Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GEO2012-00021 Landslide Repair - GEO Geological Review - 4/12/2012
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#: ✓ ''/ � Parcel#: _3 3/ 9- .2 3 -eeti-l;., -Oc , •• 1�f -0e" Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: 1. (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? ` Comment: (b) A discus sign of specific soil types OK? '( � Comment: (c) A discussio of ground water conditions OK? Comment: (d) A discussio of the upslope geomorphology OK? _Comment: (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands OK? Comment: (f) A discuss i of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records OK? Comment: 2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features. OK?_,.ZComment: 3. Locations nd logs of exploratory holes or probes. OK? 7 Comment: 4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. OK? c__ Comment: 5. A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. OK? ✓ Comment: 6. A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1 and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. OK? t - Comment: 7. (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features OK? 1 Comment: (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields OK? Comment: (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings. OK? r f Comment: Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. OK? `� Comment: (e) Recommen ed setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. OK? Comment: 8. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. OK? ✓ Comment: 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. OK? L-' Comment: 10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. OK? i- Comment: 11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. OK? Comment: 12. Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. OK? Comment: 13. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and,proposed development on the site. OK? � Comment.- Are the Documents signed and stamped? ✓ By whom? License#: License type: FIRST REVIEW Approved ❑ Need more info. If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by fCLGJ on . Time spent in review: SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by , on . Time spent in second review: THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by , on . Time spent in third review: Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Q' > Lilliwaup Falls Power Project 3131 ;? 3 oo�ov Geotechnical Report for the Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs April 12, 2012 Prepared by: E ngineers/Consultants Jacobs Associates 1109 First Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98101 Distribution o: William G. Reed,Jr. Lilliwaup Falls Generating Co. Craig Norsen Seneca Group From: Frank Pita, P.E., L.H.G. Jacobs Associates Prepared By: Sue Bednarz, L.G. Jacobs Associates Frank Pita, P.E.,L.H.G. Jacobs Associates Maureen Kwolek,P.E. Jacobs Associates Reviewed By: Frank Pita, P.E.,L.H.G. Jacobs Associates .w 17522 r „ Jacobs Associates -ii- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Overview In January 2006,a landslide destroyed a portion of the concrete flume that conveys water from the intake to the penstock of the Lilliwaup hydroelectric facility,a privately-owned hydroelectric generating plant located on Lilliwaup Creek, Mason County. Specifically,a 100-foot long section of flume between the gate house transition at the end of an upstream tunnel and the top of the penstock was removed by the slide. The portion of the rectangular concrete flume that remains has deteriorated and is no longer suitable for water conveyance;therefore it will be replaced as well. Photograph 1 is an annotated panoramic view of the landslide area as of today and it shows the ends of the existing flume. Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map of the project area. Following the landslide, flows were no longer conveyed to the powerhouse and power generation ceased. The proposed project"Lilliwaup Falls Power Project-Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs,"will restore hydropower generation at the Lilliwaup hydroelectric facility by stabilizing the near vertical slopes of the slide area by filling in the area that slid away. This new fill will support a new conveyance pipeline that replaces the old concrete flume,as well as support a new access road to the intake area. The other components of the hydroelectric system will remain and the intent, as we understand it, is to operate the facility as before. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical report includes the following: • Identify site conditions related to slope stability including landslide activity and surface and subsurface conditions including soil,rock and groundwater levels. • Evaluate the landslide mechanism and slope stability through field data, laboratory testing,and engineering analysis. • Provide geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for the following repair tasks: o stabilizing the landslide area, o constructing a mechanically stabilized earth(MSE)retaining wall system near the toe of the slide to support the new conveyance pipeline and stabilize the face of the fill, o constructing a groundwater intake and control system beneath the new retaining wall system and the fill being placed to restore the hillside,and o constructing and burying the new conveyance pipeline between the gatehouse transition and the screen house. This report provides the geotechnical recommendations for earthwork construction,as well. Jacobs Associates -1- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 2 Site Conditions The following is a summary of site conditions within the project area including topography, geomorphology, geology,and information on landslide activity in the vicinity of the town of Lilliwaup. 