The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeoTech Report for BLD2008-01310 Retaining Walls - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 2/17/2014 Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. II//� Applicant/Owner Da V� f-C14 r\ Parcel# y32Z3� 44-f� Site Address /0 A 1510011 - ►A- I J (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) �;- (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) 6 ,(c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) 6 �. (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) 3 (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s) 3 �'-(f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) I'Z, I-5, 0 (2) —A site plan which identifies the important developent and geologic features. Located on Map(s) p A (3) Locations and logs of ex lorato hole,s or probes. Located on Maps) -� elw\ l Ace T (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) y o )4- Rja ; thv"vh *-I (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of pro ed rade changes. Located on Map(s)�®;) ►�,��os (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures.The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1. and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. Located,on page(s) 17j (7) `(a)Appropriate restrictions on pl cemenj of drainage features Located on page(s) 7, 2 0-T Ad ljon 1 �.(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Located on-pages) 15 (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) I Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property,. Located on page(s) 1 1 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the_property. r Located on page(s) , 2 of Mr L"m """18) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) 1- �9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) 16 N10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) I 1) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management,drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) )6,, 17 \(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) 6A 3) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and pro osed development on the site. Located on Map(s� lar� }�l>D, I, IVJQ hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil en ineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist Licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated &-a Ooo , and entitled 6eaJcLo�-ga Y --i r KIM11.1 Prvya rs Cli �zcv�'111 y &SjJ-nr-?-5 meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinan e, Landslid Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in su r as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) CLYL) ��s�♦dbtsTs�G� . Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. 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: Permit#�L- oC 'Q� Parcel# Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: &Q� y. aCoe: c t e cat ct,&Qw- 15_Wit ' (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? Comment: (b) A discussion of specific sod t es OK? I Comment: (c) A discussion of ground water 66nditions OK?_, ,,' Comment: (d) A discussion of the upslo a omor hology OK?L/Comment: (e) Ad,iscyssion of the locate pland waterbodies and wetlands OK? - Comment: -�) —LI- (f) A discussion of history of lalide active y in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and reco ds OK? Comment: (2) A site plan which identifies e m ortant evelopment and geolo is features. OK? _comment: InA (3) Locati d logs of explorator y hoes or probes- OK? Comment: Cp4Q WQAA, u C (4) The area of the proposed develop ent,the 6oundahes of the haz rd, and associated ISuffers and setbacks sh I be delineated (top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site. OK? Comment: (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which i,ncoporates the de ails of pr posed grade changes. OK? y Comment: 'S;� � * WM17'a C n. (6) A description and results of Wpe stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1. . and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. OK?J/"-, Comment: r1 (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions An Acemgnt of drainage features C' �1 OK? ✓' Comment: G�Qi,C, )7 , ��.Pgg , (b) Appropriate restrictio on pPacement 6f septic drair€Jfields Q OK? ✓ Comment: r ak tr-) (c) Appropriate restrictionip.,on Mace ent of compacted fills and footings OK? ✓Comment: _ (d) Recommended buffers fro 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: ) (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of others Co the property. 's OK? Commm ent: (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a de t filed clearing and gradi p which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of-vegetation removal OK? Comment: �cc9j(e (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and har�ful construction methods. OK? ✓� Comment: 1t' (10) An analysis of both on-site af4 o j pacts of the proposed development. OK? V Comment: �� 1 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion coyztrol, and bufferwi,dahrs. OK? Comment: rQ4„ S— tY (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. n' OK? V Comment: vy►Ml�( �YY��^ 1S` I S1 ( P (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the loca io and nature o existing and pr osed development on the site. OK? Comment: A Are the Documents signed and stamped? Type and #of License: �I �� G +Q/1i� - �J� wo If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by ,on —(9 Time spent in reviewJ C� _ 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 �wv�rotech �wg�weer%wg ceotechw�caL° Ewv%rowvuewtal°praiwage ° Roadway ►' ECE DEC 17 December 15, 2008 '"rNnN W.PLAN, T. Att. Pam Bennett-Cumming Mason County Department of Community Development Planning PO Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 RE: Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 for Kamin Single Family Residences Parcel 32234 44 00010, Mason County, Washington, Dear Ms. Bennett-Cumming, Envirotech Engineering has addressed comments and provided the referenced geotechnical addendum. Two original copies are enclosed as well as a revised submittal checklist. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Yours Truly, Envirotec Engineering � o Michael Staten, P.E. Project Director 74 NE F+urd Road geLfatr, waskuvotoA99,522 Off: 360-275-9374 CeLL: 360-689-6045 FaK: 360-275-4789 eN.VLrateak@QeoteckoicaUku fo.GoK& �wv%rotech �v�,g%vtieert,v�g , , - c,eotechwCcal° EwvLrowvu.ev�,tal°Aratvwage ° Roadway DEC 17 2003 December 15, 2008 Dave Kamin PO Box 2491 Shelton, Washington 98584 RE: Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 for Kamin Properties Single Family Residences, Parcel 32234 44 00010, Mason County, Washington INTORDUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this geotechnical report addendum for the above referenced single family residences. The original report, dated August 4, 2008, was prepared by Envirotech(Project #0878). This addendum was prepared in order to provide additional information with relation to the Project and the aforementioned geotechnical report. The following sections include Project Information; Earthwork and Retaining Structures; and, Conclusions. These sections correspond to comments by the Mason County Department of Community Development in a review letter dated December 2, 2008. PROJECT INFORMATION The development of this Project may include retaining walls and substantial earth moving activities. Retaining walls are expected to comprise of nearly 240 linear feet of gravity (rock) wall. See the revised Geologic Map attached with this addendum depicting the retaining wall location. Wall heights will be variable, but not exceed 12 feet. Excavation into the upslope soils may be required for wall placement. According to the owner, less than 200 cubic feet of soil excavation will be completed in conjunction with the retaining wall construction. EARTHWORK AND RETAINING STRUCTURES It is our opinion that retaining structures are not detrimental to the geotechnical design of this Project. The unprotected bank may slowly unravel over a long period of time to the angle of repose. The angle of repose for this material is probably between 38 and 42 degrees. The retaining structure, if constructed, is expected to prevent this process. Likewise, excavation into the backfill soils would not be detrimental to this Project if all design parameters are adhered to in both the original geotechnical report and rock wall Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 1 of 2 Kamin Single Family Residences Fax 360-275-4789 Parcel 32234 44 00010 December 15,2008 design. This includes the maximum wall height of 12 feet, and building setbacks of at least 50 feet from the top of slopes exceeding 40%. Although structures at anticipated locations are not expected to incur adverse impacts due to the planned retaining wall, additional recommendations are provided in this addendum for instances when expected structure locations are changed. Foundations for the single family residences should have a setback between the back of the retaining wall to the front of the residence that is equal to or greater than the wall height. For the current retaining wall design, this setback should not exceed 12 feet. In addition, drainage collected from the single family residences should provide an outlet that will not influence the rock wall. Drainage outlets should be located at least 50 feet upslope from the top of the wall, or placed in an upslope location beyond the extents of the retaining wall. This may be within a break in the wall such as the east side of Lot 2, or beyond the wall ends. CONSLUSION Envirotech is pleased to submit this addendum for the Kamin single family residences. This addendum provided additional information, conclusions and recommendations concerning the project. