HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2011-00082 - GEO Geological Review - 7/18/2011 MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
Geotechnical ReportReview Acceptance Letter
February 06, 2012
Steven & Sheri Watson
3519 221 Avenue SE
Issaquah WA 98029
Case No.: GE02011-00082
Parcel No.: 322075000022
Project Description: Geotechnical report for future development.
The Geotechnical Report for Steven & Sheri Watson has been received and reviewed by the
Planning Department. The report was prepared by Michael Staten dated 7/18/2011.
Based on the certification provided by the licensed engineer/geologist, the referenced
Geotechnical Report was prepared in general accordance with the requirements in the Mason
County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Areas 17.01.100.E.5. Mason County considers
the review valid until such time as scope of project, site conditions, and/or regulations change.
Should the scope of work, site conditions, and/or regulations change after the original review, then
an addendum from the original author of the report may be required to address these changes.
The report would only be re-reviewed if a permit for development were submitted after these
changes occur. Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical
Report.
Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 365 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
Comments:
2/6/2012 Page 1 of 1 GE02011-00082
1
Mason County Review Checklist
For a Geotechnical Report
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report
is reviewed for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not
applicable, the Report should explain the basis for the conclusion.The Report is also reviewed for clarity
and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be
clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the application or observations on
site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should
refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
Applicant's Name: UVV�
Permit#C�r4 74(l ' V y 00"01,-Parce # -7 "-2--
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: I vt
(1) (a)A discur,ion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK?�c Comment:
(b) A discyrssion of specific soil types
OK? L" Comment: _.
(c) A discu sion of ground water conditions.
OK? Comment:
(d) A discu. ion of the upslope geomorphology
OK?Comment:
(e) A disc/sion of the location of upland waterbodies.and wetlands
OK? i/ Comment:
(f) A discuss' n of history of landslide activity in the activity in the.vicinity, as available in the
refer ed maps and records
OK? Comment:
(2) A site plan yvhick identifies the}' ortant develo ment and geologic features.
OK? t/ Comment: GPI"U' >!iLi aG
(3) Locations �R8 logs of explora holes or robes.
OK? V Comment:
(4) The area of the proposed devel ent,the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and
setbacks Pall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site.
OK? X Comment.
(5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and
which ir�corpwates the details o� e ade changes.
OK? Comment:
(6) A description and results of slo e 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 saf y factor is 1.1. and th qqasi-:ptati9 analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15.
OK? Comment: ,� l
(7) (a)Appropr
5,'ale restrictions on placeihdrit of drainage features
OK? V Comment:
(b) Appro late restrictions on placement of septic drain fields
OK? Comment:
(c) Appr riate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings
OK? Comment:
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other
slopes on the property.
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
OK? L Comment: r
(e) Recommended setback!!from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other sl es on the property.
OK? Comment:
(8) Recommendations for the pre arat on 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 v getation removal. `d
OK?Comment: J
(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 frorry�rosion, landslides and harmful construction methods.
OK? ,, Comment:
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
OK?_7 Comment:
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths.
OK?_ /Comment:
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation.
OK?Comment:
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location
and nat of existing and propos d velo m nt on the site.
OK? t/ Comment:
Are the Documents signed and stamped?
f 4f,
Type and #of License-: 3 d n . v
I.f not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further a ion? v r
Reviewed by , on
Time spent in review:
SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE:
Reviewed by , on
Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE:
Reviewed by , on
Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Mason County Department of Community Development
auumi%tai Cneukiisi For a Geoiechnical Repor%
Instructions:
This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed,signed, and stamped by the
licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to
the Mason County Resource"i mane. If an item found to be not applicable,the report should explain
the basis for the conclusion-
Applicant/Owner Sit' 0*"Parcel# 3 �
Site Aud�es f-0�" /V XVV / /V� V? �hQ1'e�' /\Ar / U , A y P
(1) (a)A discussion of generpl geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
Located on page(s)_
(b) A discussion or spec is soii types
Located on pages) _
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions
Located on page(s) q
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology
Located on page(s) `i-
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
Located on page(s) Ir
(i} H uiscussiun ui iiisiory of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity,as available in the
referenced maps and records
Locatcd on pages)
(2) A site plan which identifieA t11e i7frfant deveI' t and geologic features.
Located on Maps) - ( Ladd
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Lot;ai:cU Oil iV1aP(S)
(4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and
setbacks shall be delineated/(ttop, both sides,and toe)on d geologic map of the site.
Located on Map(s) Sr ld�a►�
(5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile.and
which incorporates the details q� gposed grade changes.
wOai6u Oil ivi8}i(S)
"i I Yro�(n� (k& i3 l
6 A descri lion and results of slope stability o r ;nr,
( ) p ifv analyses for both static and seismic, o...
Pe ys !�� oa
conditions.Analysis should examine worst c asefallurm.The analysis should include the
Ssr:tr:ifisu t3ishop's yiethod ofi C.'irdes_The min&n�sn static suety f is 1.5.Um minimum
seismic safety factor is 1.1_an the quasi-static analysis eoeffkx is should be a value of 0.15.
Located on page(s)
(7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features
Located on page(s) 10
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields
Located on page(s) I
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings
Located on page(s)
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotcchnic (;;er„rt.
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other
slopes on the proper# .
Located on pages)
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes on the property.
Located on page(s) C7
(8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading piai i w til l i St 1CC1 IGBtiy
identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the
method of vegetation rem vei. t fg
Located on page(s) �U Uwe 'Ron ��
(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,iandslides and harmful construction methods_
Located on page(s) ,A /
(i)) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed developirneni.
Located on page(s) / 7;
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths.
Located on page(s) /7�;
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation.
Located on page(s) 17
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property.i?oup0aries,scale.north arrow, and the location
and nature of existing anpproppsed development on the site.
LoGaied oil ivia sj p� an
I, 114/l i�L C!�'`al,�� hereby certify under;penalty of
perjury that i am a civii engineer licensed in the State of Washington vvkil specialized knowledge of
geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist li-x,-med in Me State of
.,.�: y...= r, ��l�6�of Me!_ l� .��>=ieic,�is.9 also�:ed,ify'thatf ^t/hefie::�ei��ni�s
Report,dated 2DI I .and entitled —���//e Vr✓cw� 5�,r V v a 460'.)
meets aH the requirame;iEF,Of Ine W- jasors
County es®uroe Ordlnanee,Landslide Hazard Section Is complete and true,that the assessment
demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the
included geofscnnicai desigr i,recomi�n,endauons,and mat ali i aza:'ds are mitigama in suctin a manner as
to prevent t T ,to prom;and public healtia and safety,.(SWfat -a and Starnp) ----,
CLYDE qa
tl Z
43045
CA FGISFER�
�`ssrONALtiNG
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective.tune 2008
Disclaimer: Mascn county -'S 'lot ncr'i€.iF.�yualit�%of the ward-done in this t^f tw;iaiynical ncj.r.•f,.
322072222222 322075000923
322075000951 ' .;� c`".'�pp 322075000950�.n
322070060000 4
,+ 4
Alp-
322075000925 322075000925
322075000952
322075000953 �
<322075000953. ,•'�-, �
of
322072222222 32207500 oi 32
l 1, *> 2075 2
00097 a�
.lr
3220750009 -�
322075000955 322075000955
322075000022 ` �'o. 322075000022 -�`-
322078888888
322075000907 322075000907 a,
A O ^
322075000908 '
$p 322075000908 $
322075000023 3220750009N i,
4. 32 75 0909 c
�Y o0
322075000024 N O
160
322075000027 322075000024 322075000024
1322075000025 32p
6o
322075000027 CIF _
322075000026
322075000026
11"VI
< . « 322075000910
«•� .h �'' t1 • __ram,, �• -
3221 81 20001 0
s y` 322180060000g b�, 100
X. 81100010 2 80000
�w o 3221 a 3 2 1811 811
o
322181290030 322181290100•
N
1 inch = 200 feet
W __ l:
1 inch = 0.04 miles
S
Geotechnical Report
for
Steve and Sheri Watson Single Family Residential Property
XXXX NE North Shore Road, Tahuya
Parcel No. Z 2Z,01 -50 -CMo-Q
Mason County, Washington
July 18, 2011
Project#1176
Prepared For:
Steve & Sheri Watson
CLYD
3519 221 st Avenue SE �lzP 0 WASH ST9>
Samamish, Washington 98075
Prepared By: 4305
Envirotech Engineering �0" �F STf
GA
PO Box 984 SS�DNALti�G
Belfair, Washington 98528
Phone: 360-275-9374
Fax: 360-275-4789
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................I
1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................................I
1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION AND SCOPE OF WORK.........................................................................2
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................4
2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS..................................................................................................................4
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology and Water Bodies...............................................................................4
2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................................................4
2.4 SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................................5
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION......................................................................................................6
3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING............................................................................6
3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS....................................................................................................6
3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................6
3.3.1 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................8
3.4 SOILS TESTING....................................................................................................................................8
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................9
4.1 SLOPE STABILITV................................................................................................................................9
4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis.............................................................................................................11
4.1.2 Slope Stability Assessment........................................................................................................11
4.1.3 Septic Drainfield Impact to Critical Slopes..............................................................................11
4.2 EROSION............................................................................................................................................1 1
4.2.1 Shoreline Recession..................................................................................................................12
4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION.............................................................................12
4.3.1 Liquefaction..............................................................................................................................12
4.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES...........................................................................................................13
4.5 ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................13
5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................14
5.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................14
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity.......................................................................................................................14
5.1.2 Settlement..................................................................................................................................1 S
5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade..........................................................................................................15
5.2 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................15
5.2.1 Excavation.................................................................................................................................1 S
5.22 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill...........................................16
5.2.3 Retaining WaU Backfdl............................................................................................................17
5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations....................................................................................................17
5.3 BUILDING AND FOOTING SETBACKS.................................................................................................17
5.4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................18
5.5 VEGETATION BUFFER AND CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................18
5.6 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL.......................................................................18
6.0 CLOSURE............................................................................................................................................20
Appendix A-Site Plan
Appendix B-Soil Information(Soil Profile;Soil Logs;Well Reports)
Appendix C-Slope Stability Input&Output
Appendix D—Erosion Control
Appendix E—Drainage Details
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a single
family residential property located along NE North Shore Road, identified as parcel number
32207-50-00022, Tahuya, Mason County, Washington. The neighboring parcel (32207-50-
00907) was also included in our geotechnical work because this property may be used for the
proposed house and/or septic drainfield. See the vicinity map on the following page for a general
depiction of the site location.
The geotechnical investigation was conducted at the request of the property owners, Steve and
Sheri Watson, in support of the proposed development as detailed below. The proposed
development, as provided herein, and the surrounding area is identified in this report as the
Project.
An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech on July 8, 2011. It
was determined that slopes in excess of 40%with a vertical relief of at least 10 feet were present
within 300 feet of the planned development. Based on this site characteristic, the proposed
development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason
County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.100. During the site visit by Envirotech, surface and
subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable Project
research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report which, at a minimum, conforms to the
applicable MCRO.
As presented herein,this report includes information pertaining to the Project in this Introduction
Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section;
field methods and soil descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; supporting
documentation with relation to slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and lateral earth
pressures in the Engineering Analyses and Conclusions Section; and, recommendations for
foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, retaining walls, erosion control, drainage, and
vegetation in the Engineering Recommendations Section.
1.1 Project Information
Information pertaining to the Project was provided by the proponent of the property during the
geotechnical investigation. The existing development includes a driveway, cabin, and rock
bulkhead. The planned development consists of a 1- or 2-story single family residence, on-site
septic system, and other ancillary features typical of this type of development. Foundation
construction is expected to consist of continuous strip footings with concrete slabs-on-grade or
stem walls. Approximate building footprint and other proposed features with relation to existing
site conditions are illustrated on the Site Map provided in Appendix A of this report.