2.1 Topography and Geomorphology The project site is located along Lilliwaup Creek in the northwest quarter of Section 19, T 23 N, R 3 W (WM)in Lilliwaup, Washington. The landslide,which ranges in width from 80 to 150 feet, is located on the north canyon wall of Lilliwaup Creek between approximately El. 420 feet and creek level at approximately El. 230 feet. The landslide has a slope angle ranging from approximately 2H:1 V (Horizontal : Vertical)along the bottom, increasing in steepness up to the upper limits(headscarp)where the slopes are near vertical. Figures 3 and 4 show the Site Plan and Geologic Profile Through the Landslide, respectively,with the topography,clearing limits,and geology included. Upslope of the landslide, the ground surface forms a gently sloping bench where the access road to the intake area is currently located. The site is forested with conifer trees with scattered maples and alder beyond the limits of the landslide. No wetlands or standing water are located anywhere within the project limits. The coarse natural sandy soil drains downward quickly and it does not retard or hold moisture. 2.2 Geology The project area is located in the Hood Canal area of the Western Puget Lowland of northwestern Washington. Both alpine glaciers from the Olympic Mountains and continental glaciers coming down from Canada covered the Hood Canal area and deposited glacial sediments on top of the preexisting ground surface. Within the project area,Vashon-age continental glacial deposits mantle the preexisting irregular topography carved into the underlying basalt bedrock of the Crescent Formation. Glacial sediments in the project area include(from oldest to youngest)Advance Outwash Deposits,Glacial Till, and Recessional Outwash/Ablation Till. Both the Advance Outwash Deposits and Glacial Till were over- ridden by the Vashon ice sheet and are therefore dense and overconsolidated. The Recessional Outwash Deposit/Ablation Till is less dense and is normally consolidated. Project area glacial sediments mantle the irregular basalt erosional surface. The landslide that destroyed the concrete flume is located within the glacial sediments. A thin layer of alluvium overlies the basalt bedrock and glacial deposits in the vicinity of Lilliwaup Creek beyond the limits of the landslide. Figure 2 depicts a geologic map of the Lilliwaup area showing bedrock outcrops and glacial units. Figures 3 and 4 show the site specific geology of the slide area and is a product of the site mapping. 2.3 Local Landslide Activity The steep slopes underlain by glacial deposits in the vicinity of the Lilliwaup area are a common host for landslides,especially after episodes of prolonged and significant rainfall. Figure 2 shows the locations of mapped landslides in the vicinity of the project area. The failure mechanism for the majority of these slides is thought to be a reduction of the stability of glacial soil due to the development of perched groundwater on top of an aquitard such as glacial till or bedrock(Shipman, 2001). Jacobs Associates -2- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 3 Site Investigations Site investigations for the Lilliwaup Falls Power Project included both surface geologic mapping of the landslide area and a subsurface geotechnical investigation that included drilling five(5)borings in the vicinity of the landslide. The purpose of these investigations was to characterize surface and subsurface conditions to provide input for landslide mitigation design. 3.1 Geologic Mapping On February 24 and 25,2006, surface geologic mapping was conducted in the vicinity of the landslide to identify soil and rock units,delineate the limits of the landslide,and identify locations of groundwater seepage and springs. Locations and elevations of geologic features were estimated using a handheld laser rangefinder,clinometers,and compass. Site geology was recorded on a site plan and cross sections were developed that identify geologic contacts and estimated groundwater levels. This earlier data was combined with recent geologic mapping in 2012. A summary of this information,along with published data, is presented on Figures 3 and 4 and is discussed in Section 4 of this report. 3.2 Subsurface Investigation In 2006 five borings(MP-1 through MP-5)were drilled above the headscarp of the landslide and along the existing intake access road to obtain information on subsurface conditions, including soil engineering properties,depth to bedrock,and groundwater levels. The boring locations are shown on Figure 3 and boring logs are included in Appendix A. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 9 feet to 95 feet using solid stem auger drilling methods and a track-mounted drill rigoperated b Holocene Drilling of Puyallup, Washin on. Each boring was P Y ggt g advanced through glacial soils down to basalt bedrock. Two of the borings were installed with standpipe piezometers to permit groundwater level monitoring. Borehole soils were logged by a geotechnical engineer. Soil samples were collected during drilling for possible laboratory testing. 3.3 Laboratory Testing Three grain size distribution tests were performed by Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc.,on selected borehole samples for soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of site soils. The borehole glacial soils included well-graded to poorly-graded gravel with silt and sand(GW-GM to GP- GM),silty sand with gravel(SM),and well-graded sand with gravel(SW). This data from 2006 is presented after the boring logs in Appendix A. While exploring the surface of the landslide in 2012,two surficial samples were collected and analyzed in the laboratory by Kleinfelder, Inc., for grain size distribution to aid in the design of the groundwater collection and intake system. The groundwater system design is discussed in Section 5.4 of this report and the data is presented in Appendix C. Jacobs Associates -3- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 4 Subsurface Conditions The following discussions of the estimated subsurface conditions within the landslide area are based on surface and subsurface conditions identified during the geotechnical investigation and published geologic mapping. 