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Best Regards, Envirotech Engineering CLYDE `G4'p3�F WASy��9J rO� 43045 Q� �SS�nNALE�G` Michael Staten, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 2 of 2 Kamin Single Family Residences Fax 360-275-4789 Parcel 32234 44 00010 December 15,2008 ATTACHMENTS 1. GEOLOGIC MAP HOOD CANAL / SCALE. 1 INCH = 150 FEET PROPOSED RETAINING H A I\ WALLS (TYP) STATE t�i iJ►,1��ct ' Pt� Nay P2 20 TIIP KP EXCEEDING SOFT BUILDING AND ROPOSED SINGLE ED) I eto O USER. VEGETATION B FFER AMILY RESIDENCE ©1 —:51 No POSED SI 2S 40 rNF ILY RESIDENCE w 60 L F SIDENCE 80 1 LOT 1 LOT 3 1 1 2 ISO 2DO L MEDIUM DENSE O DENSE VELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT 220' (GW--GM) OVEkLYING ,DENSE TO VERY DENSE GW-AND GP-GM 24 260 ROP TY L 300 LEGEND 360 � BUFFER/SET HACK 400 SLOE DIRECTIDrI 420 so EXISTING CONTOUR 440 TP10 TEST PIT 460 JECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 480 GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC PARCEL 32234 44 00010 SLO E TOP MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXC EDING 40X 500 ENGINEER- ENVIRDTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 442FTt 360-275-9374 520 GE❑L❑GIC MAP n Lc� a00� C� ( 3 � 0 R 77D NOV 4 2008 ,MASON COUNTY Geotechnical Report for Kamin Properties Three Single Family Residences State Highway 106 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Mason County, Washington August 4, 2008 Project #0878 Prepared For: Kamin Properties, LLC PO Box 2491 �C�P�o Cw as y sr9T Shelton, Washington 98584 Prepared By: Envirotech Engineering � ,STE��°G��w�4 74 NE Hurd Road r��NAL�ts Belfair, Washington 98528 Phone: 360-275-9374 F EXPIRES JAN 10,2009 Fax: 360-275-4789 l � TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................ 1 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................3 2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS............................................................................................................3 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology....................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Downslope Geomorphology.................................................................................................. 3 2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE.....................................................................................................................3 2.4 SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS...........................................................................................4 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................5 3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING........................................................................ 5 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 5 3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................6 3.3.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 SOILS TESTING.............................................................................................................................6 3.4.1 Visual Classification............................................................................................................. 6 3.4.2 Bulk Density......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4.3 Direct Shear.......................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................8 4.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 9 4.L I Bearing Capacity.................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.2 Settlement............................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade.................................................................................................... 10 4.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES...................................................................................................... 10 4.3 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 10 4.3.1 Excavation.......................................................................................................................... 10 4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill........................................ 11 4.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill....................................................................................................... 11 j 4.3.4 Wet Weather Considerations............................................................................................... 12 4.4 SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL................................................................................ 12 4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts.................................................................................................... 15 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks........................................................................................... 15 4.4.3 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control....................................................................... 16 4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage...................................................................................... 17 4.4.S Vegetation Considerations.................................................................................................. 17 4.4.6 On-site and Off-site Impacts............................................................................................... 18 4.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION......................................................................... 18 5.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix A- Site Plan Appendix B -Geologic Map Appendix C -Soil Information Soil Profile, Soil Logs and Well Reports Appendix D - Slope Stability Input&Output Appendix E-Erosion Control Appendix F-Drainage Details 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a property located on State Highway 106, identified as parcel number 32234 44 00010, Mason County, Washington (Project). 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; and, recommendations for foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, lateral earth pressures, slope stability, erosion control, drainage and vegetation considerations in the Engineering Analysis and Recommendations Section. An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted b Envirotech with the property g J Y p p rh' owner, David Kamin, on July 21, 2008. 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. Consequently, the proposed development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason County Resource Ordinance 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. 1.1 Project Information Information pertaining to the Project was provided by the property owner with general assumptions b Envirotech that are typical of this e of development, The roe is P Y h'p type P property rt3' anticipated to be divided into three separate lots. The Project is accessed from an existing gravel surfaced driveway linking State Highway 106. See the vicinity map on the following page of this report. The property is currently vacant land. Logging on this property has occurred at least once or twice in the past. The planned development consists of three 1- or 2-story single family residences which may include daylight basements. Foundation construction is expected to consist of continuous strip footings and concrete slabs-on-grade or stem walls. Anticipated construction other than the residences will include on-site septic systems, driveway approaches and possible ancillary features typical of this type of development. Approximate building footprint with relation to site features are illustrated in the Site Map in Appendix A. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the Project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations relating to the development of the property. The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site activities. 1.3 Scope of Work 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 neighboring geotechnical investigations. This included previous geotechnical studies completed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory in a report dated November 2, 2007, and by Envirotech Engineering in a report dated July 21, 2008; Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 1 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington August 4,2008 ' r � • Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements-, • Define the general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils extending to a depth of up to 15 feet below the natural ground surface, 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 properties of the soils that include 4 visual classifications; • 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. W7ri•r M 1 ka• ' yF� � 30 �, 2s T H000 CANAL - B WARREN DR T22NR2W � SS 3S [nit,! 