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 1 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-2754789 July 18,2011
1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope of Work
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to assess geological hazards, and evaluate the
Project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations that should be implemented during
development. The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and
subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site
activities.
In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program completed for the
proposed improvements of the Project include:
• Review project information provided by the Project owner and/ or owner's
representative;
• Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction
and performance of the proposed improvements of the Project;
• Define general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils within test pits
and/ or cut banks, review geological maps for the general area, research published
references concerning slope stability, and review water well reports from existing wells
near the Project;
• Collect bulk samples at various depths and locations;
• Perform soils testing to determine selected index and/or engineering properties of the site
soils;
• Complete an engineering analysis supported by the planned site alterations, and the
surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation, soil
testing,and applicable project research;and,
• Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for foundations,
drainage, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements, and other
considerations.
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 2 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County, Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
a 4
f C
Cpik C Lons tck Pond
Project
Z
�N NORTH Hu o
e+i-�y NM1RO 7
i
IS
18
F 17 IC 15
HUI G� NboO I.�Ir
As SOPS ~bwryLAke
r
® 20 21 22
\ 5789R
Vicinity Map from Mason County Website
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 3 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-275-4789 July 18,2011
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on July 8,
2011 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. During the site visit, the type of
geotechnical investigation was assessed, site features were documented that may influence
construction, and site features were examined that may be influenced by construction. This
Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, vegetation,
topography, drainage and observed slope/ erosion conditions for the Project and surrounding
areas that may impact the Project.
2.1 General Observations
The property is accessed from NE North Shore Road, an existing dirt roadway. The Project is
partially developed land as previously mentioned. The access road is within a right-of-way
extending north and south within the western 1/3 of the property, and Hood Canal borders the
property to the west. Beyond the property, sparse rural residential development exists. Vegetation
on and near the Project consists primarily of secondary growth firs, cedars, and other trees and
shrubbery common to this area of the Pacific Northwest. An aerial photo of the Project and
immediate vicinity is provided on the following page.
2.2 Topography
The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from a public lidar source,
and incorporated observations and field measurements. Where necessary, slope verification
included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site
Plan in Appendix A in this report for an illustration of general topography with respect to the
planned development.
Critical descending slopes, with grades exceeding 40%, are located both upslope and downslope
of the planned development. The critical slopes are extremely variable, and average
approximately 65% with a total vertical relief of approximately 400 feet. Proposed building and
septic locations are on slopes ranging from nearly flat to less than 20%. A 6 feet high shoreline
bank protected by a rock bulkhead is located approximately 20 feet beyond the toe of slope.
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology and Water Bodies
The upland area of the property is situated on a hillside. Additional geomorphology that
is pertinent to both upslope and downslope areas are provided in the Subsurface
Investigation Section of this report.
There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned
development that would significantly influence the Project.
2.3 Surface Drainage
Stormwater runoff originating upslope from the anticipated development appears to primarily
sheet flow into convergences, and is expected to be moderate. Runoff originating upslope of the
property is mostly diverted away from the property by accommodating topography. Some minor
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 4 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair, Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County, Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
1
to moderate scour and erosion was observed on the property near the planned house location. See
the approximate convergence location on the Site Plan, and recommendations concerning
mitigation in the Surface and Subsurface Drainage Recommendations provided later in this
report.
2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations
The slope grades near the Project signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Some
indicators that may suggest past slope movements include:
• Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope,
• Fissures, tension cracks, hummocky ground or stepped land masses on the face or top of
the slope,and parallel to the slope,
• Fine, saturated subsurface soils,
• Old landslide debris,
• Significant bowing or leaning trees,or,
• Slope sloughing or calving.
Some leaning and bowing trees are near the development, indicating possible slope movement on
the steeper slopes. See the slope assessment provided later in this report.
se
y
Mfr
a
T22N R3W P
Aerial Photo from SCS Website
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 5 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-2754789 July 18,2011
l
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was primarily gathered on July 8,
2011 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. Specific information on field
methods, sampling, field testing, general geologic conditions, specific subsurface conditions, and
results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. Appendix B of this report
includes pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the Project, such as subsoil cross-
section(s),test pit log(s),and water well report(s). Applicable test pit locations are depicted on the
Site Plan provided in the appendix of this report.
3.1 Field Methods, Sampling and Field Testing
Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by examining soils within
earth cuts extending to depths of up to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. Information on
subsurface conditions also included reviewing geological maps representing the general vicinity
of the project,and water well reports originating from nearby properties.
One bulk sample was collected at the Project site at approximately 18 inches below the existing
ground surface near the anticipated building location. The soil sample collected was secured and
transported for possible laboratory testing.
Envirotech measured the relative density of the near-surface in-situ soils by gauging the
resistance of hand tools. Within testing locations, field testing results generally indicated medium
dense to dense soils in the upper 5 feet,and very dense soils from 5 feet to the depth of terminous.
3.2 General Geologic Conditions
In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic
conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster,
2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qg. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated
deposits, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is
located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably
overlie the Crescent Formation." as revealed in the Geologic Map. Initial sedimentary rocks were
formed from shales, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers. During the Quaternary period, the
Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets,with the most recent being the Fraser glacier
with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was
formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits.
According to the "Geologic Map of the Lilliwaup 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Mason County,
Washington'by Trevor Contreras, et. al.,June 2010, this Project consists of Pre-Fraser Olympic-
source outwash.The geologic map provides the following captions for this Project:
Pre-Fraser Olympic-source outwash—Gravel (Clark Creek Drift?)with paleosols;orange-
brown, dense;clasts subrounded; poorly stratified to massive; poorly to moderately sorted.
3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions
The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the Project subgmde utilizing
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 6 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair, Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County, Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and investigated
locations. Soils for this project were primarily described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification
System(USCS)and the Soil Conservation Service(SCS)descriptions.
The Project is composed of native soils with indications of fill borrowed from the property. The
fill is minor, and may not affect foundations, depending on depth. For engineering purposes,
native soils consist of distinguishable layers,as presented below.
Soils within the upper 5 feet of natural ground were observed to be moist, brown silty sand with
gravel(SM)and silty gravel with sand(GM).
Soils below the upper 5 feet layer to a depth of 15 feet below the natural ground surface were
observed to be low moisture, silty sand with gravel or clay conglomerate. These soils were very
dense, and are locally known as hardpan. The hardpan may extend to depths greater than 20 feet.
This is based on nearby well reports,site geology,and/or knowledge of the general area.
The relative densities of the soil are provided above in Section 3.1. Expanded and specific
subsurface descriptions, other than what is provided in this section, are provided in the soil logs
located in Appendix B of this report.
According to the "Soil Survey of Mason County," by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service(SCS),the upland site soils are described as Rough broken
land, Rb, with 15% - 30% slopes. However, slopes exceeding 30% were observed near the
southern portion of the property. See the SCS soil profiles in Appendix B of this report. The soil
designations are depicted in the aerial photograph below.
�; fir. •�: :
M - 7 ,T22N R3W
'x
I f I 'tom 4.
a
Soil Survey From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 7 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-2754789 July 18,2011
3.3.1 Groundwater
From the water well report(s)and knowledge of the general area, permanent groundwater
is at least 50 feet directly below the property at the building pad location. Perched
groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on-site, but is expected during the
winter months.
3.4 Soils Testing
The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved and
transported for possible laboratory testing. Visual classification of soils was performed in the
field at all observed soil profiles. Visual classifications were performed in accordance with the
American Standards for Testing and Materials(ASTM D2488).
The general results from the visual classification are presented above in the Subsurface
Conditions Section. Specifically, soils within the upper 4 feet in one testing location consisted of
approximately 45% gravel, 40% sand-sized soils, and 15% fines with low plasticity indicating a
low content of clay within the fine fraction.
i
II IlcitiFxn•t 5
;.i CouRur Sp"
4- 1
M uxa urti Pt .°
\� a wo ioeo wo nnm �
Hatch
J '
Minor variations observed during the
visual classification of particle size content(i.e. gravel, sand, fines),or isolated pockets within the
soil stratification were insignificant in relation to the overall engineering properties of the soil.
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 8 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-2754789 July 18,2011
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS
The following sections present engineering analyses and conclusions with relation to the existing
conditions and proposed improvements of the Project. This section includes slope stability,
erosion, seismic considerations, lateral earth pressures, and impacts to both on-site and off-site
properties.
4.1 Slope Stability
Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of
adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. Geotechnical engineering
cannot eliminate these risks for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly
inducing strain on the sloping soil mass. Excessive wet weather and/ or earthquakes will
exacerbate these strains. Geotechnical engineering considers excessive wet weather and `design'
earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping
terrain with relation to current engineering protocol. These factors of safeties are based on
engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil, topography, water
conditions,seismic acceleration and surcharges.
Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep-
seated structural capability of the slope. However, excessive and/or repeated surficial slope
movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. If this
situation does arise, the slope shall be inspected by a geotechnical engineer. Subsequently,
maintenance may be required in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated
slope movements that may be damaging to life and property.
According to the Coastal Zone Atlas of Mason County, Washington, the Project is within and
near terrain labeled `Stable' and `Intermediate' regarding potential landslide activity. Stable
slopes are generally not prone to landslides due to small grades and accommodating geology.
Historically, intermediate terrains have no known landslides. However, this site is considered
inherently hazardous due the existing geology and/ or topography, and additional analyses and
recommendations concerning the slopes are presented herein. A Stability Map from the Coastal
Zone Atlas for the general area of this Project is provided below:
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 9 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair, Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
5 L
I
Project
-
1tp
Potlatch
Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Website
According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), the Project is within terrain labeled `highly unstable' relating to soils. A Resource Map
from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System is provided below:
N
197W4 1979M 1 i 979W N_ �.
Project
IV y
b
S Pu9et Sound N
796984 .(. 7W988
t � ¢
ys_
q..
i 98964 � 796968 798988
Z
Resource Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 10 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-2754789 July 18,2011
4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis
The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing `STABLE' software, was used to analyze the
static stability of the site slopes. Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case
scenario values from the static analysis,a quasi-static analysis coefficient of at least 0.15,
and applying the applicable values to STABLE software. Various radii's and center
points of the circle were automatically selected, and produced factor of safeties in a
graphical and tabular format. Worst case scenario values were used in the slope stability
analysis in regards to topography, surcharges, water content, internal friction and
cohesion of the site soils. STABLE software has been repeatedly checked with manual
calculations, and consistently proved to be a very conservative program. The following
soil properties were used in the analysis, and are based on observed conditions, known
geology,and/or published parameters:
Soil unit weight: 138 pcf
Angle of internal friction: 36 degrees
Cohesion: 50 psf
Based on the slope stability analysis, a minimum factor of safety was determined to be
1.4 relative to static slope failures, and 1.0 with relation to seismic conditions. These
factor of safeties were primarily limited to the face of the slope, and do not reflect
conditions where development is expected to occur. For this Project,at the location of the
proposed development, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic conditions
were estimated to be over 2.0. See the slope stability information in Appendix C for a
depiction of input parameters and example of outputs.
4.1.2 Slope Stability Assessment
DNR did not indicate previous landslide activity near the Project,but did designate slopes
as unstable. Envirotech did not observe indications of deep seated or shallow earth
failures other than possible downhill creep on the steepest slopes. Based on the results of
the aforesaid slope stability analysis, observed surface conditions, and an evaluation of
the shoreline recession rate, it is our opinion that the proposed development should occur
in accordance with the recommendations provided in this geotechnical report.
4.1.3 Septic Drainfield Impact to Critical Slopes
The approximate location of the proposed septic drainfield is presented on the Site Plan
in Appendix A of this report. Based on the septic drainfield location with relation to the
existing and proposed topography,the drainfields are not expected to adversely influence
the structures near the critical slopes. This is also based on compliance with all
recommendations in this report.