4.1 Rock (Ev.) Basalt bedrock of the Crescent Formation(geologic map symbol Eve)was encountered in the project borings and is exposed along the east flank of the landslide,along the Lilliwaup Creek canyon walls and underlies the falls(Contreras and others,2010). The basalt within the project area is relatively unweathered,strong,and relatively resistant to erosion. The upper surface of the basalt bedrock controls both the location of the falls and constrains groundwater movement. Basalt bedrock underlies the glacial sediments in the project area and is not expected to be susceptible to slope failures. The location of basalt bedrock in the project area is shown on Photograph 1 and Figures 2, 3,and 4. Basalt bedrock was encountered at variable depths within the project borings, indicating the presence of an irregular erosional upper contact. Figure 4 shows the estimated location of basalt bedrock along the axis of the landslide. 4.2 Soil The project area is underlain by glacial soils including Advance Outwash Deposits,Glacial Till,and Recessional Outwash/Ablation Till. Alluvial soils are present in the vicinity of Lilliwaup Creek, but are not located within the planned landslide repair. Figures 3 and 4 show the mapped locations of the glacial soil units within the project area. 4.2.1 Advance Outwash Deposits (Qva, Qgo) Advance Outwash Deposits(geologic map symbol Qva or Qgo)overlie the basalt in the vicinity of the project area. These deposits consist of dense, stratified,well-graded sand with gravel, sand with gravel and cobbles,and poorly graded fine and medium sand. The silt content is generally low(less than 5 to 10 percent). The Qva soil is overconsolidated and relatively strong. Qva soils are exposed along the headscarp and flanks of the landslide. The landslide failure surface appears to be located within Qva soil. 4.2.2 Glacial Till (Qvt, Qgt) Glacial Till(geologic map symbol Qvt or Qgt)overlies the Qva in the vicinity of the project area and is exposed along the landslide headscarp above the Qva. Glacial Till consists of dense,unstratified, silty sand with gravel. The Qvt is an overconsolidated soil that is relatively strong and has a low hydraulic conductivity(permeability). The Qvt is expected to act as an aquitard to rainwater infiltration and limit groundwater flow into the underlying Qva unit. Jacobs Associates -4- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 4.2.3 Recessional Outwash/Ablation Till (Qvr, Qgr) Recessional Outwash/Ablation Till(geologic map symbol Qvr or Qgr)overlies the Qvt in the vicinity of the landslide. Qvr consists of well graded sand with gravel and gravel with sand. The Qvr is exposed in the upper part of the landslide headscarp and flanks and is also exposed in road cuts above the slide. The Qvr is relatively permeable and permits rainwater runoff infiltration. Perched groundwater levels are expected to form in the Qvr on top of the relatively impermeable Qvt soil layer. 4.3 Groundwater Groundwater in the project area is derived from infiltration of precipitation and access road runoff into permeable Qvr and less permeable Qva aquifers. Leakage from the existing concrete flume may also have locally increased project area groundwater levels. Following infiltration, groundwater migrates downslope toward Lilliwaup Creek within Qvr and Qva along aquitards formed by relatively impermeable Qvt soil and basalt bedrock, respectively. During significant rainfall events, perched groundwater is expected to form within the Qvr and Qva units, reducing the stability of this unit in slopes. Groundwater movement within the Qva is most likely played a key role in triggering the landslide. Shortly after the January 2006 landslide, abundant groundwater was observed exiting the east side of the landslide scarp as springs that were located at the vertical contact between the Qva soil and basalt bedrock. Concurrently, seepage was also observed within the landslide mass above the original flume crossing. Although the springs in the landslide scarp are no longer visible, minor seeps within the landslide mass are still present at approximately El. 290 feet(shown on Figure 4). The presence of seeps within the landslide is assumed to be associated with the presence of an aquitard within the Qva that causes the groundwater to exit the slope at this location. Groundwater levels within glacial soils above the landslide headscarp were measured in borehole MP-1 at El. 324 feet in April 2006 and El. 329 feet in both October 2011 and March 2012. A groundwater level of El.290 within the slide mass is estimated based on seeps issuing from the slide mass. Groundwater levels on the intake access road to the east of the landslide were measured at El. 327.5 in October 2011 and 329 in March 2012. Jacobs Associates -5- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 5 Engineering Analysis Discussion & Recommendations The following is a discussion of the engineering analysis and evaluations conducted for the landslide and conveyance pipe repairs. 