33 34 g�OR S I) 3 6 �EMAN2ANRA T21NR3W 721NR2W (S ProjectCe Lake r 1-4 0 Vicinity Map from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 2 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington August 4,2008 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on July 21, and July 24, 2008 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. During the site visits, the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed, site features were documented that may influence construction and slope stability, soil samples were collected from selected locations, and near-surface soils were visually classified. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and slope/ erosion conditions for the Project and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. 2.1 General Observations The Project is currently undeveloped land as previously mentioned. State Highway 106 and the Hood Canal are located within the northern portion of the property. Beyond the property lines, rural residential development exists. Vegetation on and near the Project consists primarily of alders, firs, maples, 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 Project is situated within and near moderate to very steep sloping terrain. The location of the planned building envelopes are on moderately sloping terrain ranging from approximately 18%to 32%. These grades increase from east to west. The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from the Mason County GIS Department utilizing a lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements. Slope verification included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site Map in Appendix A and the Geological Map in Appendix B in this report for an illustration of general topography with respect to the planned development. 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology Ascending grades are located to the south of the planned development. The slope directly above the planned development averages 47%. Grades of up to 66% are located on a portion of the upslope terrain. There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned development. 2.2.2 Downslope Geomorphology Descending grades on Lot 3 is 104%with a vertical relief of approximately 37 feet, and exist to the north of the planned development. This slope grade decreases towards the west to about 65%on Lot 1. 2.3 Surface Drainage Stormwater runoff originating upslope from the anticipated development is expected to be minimal to moderate. Sheet flow down the sloping grades towards the north is the primary runoff mechanism before it reaches the proposed residences. However, a convergence on Lot 2 indicates a small stream flow. See the following Slope and Erosion Observations Section for more information. Although minor scour and stream erosion was observed, other indications of past Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 3 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington August 4,2008 1 � excessive drainage problems were not observed at or near the planned development. 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations The existing steep slopes 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 or naturally 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. Significant mass wasting on the property or within the general vicinity of the Project were not observed or discovered during research. Indications of past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems, or surficial slope failures were not observed during the site visit. However, a small amount of stream erosion was observed on Lot 2 due to the convergence in the topography in conjunction with a storm event exceeding a 100yr-24hr storm. Significant outwash was not observed at the end of the convergence zone. H000 caruat E:� �i a :p � a k. �1 .�14'i Aerial Photo from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 4 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington August 4,2008 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered on July 21, and July 24, 2008 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. Specific information on field methods, sampling, field testing, subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. Appendix C of this report includes pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the Project, such as subsoil cross-sections, test pit log(s) representative of the bearing soils of the planned building, and water well report(s). Applicable test pit and well log locations are depicted on the Site Plan and Geologic Map 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 test pits extending to depths of up to 15 feet below the existing ground surface, which included existing cuts. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing water well reports originating from nearby properties,geological maps, and the aforementioned geotechnical studies completed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory and Envirotech. One bulk sample was collected at the Project site at approximately 2 feet 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 36 inches and dense to very dense soils from 36 inches to the depth of terminous. 3.2 General Geologic Conditions In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster, 2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qg. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated deposits, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation."as revealed in the Geologic Map. Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers. During the Quaternary period, the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets, with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits. According to the "Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington," by Robert L. Logan, 2003, the site soils are grouped as Continental Glacial Deposits from the Fraser glaciation, Vashon Stade. Specific units for this Project include advance outwash, late Wisconsinan (Pleistocene), Qga. From this geologic map, Qga is "glaciological sand and gravel and latchstring clay, silt, and sand deposited during the advance of glaciers; sandy units commonly thick, well sorted, and fine grained, with interlayered coarser sand,gravel, and cobbles and silt rip-up lag deposits at their base; may contain no glacial sediments; generally overlain by till." Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 5 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington August 4,2008 3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the Project subgrade utilizing information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and investigated locations. Soils for this project were described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Using the USCS in conjunction with estimated relative densities and other anticipated engineering properties of the soil, susceptibility for potential landslides, erosion and seismic hazards may be assessed. The Project is composed of native soils with no indications of borrowed fill. For engineering purposes,these native soils consist of distinguishable layers, as presented below. Soils within the upper 3 feet of natural ground were observed to be moist, brown well graded gravel with sand(GW)and few silts, or silty gravel with sand(GM). The relative densities of this soil are provided in Section 3.1 of this report. Gravels are primarily subrounded to subangular near the anticipated building location. Sand content was primarily fine and medium. The fines content was non plastic. Soils below the upper 3 feet layer to a depth of at least 15 feet consisted of moist,brown, dense to very dense well graded gravel (GW). According to the well reports, deeper excavations on neighboring properties, geologic maps and knowledge of the general area, soils below the observed 15 feet in depth to at least 100 feet are dense to very dense advance outwash(primarily GM or SM). 3.3.1 Groundwater From the water well report and knowledge of the general area, permanent groundwater is over 100 feet directly below the property at the building pad locations. Seepage was observed on the west portion of Lot 1. Perched groundwater was indicated at a depth of about 90 feet on one of the water well reports. 3.4 Soils Testing The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved and transported for possible laboratory testing. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory performed density and a direct shear tests in their laboratory. Visual classification of soils was performed in the field by Envirotech. The following soil tests were performed in accordance with the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM)and AASHTO: 4 Visual Classifications (ASTM D2488); 1 Bulk Density(ASTM C-29);and 1 Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions(AASHTO T236-92) 3.4.1 Visual Classification The results from the visual classification are presented above in the Subsurface Conditions Section at depths of up to 15 feet below the natural ground surface. Specifically, soils originating on Lot 2 consisted of approximately 55% gravel, 35% Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 6 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 sand-sized soils, and less than 10% silt. 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. 