. No evidence of active surface erosion was observed. An additional seepage was observed to the northwest of the existing well house. Surface flow was also observed in the western drainage and from the western seepage. seepage Ponding :, �• 4 -� Proposed Building Location Looking East #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia,WA 98512 7 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GE® l ECHNICAL TEsTiN r #sORATORY Seepage .S Propuscd Building Location,View Looking East l f 1, t� r1C. lisp I II 3C j rip �� p�, ".a . •t,fi w✓ �, f Onsite slumping and landsliding was limited to the road cut along Gosser Road. Ditch repairs have left the scarp shown in the photo below. No evidence of deep-seated slope instability was observed onsite. Onsite trees were observed to be straight and vertical. rf' Slump View Looking East #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 8 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEoT R ICAL UsTiNG pA T VRy To the south of the site, a northeast-southwest trending ridgeline is approximately 1000 feet from the proposed building location. No upland water bodies or wetland features were observed during the site reconnaissance or through the inspection of aerial photographs. The northern portion of the site ranges from approximately 21 to 100 percent; road cuts approach vertical. The selected building location has a slope of approximately 5 percent. The existing septic drainfield has a slope of approximately 25 percent. The site is protected with vegetation common to the w a°epartment of Leoiogy,view Looking Norm Northwest, see photo right and below. The vegetation includes fir, maple, alder, and cedar trees as well as Oregon grape, salal, holly, rhododendron, sword fern, bracken ferns, blackberry, and grasses. View Looking West a Proposed Building Location '' , 17.01.100E5(2) -- A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. A site plan is attached as Figure 2 Site Plan at the end of this report. 17.01.100E5(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. A site plan is attached as Figure 2 Site Plan at the end of this report. 17.01.100E5(3) -- Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. The location of the exploratory hole is labeled on the Figure 2 Site Plan at the end of this report. 17.01.100E5(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. 407-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 9 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEOTECHNtCAL ''I`mim LABORXTORY The area of the development, boundaries of the landslide hazard area and associated buffers and proposed p > setbacks are demarcated on Figure 2 Site Plan at the end of this report. Appropriate geology is labeled on Figure 2 Site Plan. 17.01.100ES(S) -- A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. A cross-section is attached to this report as Figure 4 Cross-section. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS LANDSLIDE HAZARD CLASSIFICATION The Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance(17.01.100A1)defines a landslide hazard area as: The following shall be classified as Landslide Hazard Areas: a. Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps and rockfalls (see figure F.100). b.Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e. cuts or fills. c. Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils. d. Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action. e. Slopes greater than 15% (8.5 degrees) and having the following: i. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock(e.g. sand overlying clay);and ii. Springs or groundwater seepage. f. Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. The subject site meets the qualification of a landslide hazard area due to the adjacent slope (northern) that is greater than 40 percent and more than 10 feet in vertical height (17.01.100A1f). This slope will be over 125 feet from the proposed building location and over 50 feet from the existing septic drainfield. SEISMIC HAZARD CLASSIFICATION The Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance(17.01.102A)defines a seismic hazard area as: 1.Areas susceptible to ground failure including the following: a. Areas with mapped geologic faults until proven inactive; b. Deep road fills and areas of poorly compacted artificial fill; c.Areas with artificially steepened slopes (i.e. old gravel pits); d. Postglacial stream, lake or beach sediments; e. River deltas; f.Areas designated as potential Landslide Hazard Areas; g. Bluff areas; and h. Areas underlain by potentially liquefiable soils #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia,WA 98512 10 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 UE®TECHNICA L TESTING L B J J- Y 2. The following criteria may be used as a guide by the County to indicate areas that have a higher likelihood of meeting the classification criteria above: a Areas identified on the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume 9, Mason County as Af, Qal, Qa2, Qvc, Qls, Qos and Qp. b.Areas identified on the Mason County Soil Survey Map as having slopes greater than 15 percent. c. Faults identified on "Map Showing Known or Suspected Faults With Quaternary Displacement in the Pacific Northwest", A.M. Rogers, T.J. Walsh, W.J. Kockelman and G.R. Priest, US Geologic Survey, 1996; or described in "Active Faulting Investigations on the Canyon River Fault, Southern Olympic Range, Washington'; T.J. Walsh and KG. Neal, U.S Geologic Survey, 1997. d Areas underlain by potentially liquefiable soils as shown "Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington"by Stephen P. Palmer, Sammantha L. Magsino,James L. Poelstra; Eric L. Bilderback Derek S. Folger, and Rebecca A.Niggemann, September 2004. This site does qualify as a seismic hazard area because the site is categorized as, "Lf. Areas designated as potential Landslide Hazard Areas." EROSION HAZARD CLASSIFICATION The purpose of the Erosion Hazard Section (17.01.104A) is to identify areas that present potential dangers to public health and safety,and to prevent the acceleration of natural geological hazards,and to neutralize the risk to the property owner from development activities. Areas in Mason County underlain by soils which are subject to severe erosion when disturbed. Such soils include, but are not limited to, those for which potential for erosion is identified in the Soil Survey of Mason County,USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1960, or any subsequent revisions or additions to this source. These soils include, but are not limited to, any occurrence of River Wash ("Ra') or Coastal Beaches ("Cg!�...and,the _ following when they occur on slopes 15%or steeper: 4 a.Alderwood gravelly sandy loam("Ae"and"Ad') b. Cloquallum silt loam("Cd") 1*F `; r i t \ e. Harstme gravelly sandy loam(Hb" .) g d. Kitsap silt loam("Kc') - --- — J � The soils at the site are mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Ac). This site does_not meet the technical criteria of an erosion hazard area. The following photo illustrates the proposed building location. 00000007 4A ��. to Vicw LookmR East :a, . �fk: r. r. yr #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 Phone#:(360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 G EOTECH N ICALY IISTiNG ]LABOBAWRtY SITE GEOLOGY The site is generally situated within the Puget Sound glacial upland. Multiple Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium glacial advances deposited the onsite material. The onsite material was deposited before the latest glacial advance as outwash. During the most d - , recent Vashon stade (stage) of the Fraser glaciation (9,000 and 11,000 years ago), glacial till material was deposited over the outwash material. Subsequent erosion exposed the outwash by eroding the till. The figure (right) is a LiDAR image at WOOF a 12-feet resolution. In the local - vicinity, erosion has created a southwest to northeast trending ridgeline. Drainages are predominately northwest trending. The lower slope material is composed of mixed silty sand sandy gravel. The upper slope material is composed of sandy silt. A description of the onsite soils is included in the"Boring Logs"section of the appendix. The following g g eolo is excerpts are for the educational purposes of the client and not necessarily for the review staff at Mason County. The following photos portray the onsite material. The Geologic Map of Washington —Northwest Quadrant(2002) has mapped the site geology as glacial outwash deposits(Qgo)of continental glacial origin. The report reads: Undifferentiated outwash — Recessional and proglacial stratified sand, gravel, and cobbles with minor silt and clay interbeds deposited in delta, ice-contact, beach, and meltwater stream environments; may include advance outwash. Includes part of the Partridge Gravel,part of the Everson Glaciomarine Drift, and part of the Vashon Drift undivided. _- Glacial Outwash at Slump #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 I ' Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY The Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington, by Logan (2003) describes the site as Proglacial and recessional outwash (Qgo), late Wisconsinan (Pleistocene). The Proglacial and recessional outwash is described as: Proglacial and recessional outwash, late Wisconsinan (Pleistocene)—Typically poorly to moderately sorted, rounded gravel and sand with localized coarser- and finer-grained constituents; lithologically varied mixture of mostly northern provenance clasts, especially containing granitic and metamorphic rocks that identify the unit as being deposited by the Puget lobe of the Cordilleran glacier; also contains varying amounts of locally derived Crescent Formation basalt, and in the Mox Chehalis Creek valley, central Cascade Range— derived andesitic clasts; typically shades of gray where fresh or brown where stained especially in proglacial and morainal areas; buff staining near the ground surface;fine sand, silt, and clay constitute local overbank sediments having relatively poor permeability or deltaic foreset bedding along north sides of valleys with higher permeability;porous and permeable enough to yield small to moderate quantities of groundwater; very poorly consolidated to loose; moderately to well-rounded clasts; mostly unweathered with rare weathered reworked clasts; thickness varies and is not well known; most commonly occupies outwash channels scoured into or through till. The Geologic Map of Southeastern Mason County, Washington, USGS Water-Supply Bulletin 29 by Noble and Molenaar(1970)describes the site as advance outwash. The advance outwash(Qva) is described as: Gravel and sand, with some silt and clay at base. Unconsolidated and generally is in discontinuous strata. Underlies till in most of area and up to 200 feet thick. Yields moderate to large quantities (20-800 gp.m) of water where gravel and coarser sand facies below water table. SITE SOILS The Soil Survey of Mason County, USDA Soil Conservation Service (1960) has mapped the site soils as an Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes(Ac). The survey reads: This soil varies more in depth, but otherwise it is similar to Alderwood gravelly sandy loams, 5 to 15 percent slopes. It occurs in close association with and adjacent to that soil. It is on moderately steep ridges, along drainageways, and on elongated irregular slopes. Small areas with slopes of more than 30 percent are mapped with this soil. Surface drainage is more rapid than on the more gentle slopes. Runoff and erosion on the logged and semi cleared areas are controlled by the dense growth of plants. Erosion would damage the soil if it were cleared for crops. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by observing exposed building site soil. Additionally, subsurface information was obtained by logging the test boring as well as reviewing available well logs. Groundwater was not encountered in the test-boring top a depth of 12.5 feet. Two seepages were observed onsite. Ponding was observed at the proposed building location. Drinking water will be provided by the existing onsite. Therefore, no new well is proposed. See the provided well logs in the Appendix. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 13 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEO TECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY Drilling& Sampling Procedures The field exploration to determine the engineering characteristics of the foundation materials included: a reconnaissance of the project site, performing a test boring, performing field penetrometer tests, and recovering disturbed grab samples. One test boring was completed at the proposed building location. The test boring was advanced to 12.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The boring location is shown on the Figure 2 Site Plan. The test boring was located by the field technician by means of normal taping and pacing procedures and is presumed to be accurate to within a few feet. After completion, the test boring was backfilled with excavated soils. The soil borings were performed with a hollow stem auger skid drill rig. Representative samples were obtained from the borings at 5-foot soil intervals. The boring log was recorded by Neil Lorenzo on December 28 and 29, 2007. The samples obtained by this procedure were classified in the field by the driller, identified according to test boring number and depth, placed in plastic bags to protect against moisture loss, and transported to the laboratory for additional testing. Standard penetration was measured using a two-inch outside diameter, split-spoon sampler driven by a pin-guided, 140-pound weight, free falling 30 inches. The blows per six-inch interval were recorded. The first six-inch drive interval is allowed for seating the sampler. The blow counts for two six-inch intervals, when combined, yield the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-Value) of the soils encountered in the sample interval. The SPR is also known as blow counts. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the consistency of cohesive soils. When the number of blows exceeds 50 for a six-inch or less advancement of the sampler, refusal is inferred. The results obtained from the Standard Penetration Test, along with other tests and geotechnical judgments,were used to develop the recommendations of this report. Soil gradations were determined by laboratory test method ASTM D-2487 that utilizes the Unified Soil Classification System. The soils laboratory has the following certifications,accreditations,or qualifications: AASHTO American Association of State highway and Transportation Officials AMRL AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory CCRL Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory A2LA American Association for Laboratory Accreditation ICC International Code Council Army Corp. of Engineers SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In general, stiff to dense Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (silty sand with gravel) was observed at the surface throughout the proposed building location. With increasing depth, the material increased in size and gravel content and is classified as gravel with sand. Specific soils information is contained in the following "Boring Log" section of the appendix. Depth to competent soil is approximately 5 feet as indicated by the sampling process while boring. Groundwater was not encountered to 12.5 feet in the test boring. Two seepages were observed along site slopes, see Figure 2 Site Plan. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 14 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUITABILITY OF ONSITE SOILS AS FILL The collected samples were tested to determine gradation. Onsite soils may only be considered for use as structural fill if industry standards are satisfied. Fill material requirements are found on page 9-31 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications 2006. In general, the native soils (sand, silt, and gravel) encountered on the site must have less than 10 percent fines (material passing the US No. 200 sieve) to be suitable for use as structural fill. Laboratory analysis of the onsite material indicates that the onsite surficial material sampled may not be used as structural fill(gravel base)due to the fines content. See the laboratory results in the Appendix. TERZAGHI EQUATION Based on our laboratory testing conducted on the sample of material collected from subject site, we have calculated the theoretical ultimate bearing capacity. The following Terzaghi formula calculates the ultimate bearing capacity. Using the Figure 6.3, page 173 by Prakash,the bearing capacity factors are determined from the shear angle. Using a factor of safety of two (2), the theoretical maximum bearing capacity is equal to 2,200 psf using a shear angle of 31°. See the following spreadsheet calculation. The IBC (Table 1804.2) lists the allowable foundation pressure as 2,000 psf for a silty sand(SC, SP,& SW). Terzaghi Equation is given by the following formula: Qd=B (cNc+yDfNq+ '/z YBNY) C Nc Y Df Nq 0.5 Y B Ny 1 33 118 1 19 0.5 118 2 18 Total Bearing Capacity is: 8798 Using a Factor of Safety of 3 2930 c=unit cohesion 1 Y= soil density 118 B=foot ng width 2 D(f)= depth of footing 1 N (c ) =bearing capacity factor 33 N (q)= bearing capacity factor 19 N (Y) = bearing capacity factor 18 SLOPE STABILITY AND ANALYSIS In general, the undisturbed native soils of the site consist of a mixture of variable amounts of sand and silt with minor gravel near the surface and sandy gravel. These soil materials are in a dense condition except where they have been disturbed by weathering activity. The boring log reports, "4'/2 to 7'/2 hitting large gravel to 12'/z." Blow counts were measured at 46 for the interval from 12'/z feet to 14 feet. Refusal was determined by the cold wet drillers at 12.5 feet and per the phone consultation with Lance Levine. This phone conversation was the first point in time that Lance Levine knew the drilling crew was onsite even though the conversation occurred at the end of the second day of drilling. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia,WA 98512 15 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY No evidence of significant erosion was observed onsite at the time of our investigation. Instability of this nature is typically confined to the upper weathered or disturbed zone, which has been disturbed and has a lower strength. Slumping and sliding were observed along the northern cut slope. Legend WA Dept.of Ecology Coastal Atlas Map of Washington _ I. , DM fist PdfDM .. am car LWt • C—V"Z" P. k0b ftods .• - — .O Esc n,q..vr ••aF'1 ,t.tib�Tf •.�� _l �11SL4k � r - - • 5tieels • O Ccunly 7 Bw. y� Frs,adar lsssre slrtllsft-1ws•s WW •� 8adgrouexi 01 'aMard Oy lM Y/A StsM OewMient o1 fl10a1a� .... -� .J � Q 11I .. Inr . ntnss+r.aollsd rar,ada romp As previously discussed, weathering, erosion, and the resultant surficial sloughing and landsliding are natural processes that affect slope areas. Significant weathering typically occurs in the upper 2 to 3 feet and is the result of oxidation, root penetration,wet/dry cycles and freeze/thaw cycles. Over excavation may be necessary to ensure the removal of deleterious material. These processes can be managed and the risk reduced through proper construction of Coastal Zone Atlas the residence. Erosion control recommendations in the slope ' and buffer areas are provided in the "Building Setback" and "Erosion Control" sections of this report. M 21 Excavation and back filling will occur based on appropriate engineering and earthwork recommendations found in the t�M :1Oak\a,12 following"Earthwork"section. Grading in the building portion of the site should be conducted in accordance with geotechnical recommendations provided herein. The Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 9, Mason County (MA-22) maps the site area as Vashon glacial till (Qvt). Foundation stability is described as "excellent." Seismic stability is described as "good." The slope stability is described as 1 Scsk 1:14,000 0 1 MIM "intermediate" at the proposed building location and throughout the site. Resources by Rogers and Walsh detailing faults in the Puget Sound were reviewed. No known faults are mapped in the vicinity of the subject site. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 16 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 17.01.100E5(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. Slope stability was modeled using the GeoStudio 2004 program (version 6.20) in both static and dynamic conditions (Ca = 0.15). Factors of safety were determined using Bishop's, Janbu, and the Morgenstern-Price methods. The site was modeled using a layer of sandy silt over sandy gravel (see Figure 4 Cross-section). The following assumed values were utilized in the slope model. Upper layer--unit weight of 118 pcf,cohesion of 200 psf,and a shear angle of 31°. Lower layer-- unit weight of 134 pcf,cohesion of 200 psf,and a shear angle of 39°. Since a seepage was observed near the proposed building location, the site was modeled using saturated conditions. The footings will be founded on undisturbed and unyielding native material. To remain conservative, the surficial material was used in the slope model. Under static conditions, the slope remained stable to deep-seated and shallow failure. See Figure 4 for the cross- section. The static factor of safety is equal to 2.60 for section "A" above the proposed building location. Under dynamic loading, the 3328 computations demonstrated that the slope is not susceptible to surficial raveling or large deep-seated failure. The following figures illustrate the moment factors of safety for section "A" under the existing conditions. The critical slip surface factor of safety is equal to 1.69 for section "A." Mason County code requires a dynamic factor of safety to be at least 1.1 at the proposed building location. •� y > Static Model ry FS=2.60 Garcia Site -- Section A J �• / 140 130 120 110 100 90 Descnpti 80 Wt 118 70 Cohesion 200 Proposed 60 Phi:31 Building N SO ' fAtlflrl W 40 facial Outwash--Gravel with Sand 30 VA 134 20 Cohesion.200 10 Phi:39 0 0 1020 304050 60 7060 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 Distance(ft) #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 17 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 Dynamic Model FS = 1.69 t s9 Garcia Site -- Section A. �. . . • , • • • • •. . . . . . . .