4.2 Erosion
Based on the USCS description of the Project soils, the surface soils are considered moderately
erodible. According to the Resource Map from the Washington State DNR, as provided above,
the Project is within terrain labeled `highly erodible.' This Project is not within an erosion hazard
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page I 1 NE North Shore Road, Tahuya
Belfair, Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County, Washington
Fax:360-275-4789 July 18,2011
area as defined by the MCRO. Erosion hazard areas are those with USDA SCS designations of
River Wash (Ra), Coastal Beaches (Cg), Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or
greater (Ac and Ad), Cloquallum Silt Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Cd), Harstine Gravelly
Sandy Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Hb),and Kitsap Silt Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Kc).
It is our opinion that erosion control recommendations provided in this report is sufficient for the
development of this Project, and additional erosion control plans are not required. Temporary and
permanent erosion control measures are required for site development. Extents of temporary
erosion control will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction, moisture content of the soil,
and amount of rainfall during construction. Soil erosion typical to the existing site conditions and
planned disturbance of the Project include wind-borne silts during dry weather, and sediment
transport during prolonged wet weather. Sediment transport could be from stormwater runoff or
tracking off-site with construction equipment.
The Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Section (Section 5.6) of this report consist of
specific erosion controls to be implemented. Additional erosion control information and
specifications may be found in the latest addition of the "Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality
Program.
4.2.1 Shoreline Recession
Due to the close proximity of a shoreline,an evaluation of the shoreline recession rate for
this Project was completed. The future shoreline regression will be zero on the subject
property with ordinary care and maintenance of the existing bulkhead.
4.3 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction
Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this Project are generally Type D,
corresponding to the International Building Code(IBC)soil profiles. Soils below a depth of 5 feet
from the existing ground surface may be considered Type C. According to the IBC, the regional
seismic zone is 3 for this Project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from 0.50g to
0.60g. This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey(USGS)National Seismic
Hazard Project in which there is an estimated 2% probability of exceedance within the next 50
years.
There are no known faults beneath this Project. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this
property is the Hood Canal Fault Zone, in which is approximately 2 miles to the northwest of this
Project. This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the
United States.
4.3.1 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction is believed to be low for this Project. This is based, in part,
on the subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent
shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems
caused from liquefaction include submerged, confined, poorly-graded granular soils (i.e.
gravel, sand, silt). Although gravel-and silt-sized soil particles could be problematic,fine
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 12 NE North Shore Road, Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County, Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No
significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of
the subsoil for this Project.
4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures
Lateral earth pressures exerted through the backfill of a retaining wall are dependent upon several
factors including height of retained soil behind the wall, type of soil that is retained, degree of
backfill compaction, slope of backfill, surcharges, hydrostatic pressures, earthquake pressures,
and the direction and distance that the top of the wall moves. Significant retaining structures are
not anticipated for this Project. If retaining walls are later planned for this Project, prescriptive
requirements from the County should be adhered to. For retaining structures with a height
exceeding County prescriptive requirements, additional design parameters must be accounted for
in the retaining wall analysis, and recommendations should only be provided by a qualified
engineer after the type of backfill is acquired, inclination of backfill slope is estimated, and the
final wall height is determined.
4.5 On-Site and Off-Site Impacts
From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the subject property and adjacent
properties to the proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all
recommendations in this report are followed. This is based on the expected site development,
existing topography, existing upslope development, land cover, and the recommendations
presented in this report.
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 13 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-275-4789 July 18,2011
5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements of
the Project. These recommendations have been made available based on the planned
improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations
including drainage and topography as recapitulated in the Surface Conditions Section; soil/
geologic conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in
the Subsurface Investigation Section; and, Project research, analyses and conclusions as
determined in the Engineering Analysis and Conclusions Section. Recommendations for the
Project that is provided herein,includes pertinent information for building foundations,earthwork
construction, building and/or footing setbacks, drainage, vegetation considerations, and erosion
control.
5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations
Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one- or
two-story, single family residential structure. The recommended allowable bearing capacities and
settlements as presented below, consider the probable type of construction as well as the field
investigation results by implementing practical engineering judgment within published
engineering standards. Evaluations include classifying site soils based on observed field
conditions and soil testing for this Project. After deriving conservative relative densities, unit
weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils,the Terzhagi ultimate bearing capacity
equation was utilized for determining foundation width and depth. Foundation parameters
provided herein account for typical structural pressures due to the planned type of development.
A structural analysis is beyond the scope of a geotechnical report, and a structural engineer may
be required to design specific foundations and other structural elements based on the soil
investigation.
Stepped foundations are acceptable, if warranted for this Project.Continuous,isolated,or stepped
foundations shall be horizontally level between the bottom of the foundation and the top of the
bearing strata. The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12 inches below the
ground surface for this Project under normal circumstances and anticipated design features. The
soils on-site have low to moderate frost susceptible characteristics and should be used only to the
extents provided in this report.
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity
Existing in-situ soils for this Project indicates that the structure can be established on
shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively
undisturbed native soil. Alternatively, foundations may be constructed on selective re-
compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as described in the Earthwork
Construction Recommendations Section of this report.
For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 1500 psf, a minimum continuous
footing width of 15 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 18 inches below the natural
ground surface, beneath any fill soils. These bearing capacity requirements also apply to
isolated footings, except the width should be increased to 24 inches for both round and
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 14 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-275-4789 July 18,2011
square foundations. Foundation recommendations are made available based on adherence
to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. Alterations to the
aforementioned foundation recommendations may be completed upon a site inspection by
a geotechnical engineer after the foundation excavation is completed.
5.1.2 Settlement .
Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the
subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the
structure, reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances, the infiltration of free.
moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, anticipated development, and
construction abides by the recommendations in this report, the assumed foundation
system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement,and a maximum differential
settlement of 0.75 inch.
5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of compacted
coarse, granular material (Passing U.S. Sieve #10 or greater) that is placed over
undisturbed native subgrade or engineered fill.Native soils found at the Project site may
be suitable for use as material directly beneath concrete slabs if it meets the aforesaid
requirements or screened to meet these requirements. The top 4 to 8 inches of native soil
should be removed prior to the placement and compaction of the aforementioned 4-inch
coarse,granular material.
The recommendations for interior concrete slabs-on-grade as presented herein are only
relevant for the geotechnical application of this Project. Although beyond the scope of
geotechnical engineering, concrete slabs should also be designed for structural integrity
and environmental reliability. This may include some type of vapor barrier or moisture
control for mitigating excessive moisture in the building.
5.2 Earthwork Construction Recommendations
Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed native soils. Compacted
engineered fill,or selective re-compacted native soils may be used to the extents provided in this
Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section. The following recommendations include
excavations,subgrade preparation,type of fill,and placement of fill for building foundations.
5.2.1 Excavation
Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious
material, if present, beneath foundations and to achieve appropriate foundation depth.
Additional sub-excavation will be required for this Project if the soils below the required
foundation depth are loose, saturated, or otherwise incompetent due to inappropriate land
disturbing, or excessive water trapped within foundation excavations prior to foundation
construction. All soils below the bottom of the excavation shall be competent, and
relatively undisturbed or properly compacted fill. If these soils are disturbed or deemed
incompetent, re-compaction of these soils below the anticipated footing depth is
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 15 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-275-4789 July 18,2011
necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered, compacted, and suitable before
placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or structural concrete. It is suggested
that foundation excavations are inspected by a geotechnical engineer or qualified
professional in order to assess the bearing material prior to the placement of structural
footings.
5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill
For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly
beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is required prior to
foundation construction. The following placement and compaction requirements are
necessary.
For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath foundations, limits of compacted or
re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of
one foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill beneath the foundation. See the
illustration below.
— F❑❑TING
COMPACTED
NATIVE SOILS
OR ENGINEERED t
FILL
1
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and
other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Engineered
fill should consist of the following gradation:
U.S. Standard Sieve %Finer b weight)
ght
)
6" 100
3" 60— 100
No.4 20—60
No.200 0- 8
Table 1
Partical Size Distribution of Engineered Fill
Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6 inches and 12 inches for
native soils and engineered fill, respectively. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to
at least 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and within
3% of optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained
during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding.
Temporary earth cuts and temporary fill slopes exceeding 4 feet in height should be
limited to a slope of 3:2 (horizontal:vertical). Utility trenches or other confined
excavations exceeding 4 feet should conform to OSHA safety regulations.
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 16 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
5.2.3 Retaining Wall Back-fill
As previously mentioned, significant retaining structures are not anticipated for this
Project. However, if used, native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this
Project. Backfill may also consist of engineered fill or borrow materials approved by a
geotechnical engineer. Placement, compaction and extents of retaining wall backfill
should also be specified by a geotechnical engineer or qualified professional.
5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations
Due to the types of subsurface soils, additional provisions may be required during
prolonged wet weather. Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free
moisture from saturating the soils within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used
for footing placement changes from a moist and dense/hard characteristic as presented in
this report to muck or soft, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for
foundation bearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be
notified, and these soils should be completely removed and replaced with compacted
engineered fill or suitable native material as presented in this section.
5.3 Building and Footing Setbacks
Provided that assumptions relating to construction occur and recommendations are followed as
presented in this report, the factor of safety for slope stability is sufficient for a 30 feet footing
setback from the face of the nearby descending slopes exceeding 40%. See the figure below and
the Site Plan in Appendix A for an illustration of the setbacks.
STRUCTURE
TOP OF
SLOPE SLOPE --_-_---�
FACE _
-- 30 FT MIN F❑❑TING
The required setbacks may be reduced, if necessary. The setback may be decreased by extending
the foundation an additional 2 feet in depth below the ground surface for every 5 feet of setback
reduction. Other mitigation techniques may be utilized in order to reduce the required setback,
and subsequently would require additional geotechnical studies.
Due to potential debris flow, the building location should have a minimum setback from the local
ascending slope toe equal to about '/2 the slope height. The toe of the ascending local slope is
delineated as a grade break in which the ascending slope is in excess of 40%. Envirotech
recommends the setback to be at least 10 feet from the toe of the nearby ascending slope. Setback
requirements from the global ascending slope are not required provided that the planned house is
located relatively near the location depicted in the site plan. Good surface conditions,and benches
of flat to moderate slopes does not trigger mitigation. The recommended setback from the local
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 17 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-275-4789 July 18,2011
ascending slope may be eliminated by constructing the reinforced concrete stem wall at least 3
feet above the ground surface.
5.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential buildings.
Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface, driveways and sidewalks away from the
Project structures.All constructed surface and subsurface drains should be adequately maintained
during the life of the structure. If drainage problems occur during or after construction,additional
engineered water mitigation will be required. This may include a combination of swales, berms,
drain pipes, infiltration facilities, or outlet protection in order to divert water away from the
structures to an appropriate protected discharge area.
Both footing perimeter drains and roof drains are required for this Project. Subsurface water
intercepted in the footing perimeter drains, and stormwater collected from roof drains shall be
separately tight-lined to an appropriate outlet location beyond the toe of the steep 40%+ slope.
The same tightline may be used if a backflow preventer is utilized to keep roof water from
entering the foundation area Energy dissipation is required at the outlet. Recommended
infiltration alternatives are provided in Appendix E of this report.
5.5 Vegetation Buffer and Considerations
Vegetation is an excellent measure to minimize surficial slope movements and erosion on slope
faces and exposed surfaces. By removing trees,the root strength is decreased over time, thereby
lowering the `apparent' cohesion of the soil. Transpiration is decreased, which results in
additional groundwater, increased pore water pressure and less cohesion/ friction of the soil
particles. Stormwater runoff also increases, and, fewer plants will create less absorption of the
force from raindrops,thereby creating the potential for erosion hazards.
Vegetation shall not be removed from the face of the steep slope or within a distance of 15 feet
beyond the top of the slope. However, any tree deemed hazardous to life or property shall be
removed. If tree removal is necessary, then stumps and roots shall remain in place, and the
underbrush and soil shall remain undisturbed as much as possible. Any disturbed soil shall be
graded and re-compacted in order to restore the terrain similar to preexisting conditions and
drainage patterns. See the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report for a depiction of the vegetation
buffer. Any foundations within 15 feet of the drainage convergence that was discussed earlier in
this report shall be founded at least 4 feet below the existing ground surface.