3.4.2 Bulk Density Native soil density, determined by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory on the neighboring property, revealed a dry density of 129 pcf. 3.4.3 Direct Shear Direct shear testing was performed by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory from soils originating from the neighboring property. The direct shear test was prepared by remolding a sample into a shear box. Utilizing Mohr's Circle, maximum shear stresses are plotted in conjunction with the normal stress. The apparent strength parameters from the direct shear test indicated soil cohesion of 200 psf, and an angle of internal friction of 39 degrees. These values are consistent with published standards for Advance Outwash. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 7 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present engineering analysis and 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; and, soil conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in the Subsurface Investigation Section. Engineering analysis and recommendations for the Project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for building foundations, earthwork construction, slope stability/erosion control, drainage,vegetation and seismic considerations. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 8 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington August 4,2008 I 4.1 Building Foundation Recommendations Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one- or two-story, single family residential structure. Below the upper 12 inches of Project soils,there are apparently two distinguishable layers of soil that will influence the bearing capacity and settlement of the structures. 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, and deriving probable relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils based on observed field conditions and soil testing for this Project. 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. 4.1.1 Bearing Capacity For the existing site conditions, bearing values should increase with depth. 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. Footing width and depth recommendations shall be adhered to, and are based on 1500 pounds per square feet (psf) maximum structural bearing pressure. For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 2000 psf, a minimum footing width of 16 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 18 inches below the natural ground surface. Reduction in footing requirements may be reduced per the recommendations of a qualified engineer after a site inspection of the foundation excavation. Foundation recommendations are made available based on adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. 4.1.2 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. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 9 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 1 1 4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of compacted coarse, granular material that is placed over undisturbed native subgrade or engineered fill. Native soils found at the Project site may be suitable for use as the material directly beneath concrete slabs if the material meets the requirements of engineered fill as explained later in this report. The top 4 to 8 inches of native soil should be removed prior to the placement and compaction of the aforementioned 6-inch coarse, granular material. Although not required for the structural integrity of the concrete slab-on-grade, a vapor barrier is usually used for damp-proofing. If vapor barriers are used, it is suggested to utilize a barrier that is sufficiently thick to resist puncturing during construction, or place a 2 inch layer of sand above the barrier prior to placing the concrete slab. 4.2 Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining walls may be utilized for this Project. The 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. An equivalent fluid unit weight used for structural design may be estimated as the product of the backfill soil unit weight and the earth pressure coefficient for at-rest pressures. Retaining walls should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 65 pcf for backfill consisting of engineered fill and native soils, respectively. See the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section for details concerning the use of native soils, engineered fill and placement of backfill. Lateral earth pressure recommendations are based on retaining structures with relatively flat or descending sloping backfill, and the backfill conforming to the recommendations outlined in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. For instances when it is necessary to consider ascending sloping backfill or structures will induce passive earth pressures, additional design parameters must be accounted for in the retaining wall analysis. For these cases, recommendations should only be provided by a qualified engineer after the type of backfill is specified, inclination of backfill slope is estimated, and the final wall height is determined. 4.3 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. 4.3.1 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 Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 10 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 disturbing, or excessive water trapped within foundation excavations prior to foundation construction. All soils below the bottom of the excavation shall be competent, and relatively undisturbed or properly compacted fill. If these soils are disturbed or deemed incompetent, re-compaction of these soils below the anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered, compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or structural concrete. 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. 4.3.2 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 recommended 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. FOOTING COMPACTED NATIVE SOILS OR ENGINEERED 1 FILL 1 UNDISTURBED SUBGRA1lFl 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 60%to 100%gravel-sized material(particles between 3/16-inch and 3 inches), and less than 10%fines(particles passing#200 standard sieve)by weight. Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 8 inches and 12 inches for native soils and engineered fill, respectively. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 95%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. 4.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill Native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this Project. Backfill may also consist of engineered fill, as presented in this report, or borrow material approved by a geotechnical engineer. Compaction of these materials shall be achieved in compacted lifts of about 12 to 24 inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to no more than 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density(ASTM D 1557). Over-compaction should Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 11 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 1 be prevented since this will cause lateral earth pressures to increase, which may be detrimental to the retaining structure. If clean, coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, compaction may be achieved from by reasonably densifying granular soils with construction equipment. Backfill for the retaining wall should extend vertically from the top of the footing to the proposed ground surface. At the ground surface,backfill should extend horizontally from the face of the retaining wall to at least 2 feet in back of the wall. Perforated drains for retaining walls should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches and direct water to an appropriate outfall as recommended in the Surface and Subsurface Drainage Section of this report. Coarse, clean gravel is recommended to be placed at least 12 inches around the drain pipe in order to provide increased drainage capabilities. Non-woven geotextile filter fabric should be wrapped around the aforementioned coarse gravel for reducing the potential of silt migration and clogging of the drain pipe. 4.3.4 Wet Weather Considerations Although the subsoil characteristics do not pose a great risk in regards to saturation, additional provisions may be required during prolonged wet weather. Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free moisture from saturating and ponding within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used for footing placement changes from a moist and dense characteristic as presented in this report to loose, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for foundation bearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnicah engineer should be notified, or these soils should be completely removed and replaced with suitable compacted material as presented above. 4.4 Slope Stability and Erosion Control 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. 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. With appropriate drainage and erosion control provisions for this Project during and after construction, it is unlikely that this Project will experience excessive surficial movements. However, maintenance of the slope must be completed if the situation does arise 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. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 12 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 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 may be found later in this report. According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Project is within terrain labeled highly unstable' and `highly erodible' relating to soils. In addition, DNR did not indicate previous landslide activity near the Project. DNR also labeled portions of this project as medium and high slope instability with relation to slopes. See the DNR map on the following page of this report. The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing `STABLE' software, was used to analyze the static stability of the site slopes. 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, 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, published parameters, and laboratory testing: Top 4 feet of weathered soils • Soil unit weight: 134 pcf • Angle of internal friction: 34 degrees • Cohesion: 100 psf Soils below 4 feet • Soil unit weight: 140 pcf • Angle of internal friction: 38 degrees • Cohesion: 200 psf 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. Anticipated building loads, building pad cuts, or impacts from septic drainfields are not expected to have any detrimental influence on the global stability of the slopes, provided that the setback requirements, drainage and all other recommendations in this report are adhered to. Based on the aforementioned Project criteria, observations, slope stability analysis, and the recommendations in this report, the Project has an acceptable factor of safety of over 1.5 relative to deep-seated, static slope failures. Furthermore, an acceptable factor of safety of over 1.1 for seismic conditions was also concluded for this Project. See the slope stability information in Appendix D for input parameters and example of outputs. For this project, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic conditions were estimated to be 1.6 and 1.1,respectively. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 13 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County. Washington August 4,2008 +7040M 7040Bb 70ai6f! i 704102 a r.a.t a...d s r.a•t a...e �1704066 Project 417"' 1704102 ,r x _ � il04 48 1794�14v ' 04142 L i a = H Y i794129 .. _ 41701/71 Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 14 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 Tahuya ) s Scale I.'_4 X) I S 0 5 I Mike 0 500 1000 I500 Menu Sisters P[ 7s7 Project Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Website 4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts The approximate location of the proposed septic drainfields are presented on the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report. Based on the septic drainfield locations 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 the recommendations in this report. 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks Conservative surcharges from the anticipated site development were used in the slope stability analysis. 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 50 feet footing setback from the face of the nearby descending slope exceeding 40%. See the figure below and the Geologic Map in Appendix B for an illustration of the setbacks. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 15 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 STRUCTURE TOP OF SLOPE SLOPE FACE i I—I I �• —I I � �— 50 FT MIN ---� FOOTING Building Setbacks are not required for the adjacent ascending slopes for this Project. This is based on the slope stability analysis. The analysis provided adequate factors of safety for upslope conditions when utilizing conservative soil strength parameters. 4.4.3 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Based on the USCS description of the Project soils, the surface soils are considered moderately erodible. DNR labeled the property as a high erodibilty potential, and therefore 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. Erosion control measures may need to be employed if excessive erosion occurs or required by the County or other prevailing agencies. Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the least extent possible. Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls. 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 E for sketches and general notes regarding selected erosion control measures. The Site Map in Appendix A depicts the recommended locations for erosion control facilities to be installed, if necessary. Permanent erosion control is 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 hin in or an equivalent measure. Selected recommendations for permanent mulching, seeding q erosion control are provided in Appendix E. 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. Sedimentation control should be adequate when utilizing the erosion control recommendations as presented herein together with implementing appropriate erosion Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 16 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington August 4,2008 controls with the degree of care as expected from a licensed contractor. Erosion control information and specifications in addition to what is provided in this report may be found in the current "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 4.4.4 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, 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 tight-lined to an appropriate infiltration location beyond the building setback and vegetation buffer of the steep descending slopes. In addition, the outlets should be placed at least 10 feet from structures, and not be placed directly downslope from each residence. If subsurface infiltration is not utilized, an energy dissipater is required at the outlet. Subsurface infilitration shall not be utilized if the outfall is placed within the stream convergence. Recommended drainage details are provided in Appendix F of this report. Due to seepage and stream erosion observations, additional recommendations are provided for house locations. Although these drainage characteristics of the Project were not problematic after the recent 100yr 24hr storm event, successive intense precipitation could cause future problems. A residence should be located at least 15 feet away from the stream-line on Lot 2. In addition,the house on Lot 1 should not be located on the western quarter of the property where seepage was observed. 4.4.5 Vegetation 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 remain undisturbed on the descending slopes and within the 50 feet setback/buffer, or on the face of the ascending slopes exceeding 40%. Other vegetation shall remain undisturbed as much as possible for this Project. 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 Geologic Map Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 17 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 in Appendix B of this report for a depiction of the vegetation buffer for the descending slopes. 4.4.6 On-site and Off-site Impacts From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the 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, land cover,and the recommendations presented in this report. 4.5 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. 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. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this property is the Tacoma Fault Zone, which lies about 4 miles to the northeast of this Project. This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. The potential for liquefaction and other earthquake induced hazards are believed to be low for this Project. This is based, in part, on the slope stability analysis utilizing seismic considerations in addition to 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. Although gravel- and silt-sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoil for this Project. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 page 18 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax:360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 i L 5.0 CLOSURE Based on the project information 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 observes and documents the construction, or Envirotech is promptly notified if project and subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report so that we can re-evaluate our recommendations. 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 protect life and property. Semantics such as `suggested' or `optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed. 