• . . . •�.• 140 Minimum Slip Surface Seepage 130 120 110 100 90 Descriptio . C 80 Wt: 118 .0 70 Cohesim 200 _�- Proposed Building � 60 Phi 31 Location N 50 W 40 Description:Glacial Outwash--Gravel with Sand 30 Wt:134 20 Cohesion:200 10 Phi:39 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 Distance (ft) 17.01.100E5(7) -- Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, septic drain fields and compacted fills and footings, including recommended buffers and setbacks from the landslide hazard areas. The previous figure exhibits the need for a building setback of 40-feet from the perimeter of landslide hazard areas. All foundation elements shall be constructed on native material or engineered fill material. We additionally recommend that the proposed addition be setback at least 10 feet from the toe of the southern slope and at least 10 feet from the seepage. 17.01.100E5(11) -- Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 18 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEOT ,CHNICAL TESTING LAsoRATOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING SETBACK The building setback may be measured from the bottom of the footing to the face of the steep slope in accordance with the International Building Code (1805.3.1), see figure to right. As previously discussed, weathering, erosion and the resultant surficial sloughing and shallow landsliding are natural processes that affect slope areas. Slumping and landsliding were observed Setback onsite along East Gosser Road. The slope was originally cut during the road construction. Record breaking precipitation activated the slump. Cleanup and removal of the slide material from the toe weakened the slope and thus caused additional failure. The slump is approximately 170 feet from the proposed addition. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural processes,we recommend the following: ➢ No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto the sloped areas. ➢ No filling within the setback zone. ➢ Maintain a 50-foot vegetative buffer from the northern landslide hazard area. LIQUEFACTION HAZARD The surrounding undisturbed slopes are well vegetated. Groundwater was not encountered during the test boring. Surface water from the seepage is flowing over the surficial soils or ponding with minimal infiltration. The test h groundwater is at least 12.5 feet below the ground surface. With the local well logs boring indicates that gr gr g available,we conclude that drinking water is approximately 32 to 41 feet below the ground surface. Shaking of the already dense well mixed glacial material is not apt to produce a denser configuration and subsequently excess pore water pressures are not likely to be produced. Lacking shallow groundwater, the mixed material (sand and silt) is well graded and is not a likely candidate for liquefaction concerns. Grain-size analyses are found in the Appendix. Based on our review of the subsurface conditions, we conclude that the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. The following geologic excerpts are for the educational purposes of the client and not necessarily for the review staff at Mason County. The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington by Palmer, Magsino, Poelstra, Bilderback, Folger, and Niggemann(September 2004)maps the site area as having a very low liquefaction potential. The Site Class Map of Mason County, Washington by Palmer, Magsino, Bilderback, Poelstra, Folger, and Niggemann (September 2004) maps the site area as site class C to D. Site class C is a very stiff soil or soft rock and site class D is a stiff soil. SEISMIC HAZARD According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 2006 International Building Code(IBC), the project site is located where the maximum spectral response acceleration is 45 percent of gravity(g). #07-0662 10011 BlombergStreet SW,Olympia, WA 98512 19 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the site,we interpret the site conditions to correspond to a seismic Soil Profile Type D, for Stiff Soil, as defined by Table 1613.5.2 (IBC). This is based on blow counts. The shallow soil conditions were assumed to be representative for the site conditions beyond the depths explored. 17.01.100E5(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. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EROSION CONTROL Active surface erosion was not observed on or surrounding the subject site. Evidence of ponding was observed throughout the proposed building location. It is our opinion that the potential erosion hazard of the site is not a limiting factor for the proposed development. Removal of natural vegetation should be minimized and limited to the active construction areas. Yard landscaping around the home is permissible, but understory growth on the slopes should be encouraged as much as possible as a deterrent to erosion. Hazard trees located on steep slopes may be removed only if the stumps remain to deter erosion. Several trees near the proposed building location will be considered hazard trees and will be dangerous to the proposed addition. 17.01.100132e states, "Land clearing for which a permit has been obtained shall not be allowed during the wet season, i.e. from October 15 through May 1, unless special provisions for wet season erosion and landslide protection have been addressed in the Geotechnical Report and approved by the Director." We specifically recommend that the addition may be constructed from October 15 through May 1 if surface water is adequately controlled. We recommend a 50-foot vegetative buffer (minimum) of undisturbed vegetation surrounding the northern landslide hazard area. A 50-foot vegetative buffer will create a 10-foot separation between any tree roots and the existing septic drainfield. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures should be implemented and maintained during construction and/or as soon as practical thereafter to limit the additional influx of water to exposed areas and protect potential receiving waters. Erosion control measures should include, but not be limited to, silt fences, berms, and swales with ground cover/protection in exposed areas. Typical erosion control notes and a silt fence detail are included on Figure 2 Site Plan. Any re-contouring of the site will create a need for erosion control measures as recommended above. 17.01.100E5(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. 17.01.100E5(12) -- Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 ?0 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEOTEC'HNICAE TEsTi G LnoRAToRy EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE PREPARATION 17.01.100132c states, "Land Clearing in Landslide Hazard Areas or their buffers is permitted when it is consistent with the recommendation and plans contained in the Geotechnical Report and development approval." All areas to be excavated should be cleared of deleterious matter including any existing structures, debris, duff, and vegetation. Based on our observations, we estimate that additional stripping on the order of 18 to 48 inches will be necessary to remove the root zone, fill material, and surficial soils containing organics. Areas with deeper, unsuitable organics should be expected in the vicinity of depressions or heavy vegetation. Stripping depths of up to 5 feet may occur in these areas. These materials may be stockpiled and later used for erosion control and landscaping. Surficial material that cannot be used for landscaping or erosion control should be removed from the project site. No foundation elements shall be constructed on "untested" or nonconforming fill material. Where placement of fill material is required, the exposed subgrade areas should be proof-rolled to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of any fill. We recommend that trees be removed with the roots, unless located on a slope. Excavations for tree stump removal in any building area should be backfilled with structural fill,compacted to the density requirements described in the"Structural Fill"section of this report. If structural fill is needed, we recommend that a member of our staff evaluate the exposed subgrade conditions after removal of vegetation and topsoil stripping is completed. Any soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during foundation preparation or probing should be compacted, if practical, or over-excavated and replaced with structural fill, based on the recommendations of our report. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL FILL All fill material should be placed as structural fill. The structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness to allow adequate and uniform compaction of each lift. Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of MDD (maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557)to within 2 feet of subgrade and 95 percent MDD in the upper 2 feet. For structural fill below footings, the area of the compacted �' p PP g P backfill must extend outside the perimeter of the foundation for a distance at least equal to the thickness of the fill between the bottom of the foundation and the underlying soils. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and compaction equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field representative during construction. The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather,we recommend the use of well-graded sand and gravel with less than 7 percent(by weight)passing the No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve. If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, a somewhat higher(up to 10 percent)fines content will be acceptable. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 21 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTEC LAICAL 3 rsTi G RA 3 Vwt Material placed for structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter,trash, and cobbles greater than 6 inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor providing services and/or work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations. As a general guide,temporary slopes of 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter may be used for temporary cuts in the upper 3 to 4 feet of the glacially consolidated soils that are weathered to a loose/medium-dense condition. Temporary slopes of 1 to 1 or flatter may be used in the unweathered dense to very dense sands and gravel. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face (due to recent rain events). Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs. Surface drainage should be directed away from all slope faces. Straw, hay, or jute matting shall be used to cover the exposed soils until permanent vegetation is established. All slopes should be seeded as soon as practical to facilitate the development of a protective vegetative cover or otherwise protected. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT Where foundation elements are located near slopes between 5 and 30 percent, the footings should be located a minimum of 2 times the footing width from the slope face (horizontally), and founded in medium dense or denser native soils or properly prepared structural fill. We recommend a minimum width for isolated and continuous wall footings to meet IBC 2006. Footings founded as described above can be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf(pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long-term live loads in areas of medium dense to dense soils. The weight of the footing and any overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the bases of footings and floor slabs and as passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Active pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 150 pcf(pounds per cubic foot). We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of '/2 inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia,WA 98512 22 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT Slabs-on-grade should be supported on medium dense or dense native soils or on structural fill prepared as described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. We recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by a synthetic vapor barrier. Below the synthetic vapor barrier, we recommend a minimum 6-inch thickness of coarse sand and/or gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (by weight). The drainage material should be placed and compacted to an unyielding condition. A synthetic vapor barrier must be used for the control of moisture migration through the slab, particularly where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. A thin layer of sand may be placed over the vapor barrier and immediately below the slab to protect the liner during steel and/or concrete placement. The lack of a vapor barrier could result in wet spots on the slab,particularly in storage areas. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls may be utilized on the sloping portion of the site to retain fill material. The lateral pressures acting on the subgrade and retaining walls will depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall. It is also dependent upon the presence or absence of hydrostatic pressure. If the adjacent exterior wall space is backfilled with clean granular, well-drained soil (washed rock), the design active pressure may be determined using an active pressure coefficient equal to 0.25 (Ka = 0.25). This design value assumes a level backslope and drained conditions as described below. Retaining walls located on or near the toe of a slope that extends up behind the wall should be designed for a lateral pressure, which includes the surcharge effects of the steep slope in proximity to the wall. Although not expected at this site,the following data are provided for planning purposes. For an irregular or composite slope, the equivalent slope angle may be determined by extending a line upward from the toe of the wall at an angle of 1 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical)to a point where the line intersects the ground surface. The surcharge effects may be modeled by increasing the equivalent fluid pressure for flat ground by the percentage given in the following table: SLOPE INCLINATION:EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE Slope Angle Percent Increase Equivalent Fluid Pressure Horizontal 0% 35 pcf 3H:1 V 25% 44 pcf 2H:1 V 50% 53 pcf 1 H:1 V 75% 61 pcf If the walls are greater than 4 feet in height, exclusive of the footing, additional design considerations should be applied. Walls greater than 4 feet in height must be designed by a Professional Engineer. Positive drainage, which controls the development of hydrostatic pressure, can be accomplished by placing a zone of coarse sand and gravel behind the walls. The granular drainage material should contain less than 5 percent fines. The drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The drainage zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the wall. The drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the MDD. Over compaction should be avoided as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 23 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 A perforated PVC pipe with a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be placed in the drainage zone along the base of the wall to direct accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a non-woven geotextile filter fabric be placed between the drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to reduce silt migration into the drainage zone. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can,with time,reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed in such a way that it fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the drainage zone. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the bases of footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings and the buried portions of the wall. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined by using a passive pressure coefficient equal to 4(Kp=4). Mason County has provided a prescribed retaining wall design that may be used for non-bulkhead retaining walls less than 4 feet in height. MASON COUNTY PRESCRIBED WALL DESIGN MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mason County Bldg.111.426`Nest Cedar Street PO Box 196.Shelton,WA 98584 Vnvw.ao..mason.wa us f36'�'427-P671 Self—l360y275_4487 El— WOI482-526F UPLAND CONCRETE Prescriptive Design&Installation Standard DESIGN STANDARDS DO NOT APPLY TO SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL BULKHEADS ` d T � Q' i Slope less Men or equal ID 1:1 r: S 1 I 1 I S'SARS 1 I 1 1 .1�--a---J--- • PROVIDE OFC PAWNLOOD + 1 I 1 1' FR+JCF COATING, 1"AWrN rock 1 I 1 1 z r3 1 I 1 I VI Y'a CQAIr3 ( I 1 1 I I 1 I I 14RS AT, -I-+t-r-r-r-h--r- ,.1 Plter•afsrlc i 1 i I V2- 1 1 I I 1 1 1 StHFA I 0 4 perrara[ea pipe '—'j—j—j—i—j—�—j— fL1F� _ 17 mn.T — dY461� an I 1 1 I I 1 I I Il� a:ocalgn ((1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 ie�slo 1i� 6' ' r 1 haft 6111111R u—M '-SHEAR KEY. S-aAr~s 1.5E Y6 �'-0. KNOCKOUT ELEVATIO so B NOTE; SECTION SPACING OF S-BARS IS APPROXIMATE USE TAPOLAR N.MeER CE MRS AND SPACE evsq' y wr 7'COVER s E T aARr!'ON tE1KYTH6 BAR. 6 I REINFOACE — -1 PEA FOOT 5 }6 1. 2- 71 6 4-3 to 630 IF f9' 7 w 10 as trr I — — — r — 13 31S tr 1" 6 Fa 12 a— W r 9-Y 6— 5'r 15 3M 1S 34A #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 24 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEOT ,CHNICAL TESUNG LABORATORY Prescriptive Concrete Retaining Wall DESGN STANDARDS DO NOT APPLY To SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL BLILKWAIDS Height:Maximum Fight Feet Upland concrete retaining walls installed in accordance with the prescriptive design shown on the reverse side need not be designed by an engineer unless the Mason County Building Dept.determines special conditions exist- Any retaining wall exceeding eight feet in height or varying from the prescriptive design requires an engineered design. Location of Retaining Wall Retaining walls must only be placed against stable slopes, consisting of firm, undisturbed soil. Drainage must be provided as shown with a 4"perforated drain pipe or 2°weep holes spaced not less than 12 feet on center. No surcharge toad,such as a building or driveway, may be placed on the retaining wall or within a distance equal to the vertical height of the retaining wall unless an engineered design is prepared for the additional load. Ground Surface Above Retaining Wall The ground surface above the retaining wall shall be less than or equal to 1.1 (i_e_ 1-foot vertical to 1-foot horizontal'). Retaining Wall Placement The top of the footing for the retaining wall must be set a minimum of 12 inches below grade. The footing and wall dimensions shall not be less than outlined in the retaining wall chart_ The footing shadI be placed on firm,undisturbed earth. Drainage A minimum of 12 inches of washed granular drainage material shall be placed between the undisturbed soil and the retaining wall. The drainage materials must be composed of gravel with 1-inch particle sizes. Two-inch weep holes shall be located approximately 6-inches above grade, below the granular drainage matefial,spaced not less than 12-feet on center. At the base of the wall, a perforated drain pipe,with at least a four-inch diameter,shall be installed within the drainage materials. The drain pipe must dram to a point of discharge,approved by Mason County. Inspections Prior to the placement of concrete,the builder must schedule an inspection of the formwork and reinforcement placement for the retaining wall footing. During the first inspection,the inspector will verify the soil condition,footing dimensions,footing reinforcement,and footing placement as well as the provisions for drainage. At the next inspection,the inspector shall verify the wall dimensions and reinforcement prior to the wall pour. A final inspection must be performed once all work is complete. To schedule an inspection call the Mason County 24-hour recorded inspection request line at(360)427- 7262. Inspections can also be requested online at: www.co.mason.wa.us or by fax at(360)427-7798_ When requesting an inspection please provide the following information: 1)Name on permit 2)type of inspection 3)Permit number 4)Site AddR= 5)Type of permit 6) Date inspectior►requested and 7)Name and phone number of caller. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 25 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GiLoTacnNicAL "Trsnm LAsom ORY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES Typically, block wall systems are more cost effective for long-term walls than the other options. Specific design criteria for these options can be provided at your request by the block manufacturers. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE DRAINAGE All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks should be sloped away from the residence and associated structures. Surface water runoff should be controlled by a system of curbs, berms, drainage swales, and/or catch basins and tight-lined into the appropriate drainage facilities. We recommend that conventional roof drains be installed. Footing drains shall be installed for the proposed addition. The roof drain should not be connected to the footing drain. For footing drains,the drain invert should be below the bottom of the footing. The existing roof downspout conveyance systems are inadequate. Roof downspouts must be directed away or downhill of the proposed addition. The terminus or discharge point must be at least 10 feet from any structural elements of the proposed addition. Typical drainage control measures are included on Figure 3. Onsite irrigation to lawn areas shall be closely monitored. 