5.6 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control
Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the
least extent possible. If necessary, erosion control measures during construction may include
stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls.
Silt fencing is presented in this report as the first choice for temporary erosion control. Any
erosion control should be located down-slope and beyond the limits of construction and clearing
of vegetation where surface water is expected to flow. If the loss of sediments appears to be
greater than expected, or erosion control measures are not functioning as needed, additional
measures must be implemented immediately. See Appendix D for sketches and general notes
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 18 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
regarding selected erosion control measures. The Site Map in Appendix A depicts the
recommended locations for erosion control facilities to be installed, if necessary.
Permanent erosion control may also be necessary if substantial vegetation has not been
established within disturbed areas upon completion of the Project. Temporary erosion control
should remain in place until permanent erosion control has been established. Permanent erosion
control may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching,
seeding or an equivalent measure. Selected recommendations for permanent erosion control are
provided in Appendix D. Additional erosion control measures that should be performed include
routine maintenance and replacement, when necessary, of permanent erosion control, vegetation,
drainage structures and/or features. The following Surface and Subsurface Drainage Section may
have additional recommendations with relation to permanent erosion for surface drainage
features.
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 19 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair,Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County,Washington
Fax:360-275-4789 July 18,2011
6.0 CLOSURE
Based on the project information provided by the owner, the proposed development, and site
conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's opinion that additional geotechnical
studies are not required to further evaluate this Project.
Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical
subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during
construction are different than those described in this report. Therefore, it is recommended that a
qualified engineer performs a site inspection during the earthwork construction if subsurface
conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report.
This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner, or
owners' representative, and location of project described herein. This report should not be used to
dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility.
Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid in conjunction with the compliance of
all recommendations provided in this report. Semantics throughout this report such as `shall,'
`should' and `recommended' imply that the correlating design and/or specifications must be
adhered to in order to potentially protect life and/ or property. Semantics such as `suggested' or
`optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed, but is
provided for optimal performance. The recommendations provided in this report are valid for the
proposed development at the issuance date of this report. Changes to the site other than the
expected development, changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted
geotechnical standards may affect the long-term conclusions and recommendations of this report.
The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael
Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate education and
experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards,
earthquake hazards,and general soil mechanics.
Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
Envirotech Engineering
/'v 5az_
Michael Staten, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Envirotech Engineering Watson Geotechnical Report
PO Box 984 page 20 NE North Shore Road,Tahuya
Belfair, Washington 98528 Parcel 32207-50-00022
Ph. 360-275-9374 Mason County, Washington
Fax: 360-275-4789 July 18,2011
APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN
A
SCALE, I INCH = 200 FEET
0 100 200
e60
N
A ( IAPPRX LOCATION OF SSE 1 3�
(PROPOSED) APPRX TOP OF GLOBAL
SMALL CONVERGENCEI
SLOPE EXCEEDING 40'
rr
HOOD CANAL
APPRX TOE OF GLOBAL �G X �O
SLOPE EXCEEDING 40• N�
o
AL
APPRX TOP OF _ UFI1ELD
SLOPE EXCE 40
w
a
EROSION CON (SEE o
REPORT)
a
0
0
3OFT BUILDING SETBAC
FROM TOP OF LOCAL
SLOPE (SEE REPORT)
15FT VEGETATIOR
BUFFER FROM TOP 13
LOCAL SLOPE (SEE
REPORT) SOILS MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND AND
GRAVEL (GM, SM) OVERLYING VERY DENSE
GLACIAL SOILS
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION-
NOTES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
1. ALTERNATIVES FOR REDUCING BUILDING SETBACKS OR VEGETATION GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
BUFFERS MAY BE PROVIDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. WATSON
2. CONTOURS WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. PARCEL 32207-50-00022
CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
INCORPORATED FIELD MEASUREMENTS AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT, LEGEND ENGINEER
3. BOUNDARIES WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. LOCATION ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
OF PROPERTY LINES AND SITE FEATURES, SUCH AS TOP OF SLOPES, WATER PO BOX 984
FEATURES, ETC.,, WITH RELATION TO THE PROPERTY LINES MUST BE -� SLOPE INDICATOR WASHINGTON 98528
,
VERIFIED BY THE OWNER. RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT PROVIDE BE3ELFAIRLFAIR9374
SETBACKS, DEPTHS, ETC., WITH RELATION TO GEOLOGIC FEATURES, NOT 80 EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPERTY LINES, Tple TEST PIT SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
SOIL INFORMATION
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SCALE,
l INCH 40 FEET
0
SILTY GRAVEL AND PROPOSED HOUSE EXISTING GRADE
SAND (SM, GM)
MEDIUM DENSE-DENSE
-6' ROCK
BULKHEAD JV
(EXISTING) (o5•�, P
HOOD CANAL
DENSE GLACIAL TILL
SECTION A-A
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION,
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
WATSON
PARCEL 32207-50-00022
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NOTES-
ENGINEER,
1) MINOR GRADE CHANGES REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
POSITIVE DRAINAGE PO BOX 984
2) THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF
THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS. BELFAI WASHINGTON 98528
LOWER DEPTHS ARE BASED ON SITE GEOLOGY, 360-275-9374
WELL LOG(S), AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL AREA. SOIL PROFILE
TEST PIT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3
PROJECT: SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 7/8/2011
PROJECT NO: 1176 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: Watson EXCAVATOR: N/A
LOCATION: Parcel 32207-50-00022 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SOIL STRATA,
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
0 ... ....... ... ..... ... . .... .... ....... . ... .... ... . .
SM Brown, moist SILTY SAND with gravel,
medium dense. Gravel is well-graded
and subrounded. Sand is medium and
2 coarse. Non to low plasticity.
4
Very dense, hardpan
6
8
10
12 - -
14
16 Bank terminated at approximately 15.0
feet
18
20
No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering
interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site.
TEST PIT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2
PROJECT: SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 7/8/2011
PROJECT NO: 1176 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: Watson EXCAVATOR: N/A
LOCATION: Parcel 32207-50-00022 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County, Washington ELEVATION- N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
0 .. ... ...... .. .. ..... ... ... ... .. ... .. ...... .. . . . . .
SM Brown, moist, medium dense SILTY
SAND with GRAVEL. Gravel is primarily
_ well-graded and subangular. Sand is
1 mostly medium. Low plasticity.
2
Dense
3
Bank terminated at approximately 3.0
feet
4
5
P
r
9
10
No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering
interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site.
TEST PIT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1
PROJECT: SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 7/8/2011
PROJECT NO: 1176 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: Watson EXCAVATOR: N/A
LOCATION: Parcel 32207-50-00022 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
0 .. . . ...... . ... .... . ... .... . ... ....... . .. . ..... ... .
GM Brown, moist, loose to medium dense
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND. Gravel is
_ primarily coarse and subrounded. Sand
1 is mostly medium and coarse. None to
low plasticity.
2
3
Dense
4
5
Bank terminated at approximately 5.0
feet
6
7
8
9
110
No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering
interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site.
Mason County, Washington
Rb—Rough broken land
Map Unit Setting
•Mean annual precipitation: 50 inches
•Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F
•Frost-free period: 180 days
Map Unit Composition
•Rough broken land and similar soils: 100 percent
Description of Rough Broken Land
Properties and qualities
P
•Slope: 45 to 90 percent
•Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 72 inches to dense material
•Drainage class: Well drained
•Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
•Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
•Frequency of flooding: None
•Frequency of ponding: None
•Available water capacity: Low (about 4.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
•Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e
Typical profile
•0 to 4 inches: Gravelly loam
•4 to 43 inches: Very gravelly loam
•43 to 60 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam
Please print, sign and return to the Department of Ecology
Water Well Report current
Original—Ecology, lu copy—owner,2ad copy drover Notice of Intent No. W 159435
L Construction/Decommission Unique Ecology Well ID Tag No.ALB 204
®Construction Water Right Permit No.
❑ Decommission ORIGINAL INSTALLATION Notice Property Owner Name Gary IX Ckard
1 of Intent Number W.
■ �lool��..D Well Street Address 21901 NE North Shore
PROPOSED USE: UtDomestic ❑ Industrial ❑ Municipal City Tahuya County Mamn
❑DeWater ❑Irrigation [I Test Well ❑Other —
a TYPEOFWORK: Owner's number ofwell(if more than one) Locatio&X_l/4-I/4W1 1/4 Sect Twn2Z R3K WorUirk
New well ❑Reconditioned Met&id:❑Dug ❑ Bored ❑ Driven
Deepened $]Cable ❑Rotary ❑Jetted Lat/Long(s,t,r Lat Deg Lat Min/Sec
DIMENSIONS: Diameterofwell utches,drilled 1155 tL still REQUIRED ) Long Deg Long Min/Sec
Depth of completed well
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Tax Parcel No. 32207-50-00914
Casing Q Welded _I]_" Diam.from f 1,--ft.to I raft.
• Insroned: ®Liner installed Diam.from ft.to ft. CONSTRUCTION OR DECOMMISSION PROCEDURE
Threaded Diam.from ft.to ft.
` Perforations: Yes No Formation: Describe by color,character,size of material and structure,and the kind and
nature of the material in each stratum penetrated,with at least one entry for each change of
Type of perforator used information indicate all water encountered. (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY.)
SIZE of perfs in.by_in.and no.of perfs_ftom,ft.to_ft. MATERIAL FROM To
a Screens: ❑Yes (2 No ❑K-Pac Location
Manufacturer's Name Brom till0 55
Type Model No.
Diam. Slot size from ft.to ft.
Diam. Slot size from ft.to ft. j
Grave[/Fdter packed:❑Yes IgNo [:]Size of gravel/sanJ
Materials placed from ft.to ft.
Surface Seal::5a Yes ❑No To what depth? 18 ft.
Material used in seal Betcmi to
Did any strata contain unusable water'? ❑Yes ®No
Type of water? Depth of strata
Method of scaling strata off
i
PUMP: Manufacturer's Name t`� ,]CIA
Type: stib. H.P. 1
f
WATER LEVELS: Land-surface elevation above mean sea level fL
■ Static level 93 ft.below top of well Date
■ Artesian pressure lbs.per square inch Date
Artesian water is controlled by
valve,etc.)
• WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered below static level
Was a pump test trade?❑Yes ®No if yes,by whom'?
Yield: galJmin.with ft.drawdown after hrs.
Yield: aalJmin.with ft.drawdown after hrs.
Yield: galJmin.with ft.drawdown after hrs.
Recovery data(nine taken as zero when pump turned off)(water level measured from well
lop to wafer level)
Time Water Level Time Water Level Time Water Level
Date of tftK Wahongton
Bailer test_ 15 galJmin.with 57 ft.drawdown after_hrs. DdPifffffitNil A.,
Airtest galJmin.with stem set at ft.for hrs.
Artesian flow S.P.M. Date
Temperature of water Was a chemical analysis made? ❑Yes ®No
Start Date 4127104 completed Date
Z WELL CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION: I constructed and/or accept responsibility for construction of this well,and its compliance with all
Washington well construction standards. Materials used and the information reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief.
Driller/Engineerfrrainee Name,(Prin Drilling Company er+Q
Dom.-:.o--L�'�����—
• Driller/Engineedrrainee Signature t Address 34Q NE Dd3yi a Farm
Driller or trainee License No. 1706 City,State,Zip �If rLF WA 98 78
If TRAINEE, Contnictor s
Dr{Ikr's Licensed ased No. Registration No. DateMay 04
Driaer'+Signature Ecology is an Equal Opportunity Employer. ECY 050-1-20(Rev 2/03)
Please print, sign and return to the Department of Ecology
Water Well Report Current
Original -Ecology, tucopy-owner,20deopy-driller Notice of Intent No. W 17333-
E f 0 L 11 61
L Construction/Decommission Unique Ecology Well ID Tag No. AT.R 7fl;
[2 Construction Water Right Permit No.