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 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 Michael Staten,P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9374 page 19 Parcel 32234 44 00010 Fax:360-2754789 Mason County,Washington August 4,2008 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN SCALE- 1 INCH 150 FEET PROPDSED S 73 130 ENC FOOD CANAL 20� OTP4 SINGLE MILY MILY RESIDENCE P OPOSED VNIGLE J o 40a+ MILY RESIDENCE w SED SIN 60 FAN Y RE NCE PROPOSED DRAINFIELD PROPOSED ADS lD 80 ' DRAINFIELD 1 LOT 2 LOT 1 120 LOT 3 I = 16SF t i M 22 24 ROP Y L 260 280 300 32 Sl 34 ERO ON TROL RE D FOR AL L GEND L IONS AND TER TIVE LT FENCES Y BE 360 UT IZED AS EXPL ED THE GEOT CAL REPORT 2 CONT RS WERE D BY A LI D SILT FENCE 380 URV N RS E EXTR D FROM A PUBLIC LIDA SOU E, AN ,INCOR ATED FIELD EME SLOPE DIRECTION 400 EX IN IN THE G ECHNI PORT. —SO— EXISTING CONTOUR TPIJ@ TEST PIT 440 JECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, 4" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC 490 PARCEL 32234 44 00010 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ENGINEERo ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD 500 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 szo 42F s SITE PLAN APPENDIX B GEOLOGIC MAP HOOD CANAL SCALES 1 INCH = 150 FEET tr� 0 v A 106 2 20 OTP SLOPE TOP EXCEEDING 40% ROPOSED SINGLE 50FT BUILDING AND AMILY VEGETATION BUFFER 40 P OPOSED SINGLE MILY RESIDENCE M 60 D F „ sow-art I I LOT I 1 LOT 3 F 1 163E 18 T tit L MEDI DE WELL M DED VEL WITH AND T (GW GM) OWE ING DENS TO VERY Ff -AN P-GM 2 ROP 2 TY L 60 300 3 3 L END 360 N TESi CO S W N ED 380 HY LIC ED L SURVEBUFFER/SET BACK 400 CO DARE LIC EX AR SO ATED D SLOPE DIRECTION NCORBO D FIEI 420 ME A REMEN S EXPL IN -so-- EXISTING CONTOUR T GEOTECHNI EPDRT. TPI 0 TEST PIT 440- 460 PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE aeo GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC PARCEL 32234 44 00010 SLO E TOP MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXC EDING 40% ENGINEER, 5DO ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 520 42 Tt GEOLOGIC MAP APPENDIX C SOIL INFORMATION VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SCALE, 2 SCALE- I INCH 60 FEET a Q$ MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH (p�j SAND (GW) 5 DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT CGW-GM) PROPOSED HOUSE 3 SECTION A—A HIGHWAY 106 �9 MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT (GM) A, PROPOSED HOUSE 2 DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT <GW-GM) 31� PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT SECTION B-B KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC PARCEL 32234 44 00010 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON HIGHWAY 106 NOTES 1) MINOR GRADE CHANGES WILL BE COMPLETED IN ORDER ENGINEER, TII ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 2) CUTS MAY BE COMPLETED FOR DAYLIGHT BASEMENTS. 74 NE HURD ROAD 3) THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS. 360-275-9374 WEDEPTHS ARE LLLL LOG<S), AND/OR EXPERIENCE ENCEEINT HE GENERAL AREA SOIL PROFILE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SCALE SCALE- 1 INCH 60 FEET 15 30 0 MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM) 1 3 PROPOSED HOUSE 31- 1 DENSE TO VERY DENSE WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND p AND SILT (GW-GM) ti Y HIGHWAY 106 SECTION C-C PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC PARCEL 32234 44 00010 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON NOTES, 1) MINOR GRADE CHANGES WILL BE COMPLETED IN ORDER ENGINEER TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 2) CUTS MAY BE COMPLETED FOR DAYLIGHT BASEMENTS. 74 FA HURD ROAD 3) THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS. 360-275-9374 LOVER DEPTHS ARE BASED ON SITE GEOLOGY, WELL LOG(S), AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL AREA SOIL PROFILE TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PROJECT: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/14/2008 PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00010 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 IN 10 30 50 0 ... . . . . . ...... . . .... .. . . . . .. .... . .. . I . . . .... . . . . . GM Brown, moist, medium dense to dense SILTY GRAVEL with SAND. Gravel is coarse and subrounded. Sand is Cl 1 primarily well-graded. Low plasticity. 2 3 Light brownish grey, low moisture,very dense, medium to strong cementation. Few cobbles. 4 5 ID 6 7 8 ID 10 Excavation terminated at approximately 10.0 feet 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: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/24/2008 PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00010 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 DEPTH N AND TEST DATA 10 30 50 0 . .... .. . ........ ....... . . .... ..... GM Light brown, moist, medium dense to dense SILTY GRAVEL with SAND. Gravel is coarse and subrounded. Sand cc 2ID is primarily well-graded. Low plasticity. Very dense. Weak to moderate cementation. 4 6 8 cc 10 12 Excavation terminated at approximately 12.0 feet 14 16 18 20 No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering interpreted as being indicative of the entire site. TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PROJECT: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/24/2008 PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00010 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 S USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE SAMPLER DEPTH N AND TEST DATA 10 30 50 - 0 GW-GIV Brown, moist, medium dense to dense Q WELL GRADED SILTY GRAVEL. Gravel 00 is mostly subrounded and subangular. 1 00 Sand is fine and medium. Non plastic. QQ Q 2 Q O 00 Dense to very dense. 3 Q Increasing coarse. oQ OQ 4 Q QQ OQ 5 OQ Q QQ 6 Excavation terminated at approximately 6.0 feet 7 8 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-4 PROJECT: Kamin SFR Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 07/24/2008 PROJECT NO: 0878 LOGGED BY: MCS CLIENT: David Kamin EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 32234 44 00010 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 W-G Brown, moist, medium dense to dense 0 WELL GRADED SILTY GRAVEL. Gravel 0 0 is subrounded and subangular. Sand is 2 00 fine and medium. Non plastic. 00 4 0 0 O 0 Dense to very dense. 0 ) 00 00 00 8 0 00 00 10 00 00 0 12 00 00 0 14 0 0 00 Excavation terminated at approximately 16 15.0 feet 18 120 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. i WATER WELL REPORT CURRENT ^ Original di I"copy-Ecology,27e copy-owner,3~copy-driller Notice of Intent No, W 178504 Ec0L0C�Y Construction/Decommission ("x"in circle) Unique Ecology Well [D Tag No. 7 _ �ll� Q Construction Water Right Permit No. O Decommission ORIGINAL INSTALLATION Notice Property Owner Name Tim Tusk—V nderhecl�_` C0 4C1,7 of Intent Number Well Street Address 8301 EHWY 106 PROPOSED USE: Domestic ❑ Industrial ❑ Municipal City Urdon County Mcisa l ❑ De Water Iriigation ❑ Test Well ❑ Other Location NWI/4.1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 34 Twn 22 R 3W e, irde TYPE OF WORK: Owner's number of well(if more than one) WWM one )0 New well ❑ Reconditioned Method:❑ Dug ❑ Bored ❑ Driven Lat/Lon S,t,r Lat De Lat Min/Sec ❑ Deepened IN Cable ❑ Rotary ❑ Jetted g� g DIMENSIONS: Diameterofwell_ C�_ inches,drilled Still REQUIRED) Long Deg LongMin/See Depth of completed well CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Tax Parcel No. 32234-34-00101 Caging C*Welded _ 6 Diam,from_ �-ft.to 1()3_ft. Installed: ❑ Liner installed Diam.from ft to ft. CONSTRUCTION OR DECOMMISSION PROCEDURE ❑ Threaded Diam.from ft.to ft. PeHontions: ❑ Yes t�gVo Formation: Describe by color,character,size of materiel and structure,and the kind and nature of the material in each stratrun penetrated,with at least one entry for each change of Type of perforator used information. USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY. SIZE of perfs in,by in.and no.of perfs_from_It to n MATERIAL FROM Screens: III Yes ❑ No K.Pac Location I ni Manufacturer's Nome �Tnhnann $rpytn Vel Type cf A i n1 incL-5 Model No. Diam ra Slot size-2-5--from- 103 to_ log fl Br i Snd 18 76 Diam Slot size—from ft to ft Gravel/Filter packed: ❑ Yes Ot No ❑ Size of gravel/Sand Materials placed from ft to ft. Surface Seal: IRYes ❑ No To what depth?__ _3Q__fl 108 Material used in seal �4-nni to Sand & avelwith water 96 Did any strata contain unusable water? ❑ Yes EA No Type of water? _�_.DePth of strata Method of scaling strata off PUMP: Manufacturer's Name Type: sub H P. WATER LEVELS: Land-surface elevation above mean sea level R. Static level �_.._____.__ft below top of well Date Artesian pressure lbs.per square inch Date Artesian water is controlled by -- (cay.valve etc. WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered below static level Was a pump test made? ❑ Yes X No If yes,by whom? Yield gal/min with ft.drawdown after__ hrs. Yield: Ital[min,with ft.drawduwn after_. Yield. 931.1nnim.with ___ ___ft drawdown after—hrs. Recovery data(time taken as zero when pump turned off)(water level meaeured from well top to water level) Time Water Level Time Water Level Time Water Level // >r'♦ ft.l� i ^I li Date of test Bailer test 30 gal./min.with _t"S_ft.dnwdown after —hr3r Airtcst gal./min.with stem set at ft for hrs. Artesian flow e.p,m. Date Temperature of water Was a chemical analysis made? ❑ Yes IZ No Start Date 2/30/2004 CompfeW Date 11/10/20 5 WELL CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION: 1 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. QlDrdler ❑Engineer ❑Trainee Na (Print) k Drilling Company Da ri S EI-Dri 1 1 i net Drilier/EngineerrT'rainee Signature Address NE 340 IlaVi 4 Farm } Driller or trainee License No 797 City,State,Zip Belfair„WA 98528 If TRAINEE, Contractor's Driller's Licensed No. Registration No DAVISDI1100A NOV. OS Date i Driller's Signature —__. Ecology is an Equal Opportunity Employer ECY 050-1-20(Rev 3/05) The Department of Ecology does NOT warranty the Data and/or Information on this Well Report. 