17.01.100D2e states, "Land clearing for which a permit has been obtained shall not be allowed during the wet season, i.e. from October 15 through May 1, unless special provisions for wet season erosion and landslide protection have been addressed in the Geotechnical Report and approved by the Director." We recommend that the addition may be constructed from October 15 through May 1. We additionally recommend that a drainage plan be created to control the seepage and ponding issues present at the proposed building location. We recommend additional testing occur if infiltration is proposed at the project site. Either a double ring infiltrometer or a grain-size calculation will determine the permeability of the onsite material. 17.01.100E5(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. SEPTIC IMPACT The existing septic drainfield will be located in the northern portion of the subject site and to the north of the existing single-family residence. Chapter 246-272A-0210 of the Washington Administrative Code requires a minimal horizontal separation between septic drainfields and various facilities including footing drains. The existing drainfield will be located over 50 feet from the proposed building location. We conclude the slope stability of the site will not be adversely impacted by the existing septic drainfield and the existing septic drainfield will not adversely impacted by the landslide hazard area. We also conclude existing septic drainfield will not adversely impact the proposed addition. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 26 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the results of our site reconnaissance, subsurface observations, and our experience in the area, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed project. The proposed building location is stable relative to deep- seated instability and will not be affected by the proposed addition. The proposed addition will not undermine the adjacent slope. Proper drainage control measures will reduce or eliminate the potential for erosion in this area and improve slope stability. The hazards of the landslide area can be overcome in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety,and the project will cause no significant environmental impact for the life of the project. If tested and confirmed, the onsite soils may be suitable for use as structural fill material. Saturated soil conditions may be associated with these soils during or following extended periods of rainfall. However, to reduce grading time and construction costs,we recommend that earthwork be undertaken during favorable weather conditions. Conventional construction equipment may be utilized for work at the site. Conventional spread footings may be utilized at the site for support of the addition. We do recommend that roof and footing drains be installed for the addition with conventional spread footings. A vapor barrier is recommended for all slab-on-grades. Conventional spread and continuous wall footings appear to be the most suitable type of foundation for the support of the proposed addition. REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Casimiro Garcia and his authorized agents for the proposed addition in Mason County, Washington. Site inspections, research, and mapping have culminated in this report. This report is intended to meet the requirements of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance. This report does not specify setbacks for: line-of-sight setbacks, FWHCA setbacks, eagle tree setbacks, wetland setbacks, or property line setbacks. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions,expressed or implied, should be understood. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to onsite personnel and to adjacent properties. READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals, and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory includes these explanatory"limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with Geotechnical Testing Laboratory if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use"apply to your project or site. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 27 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL,GEOLOGIC,AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, geotechnical engineering or geologic reporting does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 28 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY REFERENCES MAPS DeLorme 3-D TopoQuads(2002),Source Data USGS,Yarmouth,Maine. Dragovich, Logan, Walsh, and Schasse(2002), Geological Map of Washington-Northwest Quadrant(Geological Map GM- 50),published by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Logan(2003), Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington, (Open file report 2003-15),by published by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Noble and Molenaar(1970), Geologic Map of Southeastern Mason County, Washington, Water Supply Bulletin 29, Plate 1, Published by Washington State Department of Water Resources Palmer, Magsino, Poelstra, Bilderback, Folger, and Niggemann (September 2004), The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington, published by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Palmer, Magsino, Bilderback, Poelstra, Folger, and Niggemann (September 2004), The Site Class Map of Mason County, Washington,published by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Rogers, A. M., Walsh, T. J., Kockelman, W. J., and Priest, G. R. (1996), Map showing known or suspected faults with quaternary displacement in the Pacific Northwest, published by U.S. Geological Survey OFR 91-441-0, Plate 1, scale 1:2,000,000. Smith, Carson (1977), Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington, prepared in cooperation with the Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources; and, Department of the Interior United States Geological Survey. Dragovich, Logan, Walsh, and Schasse(2002), Geological Map of Washington-Northwest Quadrant(Geological Map GM- 50),published by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Walsh(1997), The Canyon River fault, an active fault in the southern Olympic Range, Washington: Washington Geology, v. 25,no.4,p.21-24,published by U.S.Geological Survey. Washington State Department of Ecology (1979), Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume 9, published by Washington State Department of Ecology. PUBLICATIONS Ambrose(1981),Simplified Design of Building Foundations,Table 2.5,pages 48-57,published by John Wiley&Sons,Inc. ASTM International(2005),Annual Book of Standards 2005, Section 4, Volume 4.08,published by ASTM International, West Conshohocken,Pennsylvania. Bloom(1991),Geomorphology,published by Prentice-Hall,Inc.,Upper Saddle River,New Jersey. Gallagher, Patricia M. (October 27, 2000), Passive Site Remediation for Mitigation of Liquefaction Risk, Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Virginia. International Code Council,Inc.(2004),20031nternational Building Code,published by International Code Council,Inc. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 29 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 International Code Council, Inc.(2006),2006 International Building Code,published by International Code Council,Inc. Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation (1994), Munsell Soil Color Charts (1994 Revised Edition), published by Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation,New Windsor,New York. McCarthy (1993), Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations,published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River,New Jersey. Moffit 1992 Surveying 9`"Edition published b Harper Collins New York New York. e1' g P Y �'P Ness,Fowler,Parvin(1960),The Soil Survey of Mason County, Washington, USDA Soil Conservation Service,in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, and Washington Agricultural Experimental Station, and the Soils Conservation Service. Parks, Neal, Koloski, Laprade, Molinari, Butler, and Lorentson (November 2006), Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington, published by Washington State Geologist Licensing Board,Olympia,Washington. Prakash(1981),Soil Dynamics,Figure 6.3,page 173,published by McGraw-Hill,Inc. Sowers(1979),Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering, Table 10:4,page 472,published by Macmillan Publishing Co.,Inc. Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)(2005), Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2006 M41-10,prepared by WSDOT Engineering Publications,P.O.Box 47408,Olympia,Washington. WEBSITES Mason County Government Information Services (http://www.co.mason.wa.us) Mason County Codes,Ordinances,and Regulations (http://www.co.mason.wa.us/code) Puget Sound Lidar Consortium (http://pugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/lidardata/index.html) Slope Stabilization Erosion Control Using Vegetation A Manual of Practice for Coastal Bluff (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9330.html) Vegetation Management Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9331.html) United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (http://soildatatnart.nres.usda.gov) Washington Administrative Code (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/) Washington Department of Ecology (http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/welllog) (https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/viewer.httn) #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 30 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GROTECUMCAL TESTING LABORATORY APPENDIX #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 31 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEoTz inNicA i1 T TiNG aoRAToRy ADDITIONAL SITE PHOTOS ' .. Seepage K nr e A s. - wr ,f� K• � View Looking Southwest V. ;44 . , y+' ✓ 40 View Looking Northwest above Seepage Limb #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 32 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 i GEE ECHNIC![ L IUTtN r LAYW TORY 1 Y i * - s � s .A � ir�3c• '' fat 5 ��'f�� .#i�'r�: �� ;. Vie\c Looking Southeast near Western Seepage ?� j View Looking South at Western ?3b J Drainage ir , +x 4 �W_ 10 p s s T1 View Looking Southeast -- � �' NM, f' �t _ r h 1 • c •- %�.. f,. View Looking Northwest near Well House 407-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia,WA 98512 33 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 G '' OTECHNICAL TEsTiNG UeoRAToRy BORING LOG Date: 12/29/2007 File#: 07-0662 Boring Log#: 1 Client: Garcia,Casimiro 591 Gosser Road Ito ring Type: Hollow Stem Auger Depth Drilled: 12.5 feet Depth Laboratory Soil Description Change %M 7N Percent Minus Drillers Comments (Ft) in Soils 3/4" #4 #200 OS Dark brown silty sand 1.0 with gravel 1.5 2.0 Lighter brown silty sand 2.5 SW-SC,Well-graded Sand Saturated 97.0% 83.1% 11.1% with gravel 3.0 with Silty Clay and Gravel Very moist light brown 3.5 sand with gravel 4.0 4.5 Gravels and cobbles with 5.0 SP-SM,Poorly graded Saturated 22 92.7% 6T5% 10.3% sand 5.5 Sand with Silt and Gravel 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 GP,Poorly graded Gravel 45 816 4.7"o 10.5 with sand 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 SW-SC,Well-graded Sand __ 96.7% 55.5°0 6.0"h with Silty Clay and Gravel Groundwater NOT Encountei. Boring I at 10 feet Boring 1 at 12.5 feet Boring I Sccpu;e Looking `Y J Northeast �I #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 34 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 LABORATORY RESULTS U.S.Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results 100% 20 6 4 3 1'/s % '/: ? #4 10 16 20 30 40 50 100 200 0% 90% ` 10% 80% 20% 5 70% ` 30% .� 3 60% ` 40% T ` rn 50% 50% > c m 40% `` 60% "to 30% 70% 20% 80% o 10% , 90% 0% 100% 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravels Sands Cobbles Silts Clays Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Date: 12/29/07 D,,=0.07 Classification %Gravel Sample#: 2053 D30=0.36 SW-SC,Well-graded Sand with Silty Clay and Grave 16.891/o Sample ID: Sand with Silty Clay and Gravel D60= 1.01 Specifications %Sand Source: B-1 Cc= 1.87 WSDOT 9-03.10 Gravel Base 72.03% Project: Garcia,Casimiro C,= 14.96 %Moisture: #DIV/0! %Silt&Clay Client: Garcia,Casimiro Liquid Limit--0.00 Dust Ratio= 11.08% ASTM#: C-33 Plastic Limit--0.00 Fineness Modulus Sample Meets Specs Depth: 2.5' Plasticity Index=0.00 2.99 No oarsc Actual Interpolatedroes Actual 1 Interpolated Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent ! Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 83.1% 83.1% 100.0% 22.07/ 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 77.4% 77.4% 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 74.1% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 66.8% 66.8% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% #20 0.850 53.4% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 43.2% 43.2% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 33.6% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 26.8% 26.8% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 23.5% j 7/8" 22.40 98.7% #80 0.180 18.7% 1 3/4" 19.00 97.0% 97.0% #100 0.150 16.7% 16.7% 5/8" 16.00 95.1% #140 0.106 13.4% 1/2" 12.50 92.9% 92.9% #170 0.090 12.2% 3/8" 9.50 90.4% 90.4% #200 0.075 11.1% 11.1% 10.0% 0.0% 1/4" 6.30 85.5% #270 0.053 Copyright Spears Engineering&Technical Services PS,1996-2004 #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 35 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GEOTEcmiCAL T WING LABORATORY U.S.Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results 100% 20 6 4 3 11/2 % % ? #4 10 16 20 30 40 50 100 200 0% 90% ` 10% 80% ` 20% rn 70% ` 30% _ 60% ` 40% c 50% 50% 40% `` 60% a � � 0 30% ` � 70% � 0 20% A. 80% 10% 90% 0% 1 100% 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravels Sands Cobbles Silts Clays Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Date: 12/29/07 Dto= 0.07 Classification %Gravel Sample#: 2054 D30=0.28 SP-SM,Poorly graded Sand with Silt and Gravel 32.50% Sample ID: Sand with Silt and Gravel D60=2.21 Specifications %Sand Source: B-1 Cc=0.48 WSDOT 9-03.10 Gravel Base 57.17% Project: Garcia,Casimiro C,=30.43 %Moisture: #DIV/0! %Silt&ClaN Client: Garcia,Casimiro Liquid Limit--0.00 Dust Ratio= 10.33% ASTM#: C-33 Plastic Limit--0.00 Fineness Modulus Sample Meets Specs Depth: 5' Plasticity Index=0.00 3.46 No Coarse Actual Interpolatedroes Actual Interpoiated Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 67.5% 67.5% 100.0% 22.0% 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 60.7% 60.7% 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 59.1% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 55.5% 55.5% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% #20 0.850 51.6% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 48.7% 48.7% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 39.0% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 32.0% 32.0% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 1 27.4% 7/8" 22.40 96.8% #80 0.180 21.1% 3/4" 19.00 92.7% 92.7% #100 0.150 18.4% 18.4% 5/8" 16.00 90.0% #140 0.106 13.7% 1/2" 12.50 86.8% 86.8% #170 0.090 11.9% 3/8" 9.50 78.6% 78.6% #200 0.075 10.3% 10.3% 1 10.0% 0.0% 1/4" 6.30 71.1% #270 0.053 Copyright Spears Engineering&Technical Services PS,1996-2004 #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia,WA 98512 36 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING ]LABORATORY U.S.Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results 100% 20 6 4 3 11/5 % 'h ? #4 10 16 20 30 40 50 100 200 0% so 90% 10% 80% 20% m 70% 30% � L 3: 60% 40% y 3 m 50% 50% c 40% 60% c M m 30% 70% 20/o° 80% 10% 90% 0% 1 100% 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravels Sands Cobbles Silts Clays Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Date: 12 29/07 D,,=0.15 Classification %Gravc! Sample#: 2055 D30=0.52 GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand 54.23% Sample ID: Gravel with Sand D,=38.61 Specifications %Sand Source: B-I Cc=0.05 No Specs 41.07% Project: Garcia,Casimiro C,=258.39 %Moisture: #DIV/0! %Silt&Clax Client: Garcia,Casimiro Liquid Limit--0.00 Dust Ratio= 4.69% ASTM#: C-33 Plastic Limit--0.00 Fineness Modulus Sample Meets Specs Depth: 10' Plasticity Index=0.00 5.41 Yes oarse Actual InterpolatedInes ActualInterpolated Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 45.8% 45.8% 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 42.0% 42.0% i 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 41.0% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% 100.0% #16 1.180 38.5% 38.5% 2.00" 50.00 62.2% 62.2% #20 0.850 35.7% 1.75" 45.00 61.2% #30 0.600 33.5% 33.5% 1.50" 37.50 59.8% #40 0.425 26.3% 1.25" 31.50 58.6% #50 0.300 21.2% 21.2% 1.00" 25.00 57.4% #60 0.250 17.5% 7/8" 22.40 56.9% #80 0.180 12.3% 3/4" 19.00 56.3% 56.3% #100 0.150 10.0% 10.0% 5/8" 16.00 54.8% #140 0.106 6.9% 1/2" 12.50 53.1% 53.1% #170 0.090 5.8% 3/8" 9.50 51.7% 51.7% #200 0.075 4.7% 4.7% 1/4" 6.30 47.7% #270 0.053 Copyright Spears Engineering&Technical Services PS,1996-2004 907-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 ;7 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 GROTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY U.S.Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results 100% 20 6 4 3 1%: 3/4 1/2 ? #4 10 16 20 30 40 50 100 200 0% 90% 10% 80% 20% t 70% 30% Z 60% 40% y 50% 50% v m 40% 60% d m 30% 70% 20% 80% 0 10% 90% 0% 0 as so OGG 100% 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravels Sands Cobbles Silts Clays Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium I Fine Date: 12/29/07 D,0=0.15 Classification %Gravel Sample#: 2056 D30=0.99 SW-SC,Well-graded Sand with Silty Clay and Grave 44.52% Sample ID: Sand with Silty Clay and Gravel D60=5.71 Specifications %Sand Source: B-1 Cc= 1.11 No Specs 49.51% Project: Garcia,Casimiro C,=37.41 %Moisture: #DIV/0! %Silt&Clay Client: Garcia,Casimiro Liquid Limit=0.00 Dust Ratio= 5.97% ASTM#: C-33 Plastic Limit-0.00 Fineness Modulus Sample Meets Specs Depth: 12.5' Plasticity Index=0.00 4.45 Yes oarse Actual InterpolatedInes Actual Interpolated Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent 7Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 55.5% 55.5% 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 40.7% 40.7% 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 38.2% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 32.4% 32.4% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 28.4% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 25.3% 25.3% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 19.9% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 16.1% 16.1% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 14.0% 7/8" 22.40 98.6% #80 0.180 11.1% 3/4" 19.00 96.7% 96.7% #100 0.150 9.9% 9.9% 5/8" 16.00 91.6% #140 0.106 7.6% 1/2" 12.50 85.6% 85.6% #170 0.090 6.8% 3/8" 9.50 77.9% 77.9% #200 0.075 6.0% 6.0% 1/4" 6.30 62.8% 4270 0.053 Copyright Spears Engineering&Technical Services PS,1996-2004 #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 38 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 SHEAR RESULTS Peak Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress 3000.-----_--.- _—___-_ __-__ - ._.._. __ --- _-..----__- - .1 2500 Shear=31° 2000 tl! d N y 1500 — m N N m a l000 -- f 1/4 ton 500 +-1/2 ton —�1 ton Cohesion= 200 psf 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Stress(psf) Peak Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress 3000 — Shear=39° i I 2500 -- - ---- 2000 10, N a N N L 1500 cn N i L Y A a l000 — - -- i f 1/4 ton 500 —�112 ton —�-1 ton Cohesion= 200 psf o 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Stress(psf) #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 39 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 GEO TECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY WELL LOGS jI.'.rt'ara;WATER N ELL REPORT C« r Notice of b cm No. l t 2132 dllPeal A 1st(city-Bealcu,:ud,%y-vaocr,ktl mom' drslkr AEC899 Llvgnle Ecology weu m Tog No f":•a rT.trd $1 ComMEwd Walc Ra,gM Paint Mo O DaM mm m m 0NGNAL C171`L;rRLY'770JV ,'!once P.B.A. Ronn Lng Ines tmen C s Company U-C dflrxeer'%Wi'ner Fri,pen}'Owxr Hafer - — aSE Nwob` 0 W&=%al O p&ixipw WeU SQ«t Addrear COsser Read slot 11 E[DeWaar 0 rrrpbon ❑Test WcU ❑Oaau - --- _ C She1 ton may, Mason OP Wom OrrKtl&=&r of-ru faf Aare mart aiei MNew Wen O Rbu odwaeed Mff&li 11 pog ❑bored ❑Dmra Loeatso� �� .�fN S. 2 Tw g 3W If Deepened W Caete 0 A.9ISry ❑JMd �at�.o� WvM o+e DIMRNSIt1f¢S 15PIPe0eltr of xiu_-�reclxs MgeC '(' _it Rr ate LiK Dq Cat Karsec Depcb of rnmplemd well R R&QUEMI L=x Dc Long M vex CclNS`rst}CT1aNDETAIL$ TaxPafcriN10 32052-14-90(X)l •suing ®Wdded _k - Dun Gam ±z Rao�_rt. WNS7RUt-110N OR D}:('O I MION PROCEDU" �erdlyd ❑Lase oaaUed D1w Sam fc eo R as Doxrke by color.rSarxP1=.stax a mtlsrta)and ahw mm.ad tie ❑Tbmaded d and naasn of iha mahrrral Po each atrarum paeeaocd.vnLb at kut vie Utah ham h_to R aiay foe each rbaeac of lnforaama0 rudlcale all.Mar caeotmlered Perbcanuns: ❑'Yea U Kn (USB ADOLMNAL SHEUrS 0;NECESSARY) Tnw of poafnrator attd -__ NATNUAL FROM I TO 1za 0t pvft -,10 ty_10 NA W oI rom R In_rl Brown clay S.sm ; r Brown silts Satxi and- 8 Manufachu"A fdJne:,,.� -LAhn V1n Type— s o __-mow NoLao el Pam---._ *�0r Sae.�1_Shm�_.�Ir l0 9.3 �. CrayClay small AraVel 31 47 Para-._SWr Size 5om f1 ro R Gra+aMlPtlCarleretsd. ❑Yq am ❑suearyaNeUllaaa 1 hlm.m s pluad hem R 1e Green silt bound sand e Swrace Sae- ®Yes ❑No To whit dryth' ?[I R Maren, used m seal Rr,n r to j r o .,_ Gray silt Old my Miff coaeun 4006 M swe1114 OYsa (3%a avel clay Type atwahe AcpPfursnals ty sand, gravel, water, 81 Maftd of aeaYaa sbaaa ek -..