[] Decommission ORIGINAL INSTALLATION Notice Property Owner Name Brad Tam_heir+
j l- of fntent Number 20611 N. Shore Rd.
• LO Well Street Address
PROPOSED USE: ®Domestic ❑ Industrial [j Municipal City Tahuya County Mason
❑Dewater ❑Irrigation ❑Test Well ❑Other—
Location SWI/4-1/4 SETA Sec? Twn-U Rt EWM circle
TYPE OF W ORK: Owner's number of well(if more than one) wwM one
New well ❑Reconditioned Method:❑Dug ❑ Bored ❑ Driven
Deepened ]$Cable ❑Rotary [I Jetted Lat/Long(s,t,r Lat Deg Lat Min/Sec
DIMENSIONS: Diameterofwell_�_inches,drilled 11 go ft- still REQUIRED ) Long Deg Long Min/Sec
Depth of completed well 1 00 ft.
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Tax Parcel No. 32207-50-00950
Casing []tWelded _6__" Diam.from +1•_ft.to-95
Installed: ❑Liner installed Diam.from R.to CONSTRUCTION OR DECOMMISSION PROCEDURE
❑Threaded " Diam.from ft.to ft.
Perforations: 0 Yes No Formation: Describe by color,character,size of material and structure,and the kind and
nature of the material in each stratum penetrated,with at least one entry for each change of
Type of perforator used information indicate all water encountered. (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY.)
SIZE of perfs in,by_in.and no.of perfs_from_ft.to_R MATERIAL FROM TO
Screens: ]Yes ❑No �[]K-Pac Location --3
Manufacturer's Name Nagaoka Brown sand & Sl;ryel with bles
Type Model No.
Diam. slot size 40 from 95 fl.to 100 ft.
Diam. Slot size from ft.to ft.
Gravel/Filter packed:❑Yes No ❑Size of graveVsand Redish brown
Materials placed from R.to ft.
Surface Seal::RI Yes ❑No To what depth? is ft. Sand & gravel With water 88 100
Material used in seat Bei-cmi-te
1 Did any strata contain unusable water? ❑Yes iD No
Type of water? Depth of strata
Method of sealing strata off
PUMP: Manufacturer's Name
Type: S1]b.. H.P. 3.14 -
WATER LEVELS: la d-surface elevation above mean sea level ft.
a Static level ft.below top of well Date
■ Artesian pressure lbs.per square inch Date
Artesian water is controlled by
(cap,valve,etc.)
WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered below static level
' Was a pump test made?❑Yes 5a No If yes,by whom'.'
Yield: aallmn.with—ft.drawdown after hrs. _
Yield: al./min.with ft,drawdown after hrs. , �-�v IG t�r , ,\ 117 T;-1,
Yield: gallmin.with R.drawdown after hrs,
Recovery data(time taken w•zero when pump turned afl)(water level nrew-ured from well
it top to water level) t 1 I I 1 f
Time Water Level Time Water Level Time Water Level P v ZUU4 I ( u - "{J
Wit�hinS�lt.i, ail; rr
Date of test nNr\• rrn�n.�• ..0 ,.1,_ _
Baiter test_gal./min.with 62 ft.drawdown after 1 rs. t t n
c Ili � .,tut
Airtest galJmin.with stem set at_ft-for hrs.
j Artesian flow g.p.m. Date ep a tmeljl )1 CCO U.y
Temperature of water Was a chemical analysis made? ❑Yes M No
Start Date 5/7/04 Completed Date Sj1,3/04
WELL CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION: I constructed and/or accept responsibility for construction of this well,and its compliance with all
iWashington well construction standards. Materials used and the information reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief.
Driller/Engineer/Trainee Name(Prue) _Da Drilling Company
Driller/EngineerfrraineeSignature 1�Q�-f �oC/l/tqt lJ Address 340 N Davis �''am d�
Driller or trainee License No. 1 70b City,State.Zip Belfair, WA 98528
If TRAINEE. Contractor's
Driller's Licensed No. Registration No. DAVISDI1 1 00A Date May 0
Driller's Signature Ecology is an Equal Opportunity Employer. ECY 050-1-20(Rev 2/03
)
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY
1 . 00
1 O
1 . 2
1 . 30
1 . 40
1 . 50
1 . 60
1 . 70
1 . 80
1 . 90
2 . 00
1 . 3J3
Project : sheri watson
Datafile : static
Analysis : Bishop
STABLE.2002 MZ Associates Ltd
1 . 00
1 O
1 . 2
1 . 30
1 . 40
1 . 50
1 . 60
1 . 70
1 . 80
1 . 90
2 . 00
0 . 972
Project : s heri watson
Datafile : dynamic
Analysis Bishop
STABLE.2002 MZ Associates Ltd
new user
Project : sheri watson
DataHle: dynamic Bishop
STABLE Version 9.03.00u
Bishop
TITLE
dynamic
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UNITS (Metric/Imperial) = I
GEOMETRY DEFINITION
POINTS
NO. X Y
1 0.000 0.000
2 50.000 -5.000
3 80.000 -26.000
4 100.000 -30.000
5 10.000 -1.000
6 14.210 -1.420
7 18.420 -1.840
8 22.630 -2.260
9 26.840 -2.680
10 31.050 -3.110
11 35.260 -3.530
12 39.470 -3.950
13 43.680 -4.370
14 47.890 -4.790
15 52.110 -6.470
16 56.320 -9.420
17 60.530 -12.370
18 64.740 -15.320
19 68.950 -18.260
20 73.160 -21.210
21 77.370 -24.160
22 81.580 -26.320
23 85.790 -27.160
24 90.000 -28.000
LINES
Lo X Hi X SOIL
1 2 1
2 3 1
3 4 1
SOILS
SOIL NAME LINETYPE-PEN COHESION FRICTION UNIT WT.
1 Soil-1 CONTINUOUS-BLACK 50.00 36.0 138.000
PORE PRESSURE SPECIFICATION
SOIL PIEZO RU EXCESS
Y/N/P Value Value
New user
Project shed watson
Datatile: dynamic Bishop
1 N 0.000 0.000
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
POINT
POINT PORE PRESSURES
POINT PRESSURE
««««««xxxxxxxxx«xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SLIP DIRECTION (+/- X) _ +
««««««««««««««««xxxxxx«x«««x«««««««««««««««««x««xxxx«xx«xx
SLIP-CIRCLES
AUTOMATIC
Circle Centre Grid Extremities
80.000
x««x«x«««««««««
x «
10.000 * * 90.000
« «
xxxxxxxxxxxxx«x
0.000
X spacing -- no. of cols (max 10)= 10
Y spacing -- no. of rows (max 20)= 20
Grid 1 Circles through point 5
Grid 2 Circles through point 6
Grid 3 Circles through point 7
Grid 4 Circles through point 8
Grid 5 Circles through point 9
Grid 6 Circles through point 10
Grid 7 Circles through point 11
Grid 8 Circles through point 12
Grid 9 Circles through point 13
Grid 10 Circles through point 14
Grid 11 Circles through point 15
Grid 12 Circles through point 16
Grid 13 Circles through point 17
Grid 14 Circles through point 18
Grid 15 Circles through point 19
Grid 16 Circles through point 20
Grid 17 Circles through point 21
Grid 18 Circles through point 22
Grid 19 Circles through point 23
Grid 20 Circles through point 24
xxx«xxxxxxx««xx«««««xx««««««+««««xxxx«xxxxxxx«xxx««x«««xx«
OPTIONS
mew user
Project : shed watson
WOW:: dynamic Bishop
TENSION CRACK (None/Dry/Wet) = N
CRACK BASE Y COORD = 0.000
EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION = 0.200
MINIMUM SLIDE MASS = 0.000
+*+++*+************************+++*+++*+++**+***++********
POINT LOADS
POINT ANGLE FORCE
SOIL REINFORCEMENT
POINT_A POINT B FORCE PEN
++******+**++*****************+**********++++**+**********
SLICE DATA- N
* BISH module -- Bishop Slip Circle Analysis
GRID 1
**+************
Circles through point ( 10.00 -1.00 )
SAFETY FACTORS
**************
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.05 5.61 3.33 2.58 2.07 1.75 1.54 1.41 -0.01
75.8 -0.01 -0.05 5.29 3.27 2.53 2.03 1.72 1.52 1.41 -0.01
71.6 -0.01 -0.05 4.91 3.20 2.48 2.00 1.70 1.50 1.41 -0.01
67.4 -0.01 -0.05 4.58 3.14 2.44 1.97 1.68 1.49 1.42 -0.01
63.2 -0.01 -0.05 4.30 3.09 2.40 1.94 1.66 1.48 -0.01 -0.01
58.9 -0.01 -0.05 4.06 3.03 2.36 1.91 1.64 1.47 -0.01 -0.01
54.7 -0.01 -0.05 3.85 2.99 2.33 1.89 1.63 1.48 -0.01 -0.01
50.5 -0.01 -0.05 3.71 2.95 2.29 1.87 1.62 1.49 -0.01 -0.01
46.3 -0.05 -0.05 3.55 2.92 2.27 1.85 1.61 1.51 -0.01 -0.01
42.1 -0.05 -0.05 3.42 2.89 2.24 1.84 1.61 1.54 -0.01 -0.01
37.9 -0.05 -0.05 3.31 2.87 2.23 1.84 1.62 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
33.7 -0.05 -0.05 3.23 2.86 2.23 1.85 1.64 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
29.5 -0.05 -0.05 3.19 2.88 2.24 1.87 1.68 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
25.3 -0.05 -0.05 3.17 2.91 2 2 1 7 - - -
1 6 .90 1. 3 0.01 0.01 0.01
21.0 -0.05 -0.05 3.19 2.98 2.31 1.95 1.81 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
16.8 -0.05 -0.05 3.29 3.10 2.39 2.01 1.90 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
12.6 -0.05 3.69 3.50 3.28 2.51 2.11 2.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.05 3.63 3.91 3.57 2.68 2.24 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
1
mew user
Project shed watson
Date le: dynamic Bishop
4.2 -0.05 4.11 4.68 4.01 2.91 2.42 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 -0.04 5.98 -0.06 4.63 3.21 2.65 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor = 1.406
* For circle at 81.112 80.000 radius 107.786
++++***+**++*+*+******++*++#++**+#+#*##+#+*+#+##*#+**+*#+++##+##
GRID 2
+**#*+**+***+**
Circles through point ( 14.21 -1.42 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.91 2.79 2.15 1.78 1.54 1.39 -0.01
75.8 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.79 2.72 2.11 1.75 1.52 1.37 -0.01
71.6 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.65 2.67 2.07 1.72 1.50 1.37 -0.01
67.4 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.53 2.61 2.03 1.69 1.48 1.37 -0.01
63.2 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.42 2.55 1.99 1.67 1.47 1.38 -0.01
58.9 -0.01 -0.05 6.37 3.32 2.50 1.96 1.64 1.45 1.39 -0.01
54.7 -0.01 -0.05 5.70 3.26 2.45 1.93 1.63 1.44 -0.01 -0.01
50.5 -0.01 -0.05 5.27 3.18 2.41 1.90 1.61 1.44 -0.01 -0.01
46.3 -0.01 -0.04 4.80 3.13 2.37 1.87 1.60 1.45 -0.01 -0.01
42.1 -0.01 -0.05 4.40 3.08 2.33 1.85 1.59 1.47 -0.01 -0.01
37.9 -0.01 -0.05 4.08 3.05 2.30 1.84 1.59 1.50 -0.01 -0.01
33.7 -0.01 -0.05 3.81 3.02 2.28 1.84 1.60 1.54 -0.01 -0.01
29.5 -0.01 -0.05 3.64 3.01 2.27 1.84 1.61 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
25.3 -0.05 -0.05 3.47 3.02 2.29 1.86 1.65 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
21.0 -0.05 -0.05 3.36 3.07 2.32 1.90 1.71 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
16.8 -0.05 -0.05 3.32 3.18 2.38 1.96 1.79 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
12.6 -0.05 -0.05 3.39 3.35 2.49 2.05 1.90 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.05 -0.05 3.66 3.66 2.66 2.17 2.05 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
4.2 -0.05 -0.05 4.32 4.16 2.89 2.33 2.23 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 -0.05 -0.05 5.83 4.93 3.22 2.55 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
+++*++*#*+*+*+##++#+###+#######**###***#*#*#+######+#+####+#*#**
* Minimum safety factor = 1.368
* For circle at 81.112 71.578 radius 99.018
GRID 3
ivew user
Project sheri watson
Datafile: dynamic Bishop
Circles through point ( 18.42 -1.84 )
SAFETY FACTORS
+++xxxxx+xxx++
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 7.50 -0.05 5.41 3.14 2.28 1.83 1.56 1.38 1.29
75.8 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 5.11 3.04 2.23 1.79 1.53 1.36 1.30
71.6 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.77 2.96 2.17 1.76 1.51 1.35 -0.01
67.4 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.47 2.87 2.12 1.72 1.48 1.33 -0.01
63.2 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.21 2.80 2.07 1.69 1.46 1.33 -0.01
58.9 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.98 2.71 2.03 1.66 1.44 1.33 -0.01
54.7 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.83 2.65 1.98 1.63 1.43 1.34 -0.01
50.5 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.66 2.59 1.95 1.61 1.41 1.36 -0.01
46.3 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.51 2.52 1.91 1.59 1.40 -0.01 -0.01
42.1 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.38 2.46 1.88 1.57 1.41 -O.Ol -0.01
37.9 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.28 2.42 1.85 1.56 1.42 -0.01 -0.01
33.7 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.21 2.37 1.84 1.56 1.45 -0.01 -0.01
29.5 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.17 2.35 1.83 1.57 1.50 -0.01 -0.01
25.3 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.15 2.34 1.84 1.59 1.56 -0.01 -0.01
21.0 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.18 2.35 1.86 1.63 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
16.8 -0.01 -0.05 3.90 3.25 2.39 1.91 1.69 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
12.6 -0.01 -0.05 3.64 3.41 2.48 1.99 1.78 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 -0.05 3.62 3.72 2.64 2.10 1.92 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
4.2 4.38 -0.04 3.97 4.29 2.88 2.26 2.09 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 6.77 -0.05 5.42 5.29 3.25 2.47 2.31 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
x+++xxxxxxxxxxx+x+x+x+++++++++++++x+xx+xx+xx++++xxx+xxxx+++xx+++
* Minimum safety factor = 1.295
* For circle at 90.001 80.000 radius 108.727
+x+xxxxxxxxxx++x+++++++++++++xxxx++x*+x++x+*++xxxxxxxxx+++++++++
GRID 4
xxx+xxxx+++++++
Circles through point ( 22.63 -2.26 )
SAFETY FACTORS
x xxxxx+xxxxx++
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.81 2.47 1.91 1.59 1.39 1.25
view user
Project sheri watson
Datafile : dynamic Bishop
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.63 2.40 1.86 1.55 1.36 1.25
71.6 -0.01 4.60 -0.05 -0.05 3.47 2.33 1.82 1.52 1.34 1.25
67.4 -0.01 4.64 -0.05 -0.05 3.32 2.26 1.77 1.49 1.32 1.26
63.2 -0.01 4.69 -0.05 6.78 3.21 2.20 1.73 1.46 1.30 -0.01
58.9 -0.01 4.74 -0.05 6.06 3.08 2.14 1.69 1.44 1.29 -0.01
54.7 -0.01 4.79 -0.04 5.46 2.98 2.08 1.65 1.42 1.28 -0.01
50.5 -0.01 4.84 -0.04 5.07 2.87 2.03 1.62 1.40 1.29 -0.01
46.3 -0.01 4.89 -0.04 4.64 2.78 1.97 1.59 1.38 1.31 -0.01
42.1 -0.01 4.93 -0.05 4.29 2.70 1.93 1.56 1.37 1.34 -0.01
37.9 -0.01 4.97 -0.05 3.99 2.61 1.89 1.54 1.37 -0.01 -0.01
33.7 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.75 2.55 1.85 1.53 1.37 -0.01 -0.01
29.5 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.59 2.49 1.83 1.53 1.40 -0.01 -0.01
25.3 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.43 2.44 1.82 1.54 1.45 -0.01 -0.01
21.0 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.33 2.43 1.83 1.56 1.52 -0.01 -0.01
16.8 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.30 2.44 1.86 1.61 1.61 -0.01 -0.01
12.6 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.35 2.50 1.92 1.67 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.60 2.63 2.02 1.78 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.17 2.88 2.18 1.94 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 5.44 3.28 2.40 2.16 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor = 1.248
* For circle at 90.001 75.789 radius 103.104
GRID 5
+++++++++++++++