1-7 FIN Original ihhd First Copy with Dap.r�h.et of EoW"y WATER WELL REPORT UNKXX WELL I.D.e A c� 5Seco i R opy Third C copy-Owner'spy STATE OF WASHINGTON +ft4for Right Parrett No Thad t",dpy-Drnler'•c -77T 0 (1) OWNER: Parr. -- Adlreee er CL 40 (2) LOCATION OF W ELL: Canty _ -- w t r_SL ut SsC,YT '1 aN.R� M p (21) STREET ADDRESS OF WELL for nearest address/ 3 w Aq 61'1 d (3) PROPOSED USE: 0 Dornosbc IndWbiel I, Municipal ❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION ❑ Irrigation _._ UI [I D•WatM Test Wes [IOther 7-1Formation:Describe by dinar,character.slxe of material and structure and snow nesf of squtfen and the kind arhd nature of ere mamial in each fhrstum persetrated.with at lase orte erlby her each (4) TYPE OF WORK: Gwwrs number of wait charge of information. - (If more than one) INATENAL FROM C Abandoned I Now well is Method. Dug❑ Bored I) — 0 Dttsponed C Caused DrWan❑ A a e aID dlaak AN" C Reoatdreoned C Rotary❑ Jeaed❑ t N (5) DIMENSIONS: Diameter of wen -6 inches. � a� :. t� ' Dulled tea tsar. Depth of competed wall 110 h. _r (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: p.4 4/1 gape Tr 2 y L �,a L 4 D CCoaft Inewood: claim.from -� It.to L D?r 4_.n• Wed Dlem.from n.to n. Linst installed = Ttxoaded O Diem.from Is E ` ''wioratis : Yes ❑ No 2 u aZ,��•�'••7i — 'r' 42 rL9 0 Type of pedorstor used _-..- •L L SIZE of pedorstione _ --_ - in.by In. perforations from ft.to h. perforations from_� n.to n. perforations from h.to h. 0 smarms: Yes I9 No❑ _-- 4) manufacturer's Name 0-'o0 k jy ,y ps `is CI t< / e! tin-I Mo"No. -�:f Diann Y_Slot size i! 0 from l/Q n.to/07.9 n. - AS = Diam. —_SNt size— from ft to h. iGravel packed:: Yee❑ No Size of grave, Gavel placed from ft.to ft 7 C� Surface steel: Yes A No❑ To what depth?_�, fJ h al MalloW used in"M O z Dhd any seen comam~me wirer+ Yes ❑ Nm� barn w —� - — — Type of water? Depth W onta flAephod of asaning swam tN1 _.__.___ (7) PUMP: Manufacturer's Nance y�I1 Type: _H.P.. O (8) WATER LEVELS: rand serfeoe d4"o'o^ wa+srartert�711J L'! t9 Co - +r to�g above mean sea Ievvi h V Statc level �• .._ - a.Oefow top of was Dave _ -$ Arias an pressure _ _ _ _ _ 4N.por Square neh Doe WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION: �� ar+eswn.aterracAneoaedby — I constructed and/or accept responsibility for eortsiruction of this well,and its 0 (cap.valve.etc. compliance with all Washington well constnxtioh standards.Materials used and rf.f (9) WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is hpwered below static level the rtfonnation reporled above are true to my best knowledge and ballet a Was a pump test made?Yes � ❑ No❑ It yes.by whom? NAME C r C 4`/ n / I//r Yield- gal.,mkh.with fl Mawdown aher fire- I I L�f £ c �� r rr Addra�l I a v - CL 57 Recovery data(time taken as zero when pump turned off)(ware isval measuraf from well (��) twsu I ��' �0 Q top to wet*level) Te"a Water Level Time Water Level Time Water Level 4) ccrNraddn'• _ - - Replatratlon �j No. L� qaN �~��d t9 — (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) gate or test sister teat_ZQ oaf,min.with it.drawdown ails,_ — trs. Anneal go./rrwn.with Stem set of h.tax Ids. Eoology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer.For SW Aneslan flow _g.p.m. Date cial accommodation needs,contact the Water Resources Program at(205) Temperature of water Was a chamlcal one"[$made' Yee❑ No❑ 407-55W.The TOO number is(206)407.6006, ECY 050•1•20 f9w)''t File Department and Ecology Copy with WATER WELL REPORT $'•"°itl No 034806 DpartmMt of Ecology Second Copy-Owner's Copy STATE OF WASHMIGTOH Third Copy-Oriser's Copy Water RIpM PernNl No. 00 (1) OWNER: Name DaY ___ Adder... E8050 ft 106_Union 98592 CL W (2) LOCATION OF WELL: County Mason __._- Gov. Lot 3 %SE ll Sac 34 T---22—M.,RA—W.M. (2a) STREET AODDRESS OF WELL(r nearest address) (3) PROPOSED USE: ® Domestic industrial ❑ Municipal❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCNPT10N ❑ Irrigation 'A O DsWsfer Toot Well 17 Other ❑ Fdrlrullan Describe by color. character, auto a manurial Well nrslre ee, and show thickne so of agslNrs and the kind sad asters of the materrl in sect etnirlum pwwhned. +'t (4) TYPE OF WORK: Owner's number of wall wail at least one at"for each change of bile matron. (it more Men one) NATel AL IItgM TO 0 Abandoned D New well Ll Method: Dug ❑ Bored ❑ Deepened I Cable x Driven ❑ 0 Reconditioned❑ Rotary❑ Jetted ❑ +' (5) DIMENSIONS: Dianislsr of wall 6 inches. --- - tD Drilled_-9_1__feet. Depth of completed well 99 t1. E (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: !t a __v 1 th water 4 94 C Casing Installed: 6 • Clam.from_0h.to pp''.. ft. - w Liar installad El arded ClDiam.tram n.to n. L d.i Threaded ❑ Dlam.from n.to n. T -` QPerforations: Yes_. N.0 -. -_. ----- ----.-. Type ofperforetr urea 1 V SIZE ofparfmations In.by In. tFY pedrstions from ft.to h. perforations from R-to ft. perfrallons from N.to ft. Screens: You No blsnufaetvrr's Name Cook i..E Type Stainleng e N n! Model Dram. 5f l Slot size 50 M, Q1, -h.to 99 h. Dism. Slot eze hom n.to-"- Gravel packed: Yea Lj N"Lj era of grave SOrevst placed from It,to Slufaceseal: Yesl� No❑ Towhatdepth? �$ M- O material Used in"M RPtO Tte - 'L Did any strata oostaln unuubM water! Yas❑ No ' H Type of water? Depth of shots Method of seating strata off ' 0 (7) PUMP: mmnufaclurweNome MTPYS - Typo: sub. N.P. - (8► WATER LEVELS: ab veroomoad NNIn n. 0 static level 33 h.below lop of well Date ---- -- W Artestanproesure Ibs.per square inch Date-- 4- Artesian wet-Is controaed by p,v.l 0 ve.Me. Work started Ill. Completed te�g 4.0 (9) WELL TESTS: Drawdow.is s I water level Is lowered below static level was a pump ten made?Yes❑ No p yes,by whom? WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION: Yield: pal.roe.aAM h.dr•eldown ear trs. I constructed and/or accept reaponeibility for Coilatructlon of this well, .lei and its compliance with all Washington well construction standards. k" Materials used and the inlormetion reported above are true to my best CL Reeovary date(lime taken as zero when pump armed tiff)(water level measuredknowledge and belief. from well lop to water level) 0 T,me W.t.,t.ev.l Ti.. W.rarL.•.1 Time WaiwLwN Day1S_ Drllline NAME a (PEASow,FFw�c COPWORATION) ITYK OR PMT) 528 F. Address C� note of fee-- t/ �-/� 0797 {Signed) --License No. Bailer test— 8 gel.tmn.with 50 h.drewdown after 1_tRa. (WELL DMLLEM Contractor's Airteat gel.rmin.with atom set et ft.for hat. Registration No. DAVT_gNrl69W Date kllT 1g�9 Artesian q.p.m. Date Tamporsturs of water ___ Watt a chemical analysis meda? Yea❑ No El (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF !NECESSARY) ECYOW-120 (10,67) •1321s- 44W3 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project : Kamin Datafile: downslope dynamic Bishop STABLE Version 9.03.00u Bishop TITLE downslope dynamic UNITS (Metric/Imperial) - I GEOMETRY DEFINITION POINTS NO. X Y 1 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 -4.000 3 52.000 54.000 4 52.000 50.000 5 178.000 94.000 6 178.000 90.000 7 17.800 18.480 8 25.290 26.270 9 32.790 34.050 10 40.280 41.830 11 47.780 49.620 12 55.270 55.040 13 62.770 57.420 14 70.260 59.800 15 77.760 62.180 16 85.250 64.560 17 92.750 66.940 18 100.240 69.310 19 107.740 71.690 20 115.230 74.070 21 122.730 76.450 22 130.220 78.830 23 137.720 81.210 24 145.210 83.590 25 152.710 85.970 26 160.200 88.350 LINES Lo X Hi X SOIL 1 3 1 3 5 1 2 4 2 4 6 2 SOILS SOIL NAME LINETYPE-PEN COHESION FRICTION UNIT WT. 1 Soil-1 CONTINUOUS-BLACK 100.00 34.0 134.000 2 Soil-2 CONTINUOUS-BLUE 200.00 38.0 140.000 STABLE02002 MZ Associates Ltd Printed on: 26107= 13:33:20 Page: STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project : Kamin Datafile: downslope dynamic Bishop PORE PRESSURE SPECIFICATION SOIL P1ELO RU EXCESS Y/N/P Value Value 1 N 0.000 0.000 2 N 0.000 0.000 PIE20METRIC SURFACE POINT POINT PORE PRESSURES POINT PRESSURE SLIP DIRECTION (+/- X) - SLIP-CIRCLES AUTOMATIC Circle Centre Grid Extremities 236.400 + + 17.800 + # 160.200 + # ++*+*#+aaa+a#++ 94.000 X spacing -- no. of cols (max 10)- 10 Y spacing -- no. of rows (max 20)= 20 Grid 1 Circles through point 7 Grid 2 Circles through point 8 Grid 3 Circles through point 9 Grid 4 Circles through point 10 Grid 5 Circles through point 11 Grid 6 Circles through point 12 Grid 7 Circles through point 13 Grid 8 Circles through point 14 Grid 9 Circles through point 15 Grid 10 Circles through point 16 Grid 11 Circles through point 17 Grid 12 Circles through point 18 Grid 13 Circles through point 19 Grid 14 Circles through point 20 Grid 15 Circles through point 21 Grid 16 Circles through point 22 Grid 17 Circles through point 23 Grid 18 Circles through point 24 STABLEID2002 MZ Associates Ltd Printed on: 2610 = !13:33:20 Page: 2 1 1 . 00 1- 1- 0 1 . 2 0 1 . 3 0 1 . 4 0 1 _ 5 0 1 . 6 0 1 . 7 O 180 1 . 9 0 2 . 00 Proj ect Kamirn D a t a f i 1 e d owns l o p e d y n a m i c Arial-ysis Bishop 9TAMLM-2 0 0 2 MZ As s ool ai ss M—1 1 _ 00 1 _ 10 1 . 2 0 1 _ 3 0 1 . 40 1 _ 5 0 1 _ 60 1 _ 7 0 1 . 80 1 . 90 2 _ O 0 620 Project Kamiri ID tafile ciowrislope static An a 1 y s i s _ B i s h o p SW"MM,2002 MS A=—=IMtft/ Ltd 1 . 00 1 0 1 _ 0 1 _ 0 1 _ 4 0 1 _ 50 1 _ 6 1 _ 7 1 _ 80 1 _ 90 -2 _ 0 _ 107 Proj ect Kamiri DataE:L-L dynamic Arialysis Bishop 6TASLE—2 O O 2 MS Aa...t at e i L to 00 Z _ 0 i _ 0 Z _ 0 1 _ 40 11- 50 1 _ 6 1 . 