� t'ed Pete PWw- mmwbcmmesFleme Typo HP tWAIM a saVE a land-stlrfarc rlcwauPw abo.r,wtaw to tG.c! R Seaut tevet 34 it berme try rd oe{l Daw 1-7 5-02 — "rwxu VuMRC Ihs per Nuam mch LAW _ Amc8 au-,tier is ooarallal hs, tcap.rdw%etc R'ELL TJWTSP Dcawdowo 1s uumna weer lawtl rs low r w'below sub(lv.al W w a pump*W znuk'0 Yes (3�6 N yea,by waamt Y&WJ _ jWJam wa6 L draw4mm a_'fer has Yldd_;,!Jaen dnwban,Pier has YnW---Wmm with >itdrdo- ahw in Rarovary diaaa Enna mkm as um when punip awned edWsaw loll anunedJioar V.P.R111-11MV Slaw wee&emp as wow"Vtf! `Q ..! Trine WNW Laval Tee Wier Lard Taus Wass Laval p.o t f11ts11 a g Ducat Bader rdt TT dr it d aLYr brs Auteat__._-,�ltetta .alh v+es xs al.�__._h IEt fPea Ajwxtas Raw xp m oaec 5�10-02 Tcalpemhae atwsav leas a riimcal await:,made ❑Yea Ns Sc'a' Competed De" 5-16-02 WELL CONSMUCnOff C1iR MCA"ON 1 cons, etbdlor aw*t gw=bdlty for cooew.We of do vivit and ala comoeen mth all Wasluegrun well cvmsmemon wade& %Ina;*used atsd the odiioreu000 sepm ab ym ne was In rape bat 1ptpwWW aid bWW [Unpin 0rMQlneer 0TM., Name Nelson DWIngCompMpr Arcadia Drilling Tm- .4,64 >s 170 SE Walker Park Road Driller or Tnlnee License No 1886 it SLat'zp Shelton WA 98584 Ccurro4wes 4.M111098Kl U umuec.hmmsed dd*rls ReE•ssts�e0n Ala a- ssgnawor and liceme eo ,.. #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW,Olympia, WA 98512 40 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 oTECHNICAL TEs iNG pmToRy Sun Gard N.. VV 18 L o a. ilyo,�,IwM..d.i+� I. WATER WELL REPORT uruus w"Ldp.a A(3H..l,s e�r.pM won$rem—ow—'s C.Ow STATE Of WASHINGTON lil O4Yf1Hi' Kv— rA C)L 'i �%I Cl s `,�SlCL.55—rear. 421 LOCJ n*N 01 VrfLL: +� P! !�4_fib j2sF STREET ADDRESS OP ViM;,--.mnr1 Z 131 PROPOSED USE. oor owmn Ie ..l r �� •: -1 (10j 118L�06CrA1�Aa11D011�116M1TPf14ClD1lRE GE9CNI�IIOM 0TuM W.N i �l:r y -) P+Pn'4Ww'RIriM�adr.�w.el...v d r 914, .W 194MM 4P4 VW M�yR M� Md*0►M Iod NMi!4100 MOW411,600 fir+P.MftrYd"K r M 4M dfft W 40*/ 14) TYRE OF WORK: aMw 1-4-d wN � ='=` "FMCM*w WWI M4TigAL FPM To Aca'wryd 1 N.wv"I 1" W90 7 DW L saw!I 'NapMyd 4:dGtl: DAWh-1 rardtia.wd[ Raftt}lie A"qd J (SI IDIMIIEMSIONS; D"w*wu1wag � _.1 __ fi ~e (6¢ CCMTFItACT 0M OfTIUM, CaMrrQ kt.fall�- 'A'Mrtn Oiol.Mom. f,b R nu"r w M.d . _.. .- It--b.d ' OM1.171n E�_ t 8ner�: Wr❑ v: � — r� , to- Yr+triprt Nrr. ryp 1NaeM Na —_ Dirk —some .._ won ._. _._-!n own _akwoo puked: tw No- $c._�•t 4,ti1 - ... tv A i Us7 r'Y p�nrp.}yn I..I�owitMT `Ir© M4 f� own ofin (t► PUMA: uuuiov6ne.f4 n — T72y' --- (e} wATER LEVFLB= I.a+m—g—On k Marn....YXM Ma PK fpi1F•0+ DM. �ip`_�'_`�9c.1 won E+we��-. ."� ca*a+.erf _ � M•_. ID) WELL.TES?S: r.ow kw ft I-- ib kw&LW 4 M tvaa■wr,R aat w.f."M� T1k P1 ws.b d or•' _ WFLL CQM13T14UCTOR CERTIFICATION n.0 w+wti rr+ --- n d .. —"r+ I p�od&Ma 0, DCtr!.'r _'pw' gakf 1�•1QrW%ta+m,e 9+a MIN,and tit ®op4A7.dh*1 WmN�Qwn Nd wrml,inion>1LttlifOl MaMMIS MW 0110 • trd nlmnnm ramrsm mbm v wiv V 0 w nW bell kna+Wpgl*M[g"Q1 R&�N rr dme It w M.+k rr gem WWI of w anew a*,,t«rr�"Gook"d tam.or NAME KQ tv nEOD+M.KI Thy VAYW I MWN Trip "aw U�w TM L4.* 'L _._ — 161anad) L.�Ir,yrW_4-t l Orsctfan _�... ._ 6arpvoaars •wP Mi_ pr.011f1 Dw t.tra.ebws ilYf ___„K AYrr OtlAl1w nA1+1MKrM le _1L IIP�_h► No ����.� ��Cau,' � MwIwM Q�t•l 0>tb M51F AdOITIONAL SHEETS IF ESS&Red 1�.w�r+d.FUP_1w�irlhr+cM...h+++�r �a 4.0 #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 41 Phone#: (360)754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 kATtA 1sLL a2OCa1 start Cwrdno- 160T64 1TJn or ItaMINMW water Riau patr.it no. AMMaN ......uar.r.r.................r..rr.�«...............u■srwrrw ---- . ---....«------wi.......rr..a....ur........w. Iil O�1a: name CnaIaTan, Jcd" xAdrau 501. 7 7&Trler anaD 811061N,. mi "a1N- .i.i...............................s............................................ .............uau 121 LOM14 t OF WELL: County M lid ow 1I0 0= i T iMl M., R am aM 17a►1 silt? ADURESF 1W WILL {er MaarSK 4MIUM I 9G1 a. ahTV1[tw alt>iti w.w.....6..............w..ia■■■■w........ ---------..........�.Y■■■■■■.....ra.+r...ww..r..+.+.•a+................�.Y•■.■■ [�► FROMSRD Ut6: DOMRsr= 11aa1 ML U)G .......■..w...........w....Y«Y■«i...w...w.MMMM■...........1.-------.---. ---- ---------------- ........... ------------- 140 ?TV1k alp vM9 f 1-ftw a 6tdarr of wolf 1 NOalMtioe: Daaaribe by Cal . ewra ew, siaa at "Lariat lit awww than dwarf a 1 ad v%rvvk■a•', Mod seal u"alo— of &"Igor@ and the triad t� ad.L 10Acypd- f ad MatliM o atratam penerwated. .iea ..... •w■.•....•.....•r■••••••••••••••••s■■■...w........1 aR Yaaa[ 0M UKry for sath chaLU7C in [ac'�YatiOn. 1,51 13MMIT4519: Daawwtct of well IL irlellas (•-------- ------. -------- •.- drilled is tt, P peA Of Completed 091 Tt ft, + Imbue I ■Moo 1 TO ..ua.r..........boom...««....«a■■i.w.+.r«.MMM...«.........1 NRCM ca1V I 0 1 [{ ccKvTTUCILLai bewLe. 1argm CLLY i D4 Caritq lnstaYlad: 11 9 Dta- from ti it. Ca,74.f tt. 1 iMar CAT +. GaavaL ( 1 96 M>i • DLO. Eras ft., to tt. I name ai.T a pMisa I iM I ft - MA. f1w ft, to tt. I asti.T LLT c osam I �i 14P -- ....---- •• ------------------------------.-----I okk~t CUT I ]! I Lw tft2HaatioMa: MIi I aaaT cL" a 4WAV a- I sa I of T}ps of perforauor and I � axaT ea CLar I !� I jn2M of per[arationa in. Let In i sand C"v a"Vc4 r Kaza�a ( 5! I Iii prrfaratian■ from !t, ft I t*4Mm ara17 a aaavu. aruva c3 L a v(LTM I I fi is ?S parrore ionm from fr. to ft. I oaAVU a 1mran I parforations irae ft. Lo ft. I i ------------ sac��: ■0 1 I � Nanofaetarer,a Mama 1 TWO "Vout de. 1 ! I visa, riot am crew It_ to ft. I Wart. slat a-ate...... few ft. .. ---_... - ------- -..........--i I I 0 *Yel vadma. so aim. o! grawat 1 j o®wwal pursed 9VM !t. re t t. I k aer[a+�a- --------- ------- tb■n■c dr0cT14----..., .- wall ; 1 watarial Land to asa] Rat I a D1d any strata CW*JLJA uelwabla —4rL? ta} 1 A 1 TAP• of esterT fvVh of •cxau it. I 1 $%Lhnd of seal" ■trata off ..i■r...-...--were...►.■w.i...........■■e.wwr.....- .... I I {71 KMp: Mar�caat.IIYor-a TIMMa I .;Do.■ .........«...........■■....r............ ... I M11'tt<it tdwtJ- LAMA-Samar a1.,rrtM. K, 1 .L�,e.a aeaaa raa 1a+nt . 1 secrete lawn dl et. below tap of wall DMtasiJa i 1 A19t44114m Predawn" far. par aquas Ltrm Data j .exer aemtrvlle• I ri tbapieted WSJ aertariaaa by I nowt; et.rrtad 90f 91 g11 ■■rw......era■■.......................■rn-weer.■■■■w.......«.w.r.«.,r..■..i. t'll 10M, 'rasril: neowdow► as amount Yet■e le"I is l-6od !aloe ( MRIL COMvrmwTm t•6p TvrCXT1oM: Lanai. 1 l eanmtrvct•d aadlar accept responattritity foe 4@e- attic up* a pump twat UIdd7 M It, yea, by „awe 1 Kyvetian of this all, and its, e�coliaawa eftli all Tiel'a, got,lmtn "We Fftec Tree- ( alsa�iogtoa ee11 ocnetruetion stet■laerla. IUCerlah wad ant t[w Saf*ZftK LOP Lop=eed aDa.o are true to ■af beat krwr7odge and belie[. aecareQY data Tin raRal Lsyel Ti" Math awl Time Mrtax Iwwal ( MMB aarsnsY IIRZiLaIY INC, atleoi 1TYP or pairKF ZPersaa, film. or c9epw Ze date of cast ticaaa• ft. 9M1Yfr Metlar teat galJaid. ft, drawdam wttwr hale I [lIOYFGAt el Air %d t 1• salhai.n. r/ atym ■ot ■t tit h. Cart hts.l weeaslan tLoe 4•P•r• ire. a 1 gancrrccar' 000 TerR■rature of irti7a taxi • eRemldal •malymis aw10aT in ( Haglstrotinn floe aaalalmasOafRl GMro to/offs r.............SEE........... .arr .ae■..w..w... #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 42 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360)754-4848 FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Deer r Cre `, c �� SR-3 „ t p� ? ' \ To Shelton oP of '' Agate Road �oT I East t � Gosser Oakland Road 1 y� --LL'�. '� _ "�• ��-' Bay Site 4 �. 30 Q) �„�• � 7?�.'b�• BM 2os _ A i � �.� � °it ✓;�' / - // / ---- —�— 1 T l ` ud /1 ...�`' J�) 2 /�.� M • i ry� • sro.9� � �� �- \� I -M�ane� eeB� � 1 �, „t� • 284 Shelto-Bays e ` oif CI I• � h_y.._ I ,j G� ! i tm .._.,✓M.c __� f A' __. // �_ _.-fix._ \� i' ,/� j ,.. _ cp I f r 4 j 21 12 �y - �7 I � r i �``C'•�=-�...� Woad It a zooz D—r—a-o ropo­a re+.Date oopyriont of oo.+ t www asio...+e o ••E #07-0662 10011 Blomberg Street SW, Olympia, WA 98512 43 Phone#: (360) 754-4612 Fax#: (360) 754-4848 DATUM FOR THE SITE PLAN INCORPORATED VARIOUS TECHNIQUES AND FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL WIDE ROLLS USE STAPLES OR HARE RING TO ATTACH • SOURCES INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: FABRIC TO WIRE Ge o to c h n l c al TAPING AND PACING,SLOPE MEASUREMENTS WITH AN INCLINOMETER MAP LEGEND: FAI1R 14GAUGEVA ENT ANGLES AND BEARINGS USING A BRUNTON®GEO TRANSIT,SITE LOCATIONS USING A GARMIN®HAND HELD CAPS UNIT,TOPOGRAPHIC Qgt za Testing MAPS FROM DELORME®,MASON COUNTY G.I.S.WEBSITE,AND SURVEYS GEOLOGY RECORDED AT THE MASON COUNTY ASSESSOR. GEOLOGIC SITE RECONNAISSANCE OCCURRED ONJANUARY 15,2008 BY LEVINE. PERIMETER OF � —•—•— .� Sa �\ Laboratory THE PRESENT RECORDED SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY THORNTON LANDSLIDE LAND SURVEYING INC.;THE SURVEY IS FILED AS VOLUME 9, PAGE 12& APPROVED N HAZARD AREA zd V MAX IS DATED DECEMBER,1981. D PLANNING N� � SITE VEGETATION BUFFER GENERAL NOTE: MASON COV p(VIRED TO RE OVAL J /� 2 XC WOOD POSTS,STANDARD OR BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER PLAN RE ET TO�PPRO �` !� BUILDING SETBACK BETTER OR EQUAL ALTERfNTE: MATERIAL NB XI7 TRENCH USES AND ACTIVITIES IN EROSION HAZARD AREAS ARE SU SUBs ! �V STEEL FENCE Poers u 1 ate/► __---'----------- EROSION HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDIN!BYA nG /7�/ f_ ( G� �Op CONTOURS SUBMITTAL OF A SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN "r..`— Ay OIG�� �OQ' LANDSLIDE OF SILT FENCE FILTER FABRIC 6' PAOFESSIONAL ENGINEER V HAZARD AREA 2'X2'X14 GAUGE WIRE CROSS-SECTION `^/ FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT Z4r GROUND SURFACE POSTSS-0' BwLDING SOIL LOG or BORING SL-1 �BORING 1 SETBACK PROVIDE 31C4 I?WASHED >40 FEET `�-� GRAVEL BACKFILL IN TRENCH M2' DEER CREEK ANDSLI SEEPAGE AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER HA7A FENCE FABRIC ON THE SURFACE S'MI PERIMETER OF SO VEGETATION BUFFER MOD o(o � ALT STEEL FENCE AZT'.STEEL FENCE POSTS / DALIDE,'''/ �/ FILTlR FABRIC PENCE NOTES: Geotechnical Services HAZARD,-;/ QA/QC Services ARFJ�/ 1.