5.1 Landslide Failure Mechanism Discussion The most likely cause of the landslide was high groundwater levels that reduced both the effective strength of slope soils and the stability of the slope. Winter rainfall and road runoff that was directed into the landslide area,down slope groundwater movement within the Qva and Qvr aquifers,and possible leakage from holes in the existing concrete flume are all thought to have contributed to the location and severity of the January 2006 landslide. The remaining exposed flume section located directly east of the landslide shows at least three holes,numerous cracks, and degraded(spalled)concrete that are assumed to be typical of the flume within the landslide prior to its destruction. As discussed in Section 4,both the Glacial Till(Qvt)layer and Basalt are expected to act as aquitards within the slope. Infiltration of surface water is expected to have been restricted by these units causing elevated(perched)groundwater to form in the Qvr and Qva which reduced the effective strength of the soil and destabilized the slope. The landslide failure surface appears to be located within the Qva layer. 5.2 Repair Design Approach & Stability Analysis The repair approach for the landslide area is a combination of the following: • Control the seeping groundwater at the base so it does not affect the stability in the future. • Construct a retaining type structure that uses the onsite material but does not encroach to the creek's edge. • Grade the oversteepened upper portion of the slide to a stable slope angle, and use the excavated material for fill. • Relocate the access roadway since the proposed grading would remove its current location. • Construct a bench for the new water conveyance pipeline,which will be buried so it is protected from damage. • Hydroseed the exposed areas as soon as the grading is complete. • Revegetate the exposed area with trees, shrubs and groundcover that is native to the area. To decide on the final configuration of the interior support of the wall and the fill mass a slope stability analysis was performed using"Slide"computer software by RocScience. The proposed landslide repair mass area was evaluated for slope stability(shear failure)under both static and dynamic loads. Input parameters for stability modeling, stability sections through the center of the landslide,and software calculations are included in Appendix B. The County's input parameters were used for the earthquake horizontal loading. The slope geometry for the stability analysis includes the following proposed repairs: • Installing perforated under drains(french)behind(upslope)of the wall to control groundwater levels and to convey it to below the toe of the new structure. Jacobs Associates -6- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 f Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs • Regarding the landslide mass and area above the landslide headscarp(as shown in Figures 3 and 4)to a 2H:V slope to improve slope stability. A 2H to IV slope angle is a typical stable slope for cuts and fills in sand and gravel units. • Approximately half way up the slope is a proposed maintenance road,which during construction, will be used to deliver materials and construction staging. After construction,this road will seldom be used except for maintenance vehicles accessing the intake area. The roadway will be ditched so that rainwater is conveyed to the side in a controlled manner. • Constructing a 60-foot high mechanically stabilized earth(MSE)retaining wall to support the repaired flume. The wall will consist of welded wire reinforcement mats and wire facing at a 0.5H:1V slope. The corrosion-resistant reinforcement mats extend in 40-foot lengths behind the facing and are layered in 2-foot lifts with the compacted backfill from the re-graded landslide mass. The foundation of the wall will be constructed on solid,competent ground which will be inspected by the Resident Engineer of the project. • Construction of a 48-inch diameter conveyance pipeline located above the welded wire retaining wall. This pipe will be covered with a minimum of P to 2' of fill. Based on the results of the slope stability analysis,the completed landslide repair will have a factor of safety of 1.5 under static conditions and 1.1 under dynamic conditions. 5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Wall Design Parameters The same eotechnical parameters used in the stability analysis and resented in Appendix B were given g P ,h' Y P PP to the Hilfiker design staff for their use for the internal design of the MSE wall design. The `global' stability,presented in section 5.2,was performed by JA. 5.4 Groundwater Control / Drainage Intake Sizing The installation of under drains behind the proposed retaining wall was evaluated and selected as the optimum method to control groundwater levels and flow from the slope behind the wall. The location of these drains should be in the base of the slide cavity and they need to extend up the hill as far as the surveyed seepage from the hillside. The discharge end must be below the toe of the retaining wall system. To intercept and bring the water into a perforated pipe system,the most straight forward approach is by excavating and installing at least three `slot' trench drains. The `slot' drains should be installed parallel to the direction of landslide movement and of sufficient depth to intersect and divert groundwater. The first `slot' drain should be sub-parallel to the basalt bedrock cropping out beneath the Gate House on the western aspect of the landslide. The trenches for the `slot' drain should have a trapezoidal shape. The temporary side walls should meet OSHA requirements for excavations. The landslide soils are composed of granular gravels and sands originating from the glacial deposits above and meet the OSHA classification of Type C soils. Therefore, slope the side walls to an angle not steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical(34 degrees measured from the horizontal). Depth of the `slot' drains should be at least five feet deep and intercept the Jacobs Associates -7- Rev. No.0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs piezometric surface of the groundwater. Ideally the bottom of the `slot' drain should extend to bedrock. The other drains should parallel the primary `slot' drain about every 15 to 20 feet to the east. The exact location should be field controlled by the Resident Engineer. On 12 March 2012,JA collected two samples of the landslide material to evaluate the physical characteristics and grain size distribution. The landslide material consists of non-plastic, sub-rounded well graded gravels and gravely silts(GW-GM)and non-plastic well graded sand(SW).Analytical results for the sieve analysis for the drainage sizing are presented in Appendix C. The hydraulic conductivity of the material was estimated using the Hazen method to be about 0.14 cm/sec. Assuming an average effective porosity for the glacial deposit of 25%and a slope of 0.3,the average linear velocity of the groundwater in these deposits is about 0.21 cm/sec or 0.4 ft/min(see calculations in Appendix Q. The sand and gravel on site may be used for a natural drain. Based on the sieve analysis,the drain rock should meet the following grain size specifications: all less than 3inch down to 3/8d'inch,nothing smaller than 3/8t'inch. (see Appendix C for estimate procedure for drain material). The material should be sieved on site using a Grizzly Sieve with screens to separate out the 3-inch plus and the 3/8-inch minus material. It is recommended that two redundant drain pipes be laid parallel to each other(about 1 to 1.5 feet apart) at the bottom of each of the slot trench drains. The slot drain pipes should meet the following specifications: 6-inch ID(inside diameter)Schedule 80 PVC drain pipe with '/< inch factory milled slots. Pipe shall be threaded or glued together. The solid pipe should extend beneath the proposed retaining wall toe. Discharge velocity into the slot drain is estimated at about 0.7 cm/sec or 1.4 ft/min. 5.5 New Conveyance Pipe Bedding The existing concrete flume was destroyed within the landslide and the remaining portion is in poor condition between the landslide and the Screen House(shown on Figure 3). Based on these conditions, it was recommended that a new 48-inch diameter HDPE conveyance pipe be installed between the Gate House transition on the west flank of the landslide and the Screen House. The pipe needs to be bedded in proper earth material; we recommend WSDOT Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding(9-03.12(3))or another material that meets the manufacturers recommendations. 5.6 Earthwork Compaction Control The site material, as can be seen in the photos and the grain size results,is almost entirely a coarse SAND and GRAVEL. As a result,because there are so few fines a moisture—density type test(Proctor) is not applicable to the material. Instead,the material must just be placed to a dense,non-yielding condition at the direction of the Resident Engineer. The lifts should be placed in a near horizontal condition and no thicker than 12 inches. Oversize rocks,greater than 6 inches in diameter, should be separated and moved to the toe of the retaining wall. This material should be stacked up to protect the toe from erosion. Jacobs Associates -8- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 6 References Contreras, T.A.,Legorreta Paulin,Gabriel,Czajkowski,J. L., Polenz,Michael,Logan,R.L.,Carson,R. J., Mahan, S.A.,Walsh, T.J.,Johnson,C.N., Skov,R. H.,2010,Geologic map of the Lilliwaup 7.5-minute quadrangle,Mason County,Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2010-4, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000,with 13 p.text. [http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_ofr2010-4_geol_map_lilliwaup_24k.zip] Shipman, H., 2001,Coastal Landsliding on Puget Sound: A review of landslides occurring between 1996 and 1999: Washington Department of Ecology Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Report#01-06-019,August,2001. Jacobs Associates -9- Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Photos & Figures Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 1 Landslide Headscarp � i ^.�- c.. kit �t>..�fi► '_.. - mil!• yy y A - `, Damaged Basalt s Concrete Outcrop _ 'J� •SIP' _ Z y �' , ya . _ -4; Flume at Gate ' Lilliwaup House Landslide is all I` .o-. ,_.,�,� IIr l rr r k r �,, lacial Sands &C ee Upper Transition r:s �t, } 9 - = Falls flowing Gravels over basalt a: 3 x � '^ � .. f ~ y§ ' ; z ,sut ��=^e�'`;' �-. ��le �t - .rr_".5._i _ � �'• x � _ `y.� �✓�- r K ! Id 7" IN •O _!,',< �. - <:�p.: t"_ � ,1 CY of � � � ..e�1 ~ter r'. ��; �• , � � yt '{�-:. � 1 K `It: ., •,"i -. _ 4'^,�` *l;C-v':�h^'f .s, Y,° �,� -g, , dril WIN p R _.�pfi f '•' - ` + ; _f ::; - y F .,ate'^? , � i.�G'' '�'�` Former flume ..' location (approx.) ��'.. _ - .�s ..! .i?r.• ;o+., � '`r*' -.'? .sc,���--> '?�7G� '..i d ..'�'�r> bVY� � E � S►�`-a�"Z"�:,a. r l` �,. J.�" i� ate ..•„�." '" ,y.- - t',-�����';'� i.