7 1 _ 90 2 _ 0 625 P r o j e c t K a m m Datafile static Analysis Bishop STADLID�-2002 MS AssoCiataa Lttl r APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 2'x2' WOOD POST (TYP) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAP AROUND TRENCH OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH TO AT LEAST ENTIRE Q 6 FT MAX. O.C, r 0.5 FT BOTTOM OF TRENCH �f— 6 FT I T11 BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR 12' DEEP, 6' VIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER EXISTING FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2' T GROUND SURFACE 2T WASHED GRAVEL i `; 1 2.5 FT 12' DEEP, 8' WIDE DIRECTION OF r EXISTING TRENCH FILLED WITH 1 T WATER FLOW GROUND SURFACE 3/4' TO 1 1/2' 2.S FT 12' WASHED GRAVEL T 2.3 FT BOTTOM EXTENTS OF cri7 FENCE - "TAIL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC N.T.S. SILT FENCE - CR Sc cECTION N.T.S. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES, GENERAL NOTES- SOD PLACEMENT 1. SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON 1. SOD FOR GRASS SWALES SHALL BE MACHINE CUT AT A THESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR 3/4-INCH UNIFORM THICKNESS AT THE TIME OF CURING. SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES, MEASUREMENTS FOR THICKNESS SHALL EXCLUDE TOP GROWTH AND 2. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE THATCH. INSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED, IF NECESSARY, 2. STANDARD SIZE SECTIONS OF SOD FOR GRASS SWALES SHALL 3, ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE LEFT IN BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN WEIGHT AND RETAIN PLACE UNTIL THE UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. THEIR SIZE AND SHAPE WHEN SUSPENDED BY THE END OF A 3 FOOT SECTION. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES- 3. SOD FOR GRASS SWALES SHALL NOT BE HARVESTED OR TRANSPLANTED WHEN EXCESSIVELY DRY OR WET MOISTURE FOR ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED LAND CONTENT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS SURVIVAL. DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A 4. SOD FOR GRASS SWALES SHALL BE HARVESTED, DELIVERED PERIOD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE AND PLACED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 36 HOURS. IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR. GRASS SEEDING SEEDING FOR RAW SLOPES ALONE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER. HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF 1, BEFORE SEEDING, INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR, BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR DIKES, OR OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT, SWALES, LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS. 2. THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE, DRY SEASON (MAY 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 30) -- THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING SURFACE ROUGHENING, PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER, MUST BE LIMITED TO ACCROSS OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE, ONLY AS MUCH LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE 3, SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS, AS SHOWN BELOW, AND SHOULD BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 120 POUNDS PER ACRE. BY NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 OF A GIVEN YEAR, UNLESS IMMEDIATE 4, SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN MAY 1 AND OCTOBER 31 WILL STABILIZATION IS SPECIFIED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, ALL REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO AREAS CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED FOSTER AND PROTECT THE ROOT STRUCTURE. THROUGH THE USE OF MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, 5, SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 30, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., BY SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED ARMORING OF THE SEED BED WILL BE NECESSARY, (e.g., PLAN OF ACTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, GEOTEXTILES, JUTE MAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING), FERTILIZING AND MULCHING OF CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE 6. FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING TO SUPPLIERS' PERFORMED DURING THE FOLLOWING PERIODS, MARCH 1 TO MAY 15, AND AUGUST 15 TO RECOMMENDATIONS. AMOUNTS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED, ESPECIALLY OCTOBER 1. SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER 1 WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS, OF THE PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVIROMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE TO SATISFACTORY GROWTH. IN THE EVENT THAT PERANENT STABILIZATION IS NOT USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSION POSSIBLE, AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF GROUND COVER, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, CONTROL, OR A COUNTY APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTURE. PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED BY NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30. PROPORTIONS PURITY GERMINATION IN THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT NAME BY WEIGHT (Y) (%> ACTIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE <%) OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL EROSIENJ AND SEDIMENT C13NTROL FACILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORM EVENTS, AND AT REDTOP (AGROSTIS ALBA) 10 92 LEAST ONCE EVERY WEEK. THE OVNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 90 THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. ANNUAL RYE <LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) 40 98 WET SEASON90(OCTOBER 1 TH2U APRIL 30) -- ON SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED CHEWING FESUE 40 97 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS, THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE 80 REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER, SHALL BE LIMITED (FESTUCA RUBRA COMMUTATA) TO AS MUCH LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS IN (JAMESTOWN, BANNER, SHADOW, KOKET) THE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 96 TRANSPORT OFF-SITE IS OBSERVED. 90 (TRIFOLIUM REPENS) ALL CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC MULCHING SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED IF NOT BEING ACTIVELY WORKED. 1. MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE WOOD SILT FENCING, SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, ETC., WILL NOT BE VIEWED AS FIBER CELLULOSE, AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1000 ADEQUATE COVER IN AND OF THEMSELVES. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT POUNDS PER ACRE, BEING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY 2, MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED STABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 2,1 (HORIZONTAL,VERTICAL), THE SITE, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL 3. MULCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING 132 IN IMMEDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFOREMENTIONED LAND AREA HAS BEEN AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON, ALL APPROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED. AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SHALL BE COVERED BY NOVEMBER 1. SILT FENCE PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, 1. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SHALL BE PER SPECIFIED IN THE 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR 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 KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC TOGETHER 13NLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT PARCEL 32234 44 00010 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 SPACING. 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 5. WIRE MESH SHALL BE 2'X2'X14 GAUGE OR EQUIVALENT. THE WIRE MESH MAY BE ELIMINATED IF 74 NE HURD ROAD EXTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC (MONOFILAMENT), AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED. BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 6. A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE 360-275-9374 POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE SILT FENCE, 7. SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DUWNSLI3PE FROM THE CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. ER❑SI❑N CONTROL J APPENDIX F DRAINAGE DETAILS STEEL CLAMPS (TYP) 10 FT MIN SPACING 1/2 INCH DIAMETER CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE SECURELY FASTENED TO PIPE 6-INCH MIN, DIAMETER 8-12 INCH QUARRY SPALL OR APPROVED ENERGY DISSIPATOR LEVEL SECTION TWO 3-FOOT °0°0000000°000° ANCHORS CTYP), 00000 0:)00000000 I FT MIN, M4 REBAR OR o000000000000 EQUIVALENT 3 FT MIN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TIGHTLINE DETAILS - OPTION 1 N.T.S. FINAL GROUND SURFACE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAPPED AROUND QUARRY SPALL CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE 8-12 INCH QUARRY SPALL OR 6-INCH MIN, DIAMETER APPROVED INFILTRATION MEDIA Y.O. 00000000000 0 o00000000000 1 FT M� 0000000000000 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DETAILS - OPTION 2 NOTEi N.T.S. INFILTRATION FACILITY COMPONENTS AND SIZE MAY NEED TO BE DETERMINED BY A DRAINAGE ENGINEER AND/ OR PREVAILING GOVERNMENT AGENCY, PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT KAMIN PROPERTIES, LLC PARCEL 32234 44 00010 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ENGINEER, ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 DRAINAGE DETAILS