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A EO FJOIN US ROLL JOINT THE LENGTH R THE BARRIER TO OVOID USE LI ED TO WHEN JOINTS V ARE NECESSARY,FILTER CLOTH SMALL BE SPLICED TOGETHER ONLY AT I P EGETAT Testing Services A SUPPORT POST FASTENED AT BOTH WITH TO THE ACM OVERLAP AND SECURELY 9 AREA �' Z POSTS SHALL BE SPACED A MAXIMUM OF B FEET APART AND DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND(MINIMUM OF 30INCHES), VEGETA k4 VEGE /• VEGETATED 3.A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED APPROXIMATELY 8INCHES WADE AND 12 10011 BlombergSt.SW INCHES DEEP ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER. Olympia,WA 98512 p�> VEGETATED ;' 4.WHEN STANDARD STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC IS USED,A WIRE MESH CS SUPPORT FENCE SHALL BE FASTENED SECURELY TO THE UPSLOPE SIDE Phone:(360)754-4612 OF THE POSTS USING HEAVY4)UTY WARE STAPLES AT LEAST I INCH \/EGETAT S8 LONG,TIE WARES OR HOG RINGS THE WARE SHALL EXTEND INTO THE Fax:(360)754 4848 21%SLOPE,,' TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 4INCHES AND SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 TATE� 254 LOPE 9A' INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE. W T 5.THE STANDARD STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC SHALL SE STAPLED OR WIRED (EXISTING TO THE FENCE AND 201NCHES OF FABRIC SHALL BE EXTENDED Date: 12/19/2007 I f// INTO THE TRENCH.THE FABRIC SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 SEPTIC TFE E' J INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE FILTER FABRIC SHALL Designed by: LEVINE l /LANDSLIDE / �,b RAINFIE GETATED,"' // NOT BE STAPLED TO THE EXISTING TREES. Drawn by: LEVINE / AREA / BUIL GSETBACK VEGETAT(rb "'' 6.WHENEXTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC AND CLOSER POST SPACING I9 Edited by: LEVINE VEGETQ�D >1 FEET FROM SEEP USED,THE WARE MESH SUPPORT FENCE MAP BE ELIMINATED,IN SUCH !A V TATED ) EXISTING A CASE,THE FILTER FABRIC IS STAPLED ORWIRED DIRECTLY TOTHE Dwg#: 12-19-07-112 POSTS WITH ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OR ABOVE NOTES APPLYING. / "S)E&AG RESIDENCE VEGETATED / � , / 7.FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL NOT BE REMOVED BEFORE THE UPSLOPE NOSLI��oS Op EXI I)G,, /(� _ AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. HAZARD T8 (TYy BORI /�( VEGETATED " SLOPE 8,FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH • Q`\'i RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL.ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. !UILDING VEGETA n VEGE D VEGETATED / SETBACK �.�ROr OSED GENERAL—SION CONTROL NOTES: >40FEET _ VEG YED VEGETATED Z4 X 24 O 5% 1 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN PUCE PRIOR TO THE `'- - - BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION.THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND THE COUNTY VELETA ADDITIO�U �� GE F VELETA D SHALL INSPECT AND APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF y EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. \ VEGETATED /'VEGETATED,� 32%S �10 (^•��y 2.EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE ITEMS ON THIS PLAN.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE '\ yEGETATED^� INSTALLATION AND MAINTAINANCE OF ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. OC.�]CM / SHALL BE ALLOWED.CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT MIGRATION NO SILTATION OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES °o '�VEGETAT \c��g [CJ1 LLVV PROJECT NAME: OF SILTS TO OFF SITE PROPERTIES. �O SZo 4�' q� V GETATED,: vecer/kTEo GARCIA SITE 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE DAILY SURVEILLANCE OF ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS 591 EAST GOSSER ROAD VEGE TO THE EROSION IONTROL MEASURES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE BY THE NAL COUNTY INSPECTOR CTORCONTROL MEASURES PROJECT NECESSARY SHELTON,WASHINGTON ti,9C\ f BY THE COUNTY INSPECTOR AND/OR THE PROJECT ENGINEER.FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE EROSION CONTROL X VEGETATED \`� �' AGAINSTTHECONTRACTOR LT IN CIVIL PROJECT OWNER LEVIED / ,A O AGAINSTTHECREQUIREMENTS CONTRAMAY CTOR TIESBEINGL PARCEL 321367600010 PERIMETER OF �. VEGETATED 1 LANDSLIDE \ \ 4.DURING THE WET SEASON(NOVEMBER TO MARCH)ALL DISTURBED SOILS HAZARD AREA ^ n '\ \ SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN{8 HOURS AFTER STOP OF WORK EROSION 1�IyAIA 1ILI�\vV1 II CONTROL MEASURES SHALL INCLUDE,BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ReAsio IS: COVERING\ WITH A PLASTICS SHEETING, MMAATTTINO JUITE MATING`STRAWMULCH, O'I�IC IIMO OR MOD CHIPS.SEEDING OF THE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL TAKE f IR008 PLACE AS WEATHER PERMITS. 02 22-08 r S.ALL SEEDED OR SODDED AREAS SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO MAKE SURE VEGETATIVE COVERAGE IS COMLETE.AREAS SHALL BE Wash�� 6.REPAIRED.RESEEDED,AND FERTILIZED AS REOUIREO. TRACKING OF SOIL OFFSME WALL NOT BE ALLOWED.IF ANY SOIL IS TRACKED ONTO A COUNTY STREET,IT SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE END 1` f OF THAT WORKING DAY.ANY FURTHER TRACKING OF MUD WALL THEN BE PREVENTED BY SWEEPING OR WASHING OF THE VEHICLES TIRES BEFORE DRIVING ON A COUNTY STREET. 7,NO MORE THAN 5W LF OF TRENCH DNA DOWNSLOPE OF MORE THAN S PERCENT SHALL BE OPENED AT ONE TIME. 8.EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES. 2 B THE NCH DEWATERING DEVICES SHALL BE DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT WALL �F T b J�/ NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT FLOWING STREAMS.DRAINAGE SYSTEMS OR SCALE: 1"=100 FEET -- 4JC OFFSITE PROPERTIES. Enyiliecr;,;. ��.L'�ler ' t NOTE: SCALE:11nch=100feet!/ 0 ALL STORM SEWER INLETS RECEIVING RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT WRING THE EXISTING SEPTIC DRAINFIELD LOCATION AND DESIGN WAS CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED 90 THAT SEDIMENT{ADEN WATER �._, DETERMINED BY A STATE LICENSED SEPTIC DESIGNER. GEOTECHNICAL WILL BE FILTERED BEFORE ENTERINGTHE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. 0 50 100 200 �17" REPORTS SHALL NOT,IN ANY WAY,ALTER THE APPROVED OR SUBMITTED It ALL OFFSITE CATCH BASINS IMMEDIATELY ADIACENTTO THE SITE (FOR APPROVAL)SEPTIC DRAINFIELD LOCATION OR DESIGN. SHALL BEPROTECTED FROMSILTATION. FIGURE L ^ C.1. 1 0' _ 12 ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR SODDED UPON COMPLETION OF WORK.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT : y/�p� COMPLETE COVERAGE OF THE DISTURBED AREAS IS PROVIDED S THAT 6 r 1 A5 t,I Ci-r I V t/U A�1.I'IIIIIII�� GROWTH OF THE VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 13.CATCH PLACED UNDER GRATE UNTIL VEGETA BASINS SHALL TRAP SEDIMENT OR FILTER FABRIC MUST BE SITE PLAN PTION IS ESTABLISHED. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CROSS-SECTION A (SOUTHEAST-NORTHWEST) Geotechnical Services QA/QC Services Testing Services BUILDING 10011 Blomberg St.SW BUILDING SETBACK>10 FEET SETBACK Olympia,WA 98512 FROM SEEPAGE >40 FEET Phone:(360)754-4612 Fu:(360)754-480 PERIMETER OF LANDSLIDE Date: 12/19/2007 PROPOSED HAZARD AREA Designed by:LEVINE VEG.BUFFERR Drawn by:LEVINE Edited by:LEVINE PROPERTY LINE I PROPERTY LINE DWg$:12-19-07-112 130 ..... ............. .............. ............. ... ...... ........................�-. ....... (PROJECTED) 130 LANDSLIDE 120 VEGETATED.... ............. ........... ............. ............. ... ...... I.. ..I..........I..HAZARD...... 120 vEGETATED ...... .............J..E.. ...........AREA....... .. 110 110 100 26%SLOPE 100 [7t 90 . ................: ........-. ...............:......... .. . � PROPOSED i -........I.....:........4. 80 80 ............:............... E......... O... ............ ....... ....... .. ..... .....� 3¢'x74'.... .. I 70 70 ............:............... .YEGETAIEO.... .... .. ........ .........'.. .. ........ .. ..... ..! ;.,..:....i.s%.SLO .FXISTIN .....:.........J-- .. ................ ..... .. 60 PROJECT NAME: Bo �. .. ............................ ........ EEPAGE[ -"" RESIDEN E 50 _-- _.._..._._ °� .1 - ............_ : vECETATdo i 50 GARCIA SITE ' sEPnc i (78%:SLOPE) 591 EAST GOSSER ROAD ao _... ... .. ..... L....:........�. SHELTON WASHINGTO 30 ............:............... ...............:............... ...............:............... ......... ... vEGETATEo...... ........ .. 30 PARCEL 32136760DO10 ......... ..... ......... .. .. _....... ...... .. ..-.-.)..L. .. .. yQ S 20 20 AP D..10 10 RBY1*a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 360 400 450 500 SCALE 1k h=50 feet FIGURE 4 CROSS-SECTION ' R for Invoice E N 6 1 N f E R I N 6 1 N C 309 WASHINGTON STREET NE OLYMPIA WA 98501 Number: 8001-007-1 TEL:360 352-2477 FAX: 360 352-0179 Date: 2/29/2008 www.vectorengineeringinc.com Due Date: 3/20/2008 BILL TO: Job 8001-007_Mason_Co(Garcia)GR Mason County Dept of Community Development PO Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 PO# BLD 2007-01886 SHIP TO: Project Manager: Russell SERVICED ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT 2/26/2008 31 Eng 3 Engineer III 12 80.00 960.00 2/25/2008 50 Proj Ad... Project Administrator 1 50.00 50.00 Terms: Payment due 20 days from the invoice date. Total $1010, .00 Credit Cards: We accept MasterCard and Visa.Please call to make payment using your card. i MASON COUNTY PLANNING GEO TECH WORK ORDER CONSULTANT VECTOR ENGINEERING, INC 309 WASHINGTON ST NE OLYNII'IA,WA 98 501 PERMIT # 5L112 2-00-7— O 1 © APPLICANT G � DATE MAILED. i PLANNERi��7`1'— ,AMOUNT BILLED /, 0 O, 00 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS "Please fill out the cost of the review and return this form and the report to us with your recommendations. D F E 8 8 2008 VECTOR ENGINEERING, INC. goof 00 0- (2/12/2008) Pam Bennett-Cumming - BLD 2007-01886 Garcia Geotechnical Report Page 1 s - rlaforce < From: "Russell LaForce' @vectorengineeringinc.com> To: "Curtis Cushman" <ccushman@geotechnicaltestinglab.com> Date: 2/12/2008 10:50 AM Subject: BLD 2007-01886 Garcia Geotechnical Report CC: "Pam Bennett-Cumming" <PamBC@co.mason.wa.us>, "Brenda Drake" <BrendaD@co... Curtis, Looking over the report, I have a few questions and comments. 1. The report has a watermark of"DRAFT" but is stamped. Is this the final report? 2. The dates on page 6 for the test boring appear to be wrong. January 28, and 29, 2007 may actually be December 28 and 29, 2007. 3. The date on page 6 for the second reconnaissance may be off a year. 4. The ultimate bearing capacity result is half of what the equation produces. The footing width may not have be multiplied with the factors in the parenthesis or the equation may be wrong. 5. The contours in the site plan vary some from the Mason County Geodata Site. What is the source of the contours? 6. The boring shows the soil to be saturated but no groundwater was encountered. Can you discuss the situation more? 7. What is the source of the shear test results? What tests were used?Are the tests appropriate for saturated conditions? 8. A description is needed regarding the source of the soil'urnP'"O"`""""```'`�` values. 9. The present flow route of the seepage is across the addition site. The site plan does not show the channel to be rerouted. The recommendations for site drainage should be more specific for the creation of drainage plan. 10. The silt fence should be also be recommended for the downslope of the addition site. 11. The report or the site plan should be revised to mention that uses and activities in erosion hazard areas are subject to erosion hazard area development standards including the submittal of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a professional engineer. If you want to reply be email, that would be fine. The revised site plan is needed and can also be emailed as a PDF attachment. If there are any questions, please contact me. Russell LaForce Design Engineer Vector Engineering, Inc. 309 Washington Street NE Olympia WA 98501 (360)352-2477 (360) 352-0179 (fax) rlaforce@veiweb.com <mailto:rlaforce@veiweb.com> J (2/12/2008) Pam Bennett-Cumming - BLD 2007-01886 Garcia Geotechnical Report Page 2 www.vectorengineeringinc.com <http://www.vectorengineeringinc.com/>