Circles through point ( 26.84 -2.68 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 8.24 -0.05 5.23 2.76 2.02 1.63 1.40 1.25
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.96 2.67 1.96 1.59 1.37 1.23
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.64 2.57 1.90 1.55 1.34 1.21
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.36 2.49 1.85 1.52 1.32 1.20
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 4.07 2.41 1.79 1.48 1.29 1.20
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.86 2.32 1.75 1.44 1.27 1.22
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.63 2.24 1.70 1.41 1.25 -0.01
50.5 -0.01 3.57 -0.05 -0.05 3.43 2.16 1.65 1.39 1.24 -0.01
46.3 -0.01 3.56 -0.05 -0.05 3.28 2.09 1.61 1.36 1.23 -0.01
42.1 -0.01 3.55 -0.05 -0.05 3.12 2.02 1.57 1.34 1.25 -0.01
37.9 -0.01 3.53 -0.05 -0.05 2.99 1.96 1.54 1.33 1.28 -0.01
33.7 -0.01 3.52 -0.05 -0.05 2.85 1.91 1.51 1.32 1.32 -0.01
29.5 -0.01 3.50 -0.05 -0.05 2.75 1.86 1.50 1.33 -0.01 -0.01
25.3 -0.01 3.48 -0.05 -0.05 2.66 1.82 1.49 1.35 -0.01 -0.01
21.0 -0.01 3.46 -0.05 4.19 2.59 1.81 1.50 1.40 -0.01 -0.01
new user
Project sheri watson
Datafile: dynamic Bishop
16.8 -0.01 3.47 -0.05 3.82 2.55 1.81 1.53 1.47 -0.01 -0.01
12.6 -0.01 3.51 -0.05 3.59 2.57 1.86 1.59 1.58 -0.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 3.63 -0.04 3.58 2.66 1.94 1.67 1.71 -0.01 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 4.13 -0.04 3.86 2.89 2.09 1.80 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 5.92 -0.05 5.01 3.32 2.32 2.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor = 1.198
* For circle at 90.001 67.367 radius 94.318
GRID 6
++++++++*++++++
Circles through point ( 31.05 -3.11 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 4.63 -0.05 -0.05 3.32 2.20 1.71 1.43 1.25
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 4.68 -0.05 -0.05 3.15 2.11 1.66 1.39 1.23
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 4.74 -0.05 -0.05 3.00 2.04 1.61 1.36 1.20
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 4.80 -0.05 7.04 2.88 1.97 1.56 1.33 1.18
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 4.87 -0.05 6.30 2.74 1.91 1.51 1.29 1.16
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 4.95 -0.05 5.69 2.63 1.84 1.47 1.27 1.14
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 5.03 -0.05 5.30 2.50 1.77 1.43 1.24 1.15
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 4.99 -0.05 4.85 2.40 1.71 1.39 1.22 1.18
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 5.06 -0.05 4.47 2.29 1.66 1.36 1.20 -0.01
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 5.13 -0.05 4.09 2.20 1.60 1.33 1.19 -0.01
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 5.20 -0.05 3.82 2.10 1.55 1.30 1.19 -0.01
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 3.54 2.01 1.51 1.29 1.21 -0.01
29.5 -0.01 3.15 -0.05 -0.05 3.33 1.93 1.48 1.28 1.25 -0.01
25.3 -0.01 3.17 -0.05 -0.05 3.12 1.87 1.45 1.28 1.31 -0.01
21.0 -0.01 3.21 -0.05 -0.05 2.97 1.81 1.45 1.30 -0.01 -0.01
16.8 -0.01 3.30 -0.05 -0.05 2.84 1.79 1.46 1.34 -0.01 -0.01
12.6 -0.01 3.46 -0.05 -0.05 2.77 1.80 1.50 1.43 -0.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 3.80 -0.05 -0.05 2.78 1.86 1.57 1.55 -0.01 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 4.53 -0.05 -0.05 2.96 1.99 1.68 1.71 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.06 -0.05 -0.05 3.43 2.21 1.85 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor 1.144
* For circle at 90.001 58.945 radius 85.592
++*+**++*++++++++*+*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*++*++++
New user
Project sheri watson
Datafile: dynamic Bishop
GRID 7
#######***###*#
Circles through point ( 35.26 -3.53 )
SAFETY FACTORS
####**##******
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 3.64 --0.05 -0.05 4.49 2.49 1.83 1.49 1.28
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 3.65 -0.05 -0.05 4.26 2.40 1.77 1.44 1.24
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 3.66 -0.05 -0.05 3.95 2.29 1.71 1.40 1.21
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 3.67 -0.05 -0.05 3.67 2.20 1.64 1.35 1.18
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 3.67 -0.05 -0.05 3.43 2.11 1.59 1.31 1.16
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 3.67 -0.05 -0.05 3.25 2.00 1.53 1.28 1.13
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 3.64 -0.05 -0.05 3.03 1.92 1.47 1.24 1.11
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 3.63 -0.05 -0.05 2.87 1.83 1.42 1.21 1.09
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 3.63 -0.05 -0.05 2.68 1.75 1.37 1.18 1.11
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 3.62 -0.05 -0.05 2.53 1.68 1.33 1.16 1.14
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 3.62 -0.05 -0.05 2.39 1.60 1.29 1.14 -0.01
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 3.60 -0.05 -0.05 2.23 1.54 1.26 1.13 -0.01
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 3.55 -0.05 -0.05 2.12 1.48 1.24 1.14 -0.01
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 3.53 -0.05 4.49 2.00 1.43 1.23 1.18 -0.01
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 3.51 -0.05 3.97 1.89 1.40 1.23 1.25 -0.01
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 3.50 -0.05 3.63 1.81 1.39 1.25 1.34 -0.01
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 3.52 -0.05 3.31 1.77 1.41 1.29 -0.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 4.08 3.59 -0.05 3.16 1.77 1.46 1.39 -0.01 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 4.90 3.94 -0.05 3.17 1.87 1.56 1.54 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.06 5.25 -0.05 3.64 2.08 1.72 1.74 -0.01 -0.01
###***#***##**#**###*#####*#*####****######*##########****##*###
* Minimum safety factor 1.090
* For circle at 90.001 50.523 radius 76.931
GRID 8
**##*###*****##
Circles through point ( 39.47 -3.95 )
SAFETY FACTORS
####***###**##
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
I
ivew user
Project shed watson
Datafile : dynamic Bishop
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 4.88 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 2.09 1.61 1.35
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 3.20 4.88 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 2.01 1.55 1.29
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 3.20 4.96 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.90 1.49 1.25
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 3.20 5.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.82 1.44 1.21
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 3.20 5.13 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.74 1.38 1.18
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 3.19 5.22 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.66 1.33 1.14
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 3.19 5.21 -0.05 -0.05 2.22 1.57 1.27 1.11
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 3.18 5.30 -0.05 -0.05 2.10 1.51 1.23 1.08
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 3.18 5.39 -0.05 -0.05 1.98 1.43 1.19 1.06
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 3.18 5.49 -0.05 -0.05 1.86 1.37 1.15 1.04
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 3.17 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.74 1.31 1.12 1.06
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 3.16 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.63 1.26 1.10 1.11
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 3.16 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.54 1.22 1.08 -0.01
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 3.18 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.46 1.19 1.08 -0.01
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 3.21 -0.05 -0.05 2.12 1.39 1.17 1.11 -0.01
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 3.28 -0.05 -0.05 1.96 1.34 1.17 1.19 -0.01
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 3.41 -0.05 -0.05 1.81 1.33 1.19 1.29 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 3.68 -0.05 -0.05 1.74 1.35 1.25 -0.01 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 4.28 -0.05 -0.05 1.75 1.43 1.36 -0.01 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 5.72 -0.05 -0.05 1.91 1.57 1.54 -0.01 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor - 1.040
* For circle at 90.001 42.101 radius 68.367
GRID 9
+++++++++++++++
Circles through point ( 43.68 -4.37 )
SAFETY FACTORS
*+++++++++++++
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.73 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.53
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.71 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.46
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.72 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.40
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.73 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.34
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.74 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.28
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.75 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.48 1.22
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 2.99 3.72 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.41 1.17
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 2.99 3.73 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.33 1.12
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 3.00 3.72 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.26 1.08
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 3.01 3.72 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.20 1.04
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 3.02 3.71 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.43 1.15 1.01
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 3.04 3.71 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.33 1.10 0.99
mew user
Project : shed watson
Dataflk: dynamic Bishop
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 3.07 3.65 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.26 1.06 1.03
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 3.13 3.62 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.19 1.04 1.11
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 3.21 3.60 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.14 1.03 -0.01
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 3.34 3.58 -0.05 -0.05 1.36 1.11 1.04 -0.01
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 3.56 3.58 -0.05 -0.05 1.28 1.11 1.12 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 3.94 3.59 -0.05 -0.05 1.24 1.14 1.25 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 4.64 3.81 -0.05 -0.05 1.28 1.21 1.42 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.06 4.75 -0.05 1.71 1.40 1.34 -0.01 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor = 0.992
* For circle at 90.001 33.679 radius 59.945
+++++++++++++++++++++++++*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GRID 10
+++++++++++++++
Circles through point ( 47.89 -4.79 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.24 5.10 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.24 5.11 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.24 5.20 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.24 5.31 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.23 5.42 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.23 5.54 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.22 5.53 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.21 5.66 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.21 5.79 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.37
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.20 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.24
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.20 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.14
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 3.03 3.20 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.06
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 3.09 3.19 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.21 1.00
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 3.18 3.19 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.11 0.97
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 3.30 3.22 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.04 1.05
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 3.48 3.27 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.17 1.01 1.16
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 3.76 3.38 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.09 1.01 -0.01
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 4.21 3.58 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.07 1.07 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 4.96 4.06 -0.05 -0.05 1.20 1.10 1.22 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.06 5.24 -0.05 -0.05 1.23 1.20 1.43 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor = 0.972
* For circle at 90.001 25.257 radius 51.732
new user
Project : sheri watson
13"le: dynamic Bishop
GRID 11
+++++x++x+xxx++
Circles through point ( 52.11 -6.47 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.80 2.94 3.15 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.80 2.94 3.15 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.81 2.94 3.16 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.81 2.94 3.13 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.81 2.93 3.14 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.82 2.94 3.15 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.83 2.94 3.11 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.83 2.93 3.11 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.85 2.94 3.12 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.86 2.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.88 2.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.91 2.92 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.95 2.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.42