\.."Vti' •� . Damaged - :�• �=���-�_ � ''� �{ � . __ -�• �� ,�' - Concrete Flume Photograph 1. View of the project area looking from the remaining section of the damaged concrete flume(bottom center), and the basalt outcrop along the upstream flank of the landslide scarp. A A' 45 50 APPROXIMATE CLEARING LIMIT BORING CUT MP-1 PROPOSED 10' 40 WIDE ACCESS 00 ROAD 2:1 SLOPE COLLECT AND CONTROL D 35 GROUNDWATER BENEATH 350 FILL FILL m m Qva o rn — < — 0 40' LONG 48"0 HDPE PIPE N o GEOGRIDS 4% y�� a' EL 316 ) w o WELDED WIRE RETAINING WALL EL310 _ ? N ISTING GRADEcli a 30 / 300 Q SEEP Y2H:1V SLOPECU / o TEMP 1:1 SLOPE FOR '� 7 a FOUNDATION w EXCAVATION ? of Z) LL E 25 L — �� Basalt) 250 c LILLIWAUP CREEK CHANNEL / � s U- F 7 7 O SV Ova LL z — �—? _f w U O 0 200+50 0+00 +00 3+0-1 �-- 4+50 0 a — co U LEGEND N Qvr=Recessional Outwash/Ablation Till m J 2 T Qvt=Glacial Till CL 3 . Ova=Advance Outwash Deposits ° J . Basalt=Basalt Bedrock of the Cresent � Know what's below. Formation N Call before you dig a 0 7 o Landslide Debris LILLIWAUP FALLS POWER PROJECT Figure U • • = GEOLOGIC PROFILE THROUGH N •a E ? Boundry is Approximate mco Engineers/Consultants AXIS OF LANDSLIDE W/ 4 I ^� 1109 First Avenue,Suite 501 Seattle,WA 98101-2963 � Note:Geologic contacts shown are approximate PROPOSED REPAIR m o_x Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Project Area 101 ,oD C,..,... R_d .N�doncr ii6wau• •f• "'lll••• . ='ore N 3 16 Bottaa Vasno Hoadipolt Island Purdy 7 atuya 106 Union Skokomisn $ya;l t 101 3 ;rYiir Tacoma • • SDanaway • 1-5 •J ssnaa 8 • Figure 1. Vicinity Map Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs JL Ic Qga gic Q ikQp QIs � ti, r 01 EVE 56, QgiC 7Q mt —?' �: 9 �Qgic1 ' . " .f it 00 Q I ':a ((fig, Qpd Qa gic Eve Qgikf OapoMI ` r ,� ---•--" -- t!l , Figure 2. Lilliwaup area geologic map showing Pr Ject area landslide located within the circle(aft er Contreras and others 2010). Note the presence of numerous other landslides(Qls)within glacial soils the Lilliwaup area. (See Section 4 in the text for a description of the geologic units within the project area.) Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 N 40 0 40 80 FEET LEGEND Qvr=Recessional Outwash/Ablation Till T . Qvt=Glacial Till . Qva=Advance Outwash Deposits 0 U E . Basalt=Basalt Bedrock of the Cresent Formation aLandslide Debris N WINTER CREEK c Landslide Limits N Cq Borehole Location n 16 Q m a Note:Geologic contacts shown are o approximate LU LL LLI It x !t LL E , m t� iI -+i �. (� uuiwe.oF LL / F 48"HDPEt Z U) INTAKE STRUCTURE — PE WILL . 1762 W W VG FLUME O, sl 'r O w 330 '�CNA}.�'�'. 0= / m — SCREEN HOUSE Q— t U.1 O LL 0 tY m EXISTING PENSTOCK mp vZ N Q LU �Y J W / o U =O aX , W a. 'OWERHOUSE 3¢ 1 J} / O LU v Know what's below. g Cal I before you dig. N O� 7� �Q E°� LILLIWAUP FALLS POWER PROJECT Figure Y- 3 c BOREHOLE SITE PLAN & ca GEOLOGIC MAP �m 0-X Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Appendix A 2006 Boring Logs and Laboratory Testing from Boreholes Jacobs Associates Rev. No. O/April 2012 Milbor,Pita DRILL HOLE LOG SOCIATES,INC. Boring No.: MP-1 Project: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Landslide Project No.: 1577 Client: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Date Drilled: 4-11-06 Location: Turnout at top of Slide Elevation: 415 Driller: Holocene Logged By: CAR Drill Rig: Track Rig Depth to Water: Date: 1-'4-12-06 Depth: 95' Date: Depth: Elevation Well r o m Test Results �Pm(Ft.) Detail �� co Description E z NM SNT Moisture Value SPT N-Value • 1 30 so ° tsm Loose to medium dense,brown,silly fine to = coarse SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL GM SM 400 - - 20 = - 380 - 40 Gm- Becoming denser 36o = = SM 80 = _ GM- SM 340 so GM- 32o SM GM- End of Hole at 95 ft depth. ' 100 SM 300 120 280 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as baing indicitive of the site. Figure PAGE 1 of 1 Milbor,Pita DRILL HOLE LOG &SSOUATES,INC. Boring No.: MP-2 Project: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Landslide Project No.: 1577 Client: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Date Drilled: 4-12-06 Location: 170ft down road from crest of hill towards intake structure. Elevation: 394 Driller. Holocene Logged By: CAR Drill Rig: Track Rig Depth to Water: Date: DNA Depth: Date: . Depth: Elevation u co T Test Results Well r- CL dFt. Detail J Value co Description Z NM SN Depth T Moisture p { 1 SPT N-Value • 10 30 50 ° SW Brown,fine to coare SAND and fine gravel. ,MM 390 5 .f: N , 385 ;1* 10 4. GW- End of Hole at 14 ft depth ' 3a° SW 15 375 20 370 25 365 30 360 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site. Figure PAGE 1 of 1 Milbor,Pita DRILL HOLE LOG `ASSOCIATES,INC. Boring No.: MP-3 Project: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Landslide Project No.: 1577 Client: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Date Drilled: 4-12-06 Location: 150 ft down road from MP-2 Elevation: 368 Driller: Holocene Logged By: CAR Drill Rig: Track Rig Depth to Water: Date: DNA Depth: Date: T Depth: Eleand Detail vattion Well .2 o Test Results D T 1 Description E Depth(Ft.) �n z NM SNT Moisture Value SPT iV-Value • 0 �— 10 30 50 l.�. SW Brown,slightly coarse gravelly, slightly tine to «,�Ar medium sandy, slightly silty,coarse SAND and fine GRAVEL. - �v- s !fi 0 360 r 10 355- 15 %► 350 - 20 �3 345 - �\ �w- End of Hole at 22.5 ft depth > Sw 2s 340 30 335 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site. Figure PAGE 1 of 1 Midbor.,Pita DRILL HOLE LOG &SSOC AFES,INC. Boring No.: MP-4 Project: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Landslide Project No.: 1577 Client: Lilliwaup Hydro Project Date Drilled: 4-12-06 Location: 70 ft down road from MP-3 Elevation: 359 Driller: Holocene Logged By: CAR Drill Rig: Track Rig Depth to Water: Date: DNA Depth: Date: T Depth: Elevation t Test Results Well Depth Detail ff� CO) Description E z° NM SNT Moisture p Value SPT N-Value • 9 0 30 50 0 Gw- Brown,slightly silty, foie to coarse SANDY, f:t ►.:�r Sw fine to coarse GRAVEL 355 ` 5 0... 350 GW End of Hole at 9 ft depth ' 10 Sw 345 15 340 20 335 25 330 30 325 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site. Figure PAGE 1 of 1 Milbor-Pita DRILL HOLE LOG & SOCIATE,INC. Boring No.. MP-5 Project: Lilliwaup Hydro Proiect Landslide Project No.: 1577 Client: Lilliwaup Hydro Proiect Date Drilled: 4-12-06 Location: 66 ft down road from MP4 Elevation: 340 Driller: Holocene Logged By: CAR Drill Rig: Track Rig Depth to Water: Date: s NA Depth: Date: T Depth: Elevation rn Test Results and DetaO L°a 0 Description E z SPT Moisture • Depth(Ft.) c9 � NM Value SPT N-Value • 10 30 50 340 0 Gw- Brown,line and coarse SAND and tine to Y: �W coarse GRAVEL,dry r* SW — -- - 335 5 330 10 = - _ f GW _ SW 1 325 15 't: A' w 320 20 sw GW- End of Hole at 20 ft depth. 'Sb 315 25 310 30 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site. Figure PAGE 1 of 1 I!I✓VLV Symbol Description Symbol Description Strata symbols no pipe, filler material Silty sand and gravel !� Well graded gravel �! and sand Misc. Symbols Boring continues ♦ Description not given for: "FTRANGLE" Water table during drilling Drill rejection Monitor Well Details flush-mount cover bentonite pellets slotted pipe w/ sand ❑ end of well installation i Notes • i 1 . Exploratory borings were drilled on 4-12-06 using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or when re-checked the following day. 3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan. 4 . These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. 5 . Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported on the logs. Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 80 70 Z 60 LL Z 50 rJ fy i!J 40 Q 30 20 1a 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE- mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY O.Q 0.0 21.9 12.2 16.5 16.9 32.5 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Silty sand with gravel 75 in. 100.0 MP-1 Cuttings .625 in. 97.2 Dated 4-13-2006 .5 in. 92.8 375 in. 88.7 Atterberci Limits #4 79.1 PL= LL= PI= #8 68.4 #10 65.9 Coefficients #20 56.2 D 7.39 D 1.24 D 0.453 #40 49.4 85� 60- 5Q= #80 40.8 D30= D15= D10= 4100 38.4 CU= Cc= #200 32.5 Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= A-2-4(0) Remarks As Received Moisture Content= 13.9% F.M.=1.26 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 6297 Date: 4-18-2006 Location: Elev./Depth: - 15' Ghent: Milbor-Pita Project: 2006 General Laboratory Work CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING r-INSPECTION/ENGINEERS Project No: 06 1-22 '129'19 N.E.'126TH P.ACE KIAK4.AND.VJACaHINGTC]N 12CM)ezaseoa Technician: Nick Averill Inspector: fo 4JI-1- Particle Size Distribution Report go -- 80 Z 60 LL Z 50 Ui 40 (L 30 20 10 Iff T 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES CRS. I FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT � CLAY 0.0 5.3 1 43.5--T,23.4 13,6 5.9 8.3 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand W S 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 97.7 Dated 4-13-2006 .75 in. 94.7 625 in. 92.0 Atterberg Limits .5 in. 84.7 PL= LL= Pl= .375 in. 74.0 #4 51.2#8 31.1 Coefficients #10 27.8 D85= 12.8 D60= 6.27 D50= 4.57 #20 18.3 D30= 2.24 D15= 0.499 D10= 0,146 #40 14.2 Cu= 43.02 Cc= 5.49 #80 10.8 #100 10.1 Classification #200 8.3 USCS= GP-GM AASHTO= A-1-a Remarks As Received Moisture Content=8.5% F.M.=2.39 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 6298 Date: 4-18-2006 Location: Elev./Depth: @ 23' Client: Milbor-Pita WD Project: 2006 General Laboratory Work CASCAIDE TE=-871NCR LABORATORY, INC. TF-S-111,40&IN1181 ECTKDN/ENMIPJEERS Project 2No,:L61 ,k2 i2MIS N.E.736TH PLACE kiRKLAND.WAS"NGTO(IJ 9GO34 10061 SQZ-9800 Technician: Nick Averill Ins pezml� Particle Size Distribution Report E E E 100 90 80 0 U_ Z 50 LLI 0 LLI 40 --- d. 30--- 20-- 1O__ ON 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm %COBBLES % RAVEL %SAND %FINES CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY 0.0 26.9 30.1 .1.1.0 14.2 11.9 5.9 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Well-graded gravel widi silt and sand 1.5 in. 100.0 NU-0 I in. 87.2 Dated 4-13-2006 .75 in. 73.1 .625 in. 70.3 Afterberg Limits .5 in. 60.3 PL= LL= Pl= .375 in. 55.1 #4 43.0 Coefficients #8 33.9 #10 32.0 D85= 24.4 D60= 12.6 D50= 6.84 #20 24.2 D30= 1.65 D15= 0.311 D1 0= 0.178 #40 17.8 ICU= 70.78 Cc= 1.21 480 10.1 #100 8.5 Classification #200 5.9 USCS= GW-GM AASHTO= A-I Remarks As Received Moisture Content=7.2% F.M=2.86 L(no specification provided) Sample No.: 6299 Date: 4-18-2006 Location: Elev./Depth: Above Client: Milbor-Pita Project: 2006 General Laboratory Work CASCADE TESTING? L_,6,EBC)RATCDRY. INC. TESTING r.INISRa=10N.1 EN(3W4F_EEFRr1 Project No: 601- 2 facet e239e00 Technician: Nick Averill Inspector: A ]L Particle Size Distribution Report yy gg gg $$� g gg 100 I I 1 1 90 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 80 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 70 1 , 1 W 60 ZLL so Z Wcc 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I W 40 CL 30 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 r I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 20 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 10 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I O 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE- mm %COBBLES °Yo GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 49.1 45.5 5.4 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC! PASS? Soil Descriplign SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Well-graded gravel with silt and sand 3 in. 100.0 Laboratory No.: 10895A 2.5 in. 96.7 2 in. 93.9 1.5 in. 93.2 Atterbera Limits 1 in. 90.9 PL= LL= PI= 3/4 in. 86.9 1/8 in. 73.6 Coefficients 3/8#450.9 D 16.9 D 6.28 D 4.60 #4 50.9 85= 60= 50= #10 34.9 D30= 1.42 D15= 0.454 Di0= 0.252 #30 18.2 CU= 24.89 Cc= 1.27 #50 11.2 #100 7.5 Classification #200 5.4 USCS= GW-GM AASHTO= Remarks Sampled By:Contractor Tested By:B.Della Reviewed By:B.Kochansld (no specification provided) Sample No.: 10895A Source of Sample: Date: Location: Sample 1 Elev./Depth: NA Client: Jacobs Associates K L E I N