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.00 2.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.18
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.09 2.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.05
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.21 2.95 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.24 1.07
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.40 2.98 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.09 1.19
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 4.43 3.73 3.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.03 -0.01
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 5.14 4.30 3.24 -0.05 -0.05 1.13 1.06 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.06 5.43 3.82 -0.05 -0.05 1.12 1.24 -0.01
x xxx+x+xxxxxx+xx++x++x+xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx++++xx++x+xx+++++
* Minimum safety factor = 1.033
* For circle at 81.112 8.413 radius 32.598
+x+x+++xxx++x+x+xx+xx+x+++xxx+xxxx+++xxx++xxx++x++x++xxx++x+x++x
GRID 12
xx+xxxxx+xxx+xx
Circles through point ( 56.32 -9.42 )
SAFETY FACTORS
x xxxxxxxxxxxxx
new user
project sheri watson
Date le: dynamic Bishop
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.41 2.27 2.10 1.93 -0.05 -0.05
75.B -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.41 2.26 2.08 1.89 -0.05 -0.05
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.41 2.25 2.06 1.86 -0.05 -0.05
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.40 2.23 2.03 1.84 -0.05 -0.05
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.40 2.21 2.01 1.80 -0.05 -0.05
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.39 2.20 1.97 1.77 -0.05 -0.05
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.39 2.18 1.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.39 2.16 1.91 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.39 2.13 1.87 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.63 2.39 2.11 1.84 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.67 2.39 2.09 1.79 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.71 2.39 2.06 1.74 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.76 2.40 2.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.84 2.42 1.98 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.94 2.44 1.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.39
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.08 2.48 1.89 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.14
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.29 2.56 1.82 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05 1.14
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.61 2.68 1.76 -0.05 -0.05 1.21 1.26
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 4.13 2.93 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.07 -0.01
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 4.99 3.45 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.09 -0.01
x xxxxxxx++x+x+++zxx+xxxxxxxxxxxxx++xxx+++++++xxxxxxxx+x+++x++++x
* Minimum safety factor = 1.074
* For circle at 81.112 4.202 radius 28.288
xx++x++xxxx+xxx+++xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+x+++++++x+xxxxxxxx+xxxxxxx
GRID 13
xxxxxxxxx+xx+xx
Circles through point ( 60.53 -12.37 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.06 1.87 1.68 1.53 1.43
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.05 1.85 1.66 1.50 1.41
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.03 1.83 1.63 1.48 1.40
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.22 2.02 1.81 1.60 1.45 1.40
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.22 2.01 1.78 1.58 1.43 1.40
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.22 1.99 1.75 1.55 1.40 -0.05
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.22 1.97 1.73 1.51 1.39 -0.05
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.22 1.96 1.70 1.48 1.36 -0.05
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.22 1.94 1.66 1.45 1.37 -0.05
new user
Project sheri watson
Date Is: dynamic Bishop
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.23 1.92 1.63 1.41 -0.05 -0.05
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.24 1.90 1.59 1.38 -0.05 -0.05
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.25 1.88 1.55 1.34 -0.05 -0.05
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.27 1.86 1.50 1.32 -0.05 -0.04
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.29 1.84 1.46 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.86 2.33 1.81 1.41 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.01 2.39 1.79 1.35 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.21 2.48 1.77 1.29 -0.05 -0.05 1.33
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.51 2.64 1.76 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 1.27
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.95 2.88 1.77 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05 1.36
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 4.62 3.33 1.83 -0.05 -0.05 1.16 -0.01
* Minimum safety factor = 1.164
* For circle at 81.112 -0.009 radius 24.009
GRID 14
Circles through point ( 64.74 -15.32 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.96 1.78 1.60 1.44 1.31
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.95 1.76 1.57 1.41 1.29
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.94 1.74 1.55 1.38 1.27
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.93 1.72 1.52 1.36 1.25
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.92 1.70 1.50 1.33 1.24
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.91 1.68 1.47 1.30 1.22
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.90 1.65 1.44 1.28 1.21
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.88 1.63 1.40 1.25 1.22
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.16 1.87 1.60 1.37 1.22 1.25
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.17 1.86 1.57 1.34 1.20 1.32
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.18 1.85 1.54 1.30 1.18 1.59
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.20 1.84 1.51 1.26 1.18 -0.05
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.23 1.83 1.48 1.22 1.22 -0.05
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.26 1.82 1.44 1.18 1.37 -0.05
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.31 1.81 1.39 1.16 -0.05 -0.05
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.39 1.81 1.35 1.14 -0.05 -0.05
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.49 1.82 1.30 1.19 -0.05 -0.05
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.43 2.64 1.85 1.26 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.81 2.88 1.91 1.21 -0.05 -0.05 1.56
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 4.36 3.26 2.04 1.21 -0.05 -0.05 1.53
new user
Project shed watson
Dataflle: dynamic Bishop
* Minimum safety factor = 1.140
* For circle at 72.223 16.835 radius 33.014
++##xxx**xxxx++xxxxxxx++##***+xxx+x+xxxxx+xxx+x+x*+x*xxxxxx+xxxx
GRID 15
Circles through point ( 68.95 -18.26 )
SAFETY FACTORS
x xxxxxxx#x#xx+
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.73 1.56 1.40 1.27
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.71 1.54 1.37 1.24
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.70 1.51 1.35 1.22
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.68 1.49 1.32 1.20
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.88 1.66 1.47 1.30 1.17
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.87 1.65 1.44 1.27 1.15
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.86 1.63 1.42 1.24 1.13
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.86 1.61 1.39 1.21 1.11
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.85 1.59 1.36 1.18 1.10
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.84 1.57 1.32 1.15 1.10
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.84 1.54 1.29 1.12 1.13
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.84 1.52 1.26 1.10 1.24
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.22 1.84 1.49 1.22 1.08 1.48
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.27 1.84 1.47 1.18 1.08 -0.05
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.33 1.85 1.44 1.14 1.12 -0.05
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.41 1.87 1.41 1.10 1.28 -0.05
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.52 1.90 1.38 1.08 -0.05 -0.04
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.67 1.96 1.36 1.08 -0.05 -0.05
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.90 2.05 1.35 1.14 -0.05 -0.05
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.24 2.21 1.36 -0.05 -0.05 2.25
#xx++#++*####x#+++**x*+xx+x**#xxx+xxxxxx+x#+#xx+*+x#xx*xxxxx#xxx
* Minimum safety factor = 1.075
* For circle at 72.223 12.624 radius 31.057
GRID 16
+xx+++++####+##
Circles through point ( 73.16 -21.21 )
new user
Project sheri watson
DataHle: dynamic Bishop
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.71 1.54 1.38 1.25
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.69 1.52 1.36 1.23
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.68 1.50 1.34 1.20
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.67 1.48 1.32 1.18
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.65 1.46 1.29 1.15
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.64 1.44 1.27 1.13
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.63 1.42 1.24 1.11
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.61 1.39 1.21 1.08
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.85 1.59 1.37 1.18 1.06
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.85 1.58 1.34 1.15 1.04
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.85 1.56 1.31 1.12 1.03
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.86 1.55 1.28 1.09 1.03
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.87 1.53 1.25 1.06 1.07
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.88 1.52 1.22 1.04 1.17
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.90 1.50 1.19 1.02 1.33
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.44 1.94 1.49 1.15 1.03 -0.05
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.55 1.98 1.48 1.12 1.08 -0.05
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.70 2.05 1.48 1.10 1.17 -0.05
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.91 2.16 1.50 1.09 -0.05 -0.05
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.21 2.33 1.54 1.12 -0.05 -0.05
* Minimum safety factor = 1.020
* For circle at 81.112 21.046 radius 42.998
GRID 17
Circles through point ( 77.37 -24.16 )
SAFETY FACTORS
+************+
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.53 1.38 1.25
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.52 1.36 1.23
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.50 1.34 1.21
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.49 1.32 1.18
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.66 1.47 1.30 1.16
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.65 1.45 1.28 1.13
new user
Project shad watson
Date Is: dynamic Bishop
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.64 1.43 1.25 1.11
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.63 1.41 1.23 1.08
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.62 1.39 1.20 1.06
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.60 1.37 1.17 1.03
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.60 1.35 1.15 1.01
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.89 1.59 1.32 1.12 0.99
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.90 1.58 1.30 1.09 0.99
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.93 1.57 1.28 1.06 1.00
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.96 1.57 1.25 1.03 1.04
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.00 1.57 1.23 1.01 1.12
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.06 1.58 1.21 1.00 1.23
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.73 2.14 1.60 1.19 1.02 -0.05
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.93 2.26 1.64 1.18 1.06 -0.05
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.20 2.43 1.71 1.20 1.12 -0.05
* Minimum safety factor = 0.985
* For circle at 90.001 29.468 radius 55.095
GRID 18
Circles through point ( 81.58 -26.32 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.54 1.39 1.26
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.52 1.37 1.23
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.51 1.35 1.21
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.50 1.33 1.19
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.48 1.31 1.17
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.47 1.29 1.15
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.65 1.45 1.27 1.12
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.64 1.43 1.25 1.10
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.64 1.42 1.22 1.07
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.63 1.40 1.20 1.05
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.63 1.38 1.17 1.02
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.62 1.36 1.15 1.00
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.62 1.35 1.12 0.98
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.97 1.63 1.33 1.09 0.98
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.01 1.63 1.31 1.07 0.99
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.06 1.64 1.29 1.05 1.01
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.12 1.67 1.28 1.03 1.08
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.21 1.70 1.28 1.03 1.18
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.33 1.75 1.28 1.05 -0.05
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 3.19 2.50 1.84 1.30 1.08 -0.05
F�14ew
user
Project short watson
DataHle: dynamic Bishop
+**++*++*******+*+*+**********++*+**+++*****+*+*+****+*+***+*+++
* Minimum safety factor = 0.977
* For circle at 90.001 25.257 radius 52.260
GRID 19
******+*++*****
Circles through point ( 85.79 -27.16 )
SAFETY FACTORS
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.40 1.27
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.54 1.38 1.25
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.52 1.37 1.23
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.51 1.35 1.21
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.50 1.33 1.18
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.48 1.31 1.16
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.47 1.29 1.14
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.45 1.27 1.11
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.66 1.44 1.25 1.09
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.66 1.43 1.22 1.07
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.66 1.41 1.20 1.04
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.66 1.40 1.18 1.02
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.66 1.38 1.15 1.01
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.67 1.37 1.13 1.00
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.06 1.69 1.36 1.11 1.01
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.11 1.71 1.35 1.09 1.06
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.19 1.74 1.35 1.07 1.13
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.28 1.78 1.36 1.07 1.28
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.41 1.85 1.37 1.10 -0.05
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.58 1.95 1.41 1.13 -0.05
**+++**++*****+*+**+*+**+**+********+***++*********+*+*+***+*+**
* Minimum safety factor = 1.001
* For circle at 90.001 25.257 radius 52.586
**+**+***++*+*+++**++***+*+*++*++*+++++*+++++++*+*****++++++*+++
GRID 20
new user
Project shed watson
Dataflle: dynamic Bishop
Circles through point ( 90.00 -28.00 )
SAFETY FACTORS
+*************
X 10.0 18.9 27.8 36.7 45.6 54.4 63.3 72.2 81.1 90.0
Y
80.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.41 1.28
75.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.40 1.26
71.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.54 1.38 1.24
67.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.53 1.37 1.22
63.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.52 1.35 1.20
58.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.51 1.33 1.18
54.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.50 1.31 1.16
50.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.48 1.30 1.14
46.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.47 1.28 1.12
42.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.70 1.46 1.26 1.09
37.9 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.70 1.45 1.24 1.07
33.7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.71 1.44 1.22 1.05
29.5 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.72 1.44 1.20 1.04
25.3 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.73 1.43 1.18 1.03
21.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.75 1.43 1.16 1.04
16.8 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.79 1.43 1.15 1.08
12.6 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.26 1.83 1.44 1.14 1.15
8.4 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.36 1.89 1.46 1.15 1.26
4.2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.50 1.97 1.49 1.17 1.48
0.0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 2.67 2.08 1.55 1.22 2.07
*+**#************xxx*x+xxxxx+++*+++++++*+#x***xxxxxxx+++xx++x*rtx
* Minimum safety factor = 1.031
+ For circle at 90.001 25.257 radius 53.257
++++#+*rtrt*rt+*******xxxxxxx*+x+++++x++*++*rtrt##*x****+xxxxxxxx++#+
f
APPENDIX D
EROSION CONTROL
r
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 2'x2' WOOD POST <TYP) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
WRAP AROUND TRENCH OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH
TO AT LEAST ENTIRE E 6 FT MAX. O.C.
BOTTOM OF TRENCH _�tO5FT
BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR I.� 6 FT
12' DEEP, 8' WIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER EXISTING
FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2) GROUND SURFACE
WASHED GRAVEL DIRECTION OF 2.5 FT 12' DEEP, 8' WIDEWATER FLOW EXISTING TRENCH FILLED WITH 12' GROUND SURFACE 3/4' TO 1 1/2' T
I I 2.5 FT WASHED GRAVEL
—.Ia' BOTTOM EXTENTS OF
II GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SILT FENCE - DETAIL
SILT FENCE - CROSS SECTION N.T.S.
N.T.S. HAY OR STRAW MATTING
ENERAL NOTES, 1. STRAW SHALL BE AIR DRIED, AND FREE FROM WEED SEEDS AND
SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON COARSE MATERIAL.
2. APPLY AT APPROXIMATELY 75 TO 100 POUNDS PER 1000 SQUARE
HESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR FEET OF GROUND.
HALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. 3. MINIMUM THICKNESS SHALL BE 2 INCHES.
ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE 4. HAY OR STRAW IS SUBJECT TO BLOWING. KEEP MOIST OR TIED
NSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED, IF NECESSARY. DOWN.
ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE LEFT IN
LACE UNTIL THE UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES-
EMPORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES- SEEDING FOR RAW SLOPES
OR ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED LAND 1. BEFORE SEEDING, INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL
ISTURBING ACTIVITIES, AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR DIKES,
ERIOD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE SWALES, LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS.
MMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED 2. THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE,
ROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR, GRASS SEEDING FOLLOWING SURFACE ROUGHENING. PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS ACCROS
LONE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE.
EPTEMBER. HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF 3. SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS, AS SHOWN BELOW, AND SHOULD BE
HE OWNER/CONTRACTOR, BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 120 POUNDS PER ACRE.
R OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT. 4. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN MAY I AND OCTOBER 31 WILL
REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO
RY SEASON (MAY 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 30) -- THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE FOSTER AND PROTECT THE ROOT STRUCTURE,
EMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER, MUST BE LIMITED TO 5. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 30,
NLY AS MUCH LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE ARMORING OF THE SEED BED WILL BE NECESSARY, (e.g.,
THERWISE STABILIZED, AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED , GEOTEXTILES, JUTE MAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING).
Y NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 OF A GIVEN YEAR. UNLESS IMMEDIATE 6. FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING TO SUPPLIERS'
TABILIZATION IS SPECIFIED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, ALL RECOMMENDATIONS. AMOUNTS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED, ESPECIALLY
REAS CLEARED OR ❑THERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS.
HROUGH THE USE OF MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS,
REE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., BY SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSION
LAN OF ACTION. UNLESS ❑THERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, CONTROL, OR A COUNTY APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTURE.
ERTILIZING AND MULCHING OF CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE
ERFORMED DURING THE FOLLOWING PERIODS, MARCH 1 TO MAY 15, AND AUGUST 15 TO PROPORTIONS PURITY GERMINATIO
CTOBER 1. SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER 1 WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION NAME BY WEIGHT(%) (%) M
F THE PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVIROMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE
0 SATISFACTORY GROWTH. IN THE EVENT THAT PERANENT STABILIZATION IS NOT REDTOP (AGROSTIS ALBA) 10 92 90
OSSIBLE, AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF GROUND COVER, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, ANNUAL RYE (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) 40 98 90
LASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED BY NO LATER THAN CHEWING FESUE 40 97 80
EPTEMBER 30, (FESTUCA RUBRA COMMUTATA)
(JAMESTOWN, BANNER, SHADOW, KOKET)
N THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 96 90
CTIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE (TRIFOLIUM REPENS)
WNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL EROSION
ND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORM EVENTS, AND AT MULCHING
EAST ONCE EVERY WEEK, THE OWNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
HE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. 1. MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE WOOD
FIBER CELLULOSE, AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1000
ET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THRU APRIL 30) -- ON SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED POUNDS PER ACRE.
ONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS, THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE 2. MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED SLOPES
REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER, SHALL BE LIMITED GREATER THAN 2-1 (HORIZONTAL-VERTICAL).
TO AS MUCH LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS IN 3. MULCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN
HE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON. ALL
TRANSPORT OFF-SITE IS OBSERVED. AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SHALL BE COVERED BY NOVEMBER 1.
LL CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE
OVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC
MEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER
AVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED IF NOT BEING ACTIVELY WORKED.
ILT FENCING, SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, ETC., WILL NOT BE VIEWED AS
DEQUATE COVER IN AND OF THEMSELVES. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT
EING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY
TABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON
HE SITE, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL
MMEDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFOREMENTIONED LAND AREA HAS BEEN
PPROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED.
SILT FENCE
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION,
1. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SHALL BE PER SPECIFIED IN THE 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
OR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN,' OR APPLICABLE COUNTY STANDARDS
2. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
EACH BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS. IF JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED WATSON
TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT PARCEL 32207-50-00022
BOTH ENDS TO THE POST. MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
3. STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FASTENED USING 1' STAPLES OR TIE WIRES (HOG RINGS) 2 4 IN
PACING.
4. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET, AND ENGINEER,
DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND, ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
WIRE MESH SHALL BE 2'X2'X14 GAUGE OR EQUIVILENT. THE WIRE MESH MAY BE ELIMINATED IF PO BOX 984
XTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC (MONOFILAMENT), AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED. BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528
. A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE 360-275-9374
OSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE SILT FENCE.
7. SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DOWNSLOPE FROM THE CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. ER❑SI❑N CONTROL
APPENDIX E
DRAINAGE DETAILS
r
STEEL CLAMPS (TYP)
CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE 10 FT MIN SPACING 1/2 INCH DIAMETER
6-INCH MIN, DIAMETER SECURELY FASTENED TO PIPE
4FT WIDE, 4 FT IN LENGTH QUARRY
SPALL OR APPROVED ENERGY
LEVEL SECTION DISSIPATOR. 8- TO 12-INCH ROCK.
iNOTES,
TWO 6-FOOT ° uou
0°0°0°000°0°0° 1. DO NOT INFILTRATE UNLESS
ANCHORS (TYP), o°o°o°o°o°o°o° 1 F7 MIN. APPROVED BY ENGINEER.
#4 REBAR OR o000000000000 2. OUTLTETS TO BE AT LEAST
EQUIVALENT 3 FT MIN 20 FEET BEHIND BULKHEAD.
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
TIGHTLINE DETAILS - OPTION 1
N.T.S.
�O
NO HOLES OPPOSITE
OF PIPE
0 0
° o° ° DRILL HOLES
o °° ° � IN FRONT HALF
0 0 ° OF TEE ONLY
3 FT
STEEL CLAMPS (TYP)
CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE 10 FT MIN SPACING 1/2 INCH DIAMETER
6-INCH MIN. DIAMETER SECURELY FASTENED TO PIPE
LEVEL SECTION
3FT DIFFUSER TEE
TWO 6-FOOT
ANCHORS (TYP),
#4 REBAR OR
EQUIVALENT 3 FT MIN
TIGHTLINE DETAILS TO BEACH
NOTES- N.T.S.
LIT IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED TO PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION-
UTILIZE A HEAT WELDED HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT
POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) PIPE IN LIEU OF GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE.
2. FREQUENT INSPECTION (BI-ANNUALY), WATSON
AND NECESSARY MAINTENANCE IS PARCEL 32207-50-00022
REQUIRED. MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
3. HOLE DIAMETER SHALL BE 1 INCH FOR
6-INCH TEES, AND 2 INCHES FOR 12-INCH TEES. ENGINEER.
4. HOLE SPACING SHALL BE EQUAL TO ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
(1.5 X HOLE DIAMETER). PO BOX 984
5. DIAMETER OF TEE SHALL EQUAL BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528
DIAMETER OF TIGHTLINE PIPE. 360-275-9374
DRAINAGE DETAILS