F E L D E R, INC. Project: Lilliwaup Slide Project No: 125774 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 100 I I 1 I I I I l I I I I so I I 1 I I I I I I I M;� I 80 1 I I I I f I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 70 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I MM f I I 1 I I 1 I 7 I I I 1 I Cr I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I W 60 ZLL 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 Z w I 1 I 1 I 1 1 W 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I U I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 M I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 LLB 40 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I a 1 J I I 1 I I I I t 1 30 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 20 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I k I I I I I t I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 i I I f I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 10 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 ) I I I I O 1 I 1 1 1 1 t I I l 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 43.5 1 51.6 4.9 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? Soil D"CriDtion SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Well-graded sand with gravel 1.5 in. 100.0 Laboratory No.: 10895B 1 in. 94.0 3/4 in. 90.3 1/2 in. 83.2 Atterbern Limits 3/8 in. 77.6#4 56.5 PL= LL= PI= #10 13.2 Coefficients #50 13.7 p 14.0 D 5.26 D 3.92 #50 8.7 85= 60= 50= #100 6.3 D30= 1.98 D15= 0.707 D10= 0.373 #200 4.9 CU= 14.10 CC= 2.00 Classification USCS= SW AASHTO= Remarks Sampled By:Contractor Tested By:B.Della Reviewed By:B.Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: 10895B Source of Sample: Date: Location: Sample 2 Elev./Depth: NA Client: Jacobs Associates K L E I N F E L D E R, INC. Project: Lilliwaup Slide Project No: 125774 Flours Me�/z Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Appendix B Retaining Wall & Backfill Stability Analysis Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Safety Factor 0 0.0 1.5 o 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 Shear 2.0 Friction Force Strip Coverage Tensile Strength Support Name Color Adhesion(psf) Strength Anchorage 2.3 Angle(deg) Model Orientation N (Ibs/ft) 0 2.5 in 2.8 Bisector of 3.0 Geogrids/MSE Wall ■ 4 40 Linear Parallel and Slope Face 100 4500 3.3 Tangent 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 200.00 Ibs/ft2 4.5 4.8 0 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 o . 6.0+ 1000.00 Ibs/ft2 - c 0 M Material Name Color Unit Weight Cohesion Phi(deg) (Ibs/ft3) (psf) Qvr 130 150 36 Qvt 130 300 36 Fill-Slide deposits 130 0.02 33 Qva 130 500 36 0 -. Basalt 162 N -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Project Lilliwap Hydro Landslide Evaluation rig-, � Analysis Descriolion Bishop Simplified Analysis Drawn By P. Campbell/F. Pita company Jacobs Associates LIDEINTERPRET 6.015 Date 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM File Name Lilliwap - Static Condition - 04-04-2012.slim SLIDEINTERRREf 6.015 �1►. Page 1 of 7 Slide Analysis Information Lilliwap Hydro Landslide Evaluation Project Summary File Name:Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012 Slide Modeler Version:6.015 Project Title:Lilliwap Hydro Landslide Evaluation Analysis:Bishop Simplified Analysis Author:P.Campbell/F. Pita Company:Jacobs Associates Date Created:4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM Comments: Static Condition General Settings Units of Measurement:Imperial Units Time Units:days Permeability Units:feet/second Failure Direction:Right to Left Data Output:Standard Maximum Material Properties:20 Maximum Support Properties:20 Analysis Options Analysis Methods Used Bishop simplified Number of slices:25 Tolerance:0.005 Maximum number of iterations:50 Check malpha<0.2:Yes Initial trial value of FS:1 Steffensen Iteration:Yes Groundwater Analysis Groundwater Method:Water Surfaces Pore Fluid Unit Weight:62.4 Ibs/ft3 Advanced Groundwater Method:None Random Numbers Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SL MN7RPRE76.015 ell Page 2 of 7 Pseudo-random Seed:10116 Random Number Generation Method:Park and Miller v.3 Surface Options Surface Type:Circular Search Method:Slope Search Number of Surfaces:5000 Upper Angle:Not Defined Lower Angle:Not Defined Composite Surfaces:Disabled Reverse Curvature:Create Tension Crack Minimum Elevation:Not Defined Minimum Depth:Not Defined Loading 2 Distributed Loads present Distributed Load 1 Distribution:Constant Magnitude[psf]:1000 Orientation:Normal to boundary Distributed Load 2 Distribution:Constant Magnitude[psf]:200 Orientation:Normal to boundary Material Properties Property Qvr Qvt Fill-Slide deposits Qva Basalt Color a © a © a Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Infinite strength Unit Weight[lbs/ft3] 130 130 130 130 162 Cohesion [psf] 150 300 0.02 500 Friction Angle[deg] 36 36 33 36 Water Surface None None None None None Ru Value 0 0 0 0 0 Support Properties Geogrids/MSE Wall Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SLiDELNTERPRET 6.015 tell Page Page 3 of 7 Support Type:GeoTextile Force Application:Active Force Orientation:Bisector of Parallel and Tangent Anchorage:Slope Face Shear Strength Model:Linear Strip Coverage:100 percent Tensile Strength:4500 Ib/ft Pullout Strength Adhesion:4 psf Pullout Strength Friction Angle:40 degrees Global Minimums Method: bishop simplified FS:1.473500 Center:46.291, 612.767 Radius:367.277 Left Slip Surface Endpoint:83.629, 247.393 Right Slip Surface Endpoint:327.754, 376.820 Resisting Moment=1.70493e+008 lb-ft Driving Moment=1.15706e+008 lb-ft Valid/Invalid Surfaces Method: bishop simplified Number of Valid Surfaces:1052 Number of Invalid Surfaces:3948 Error Codes: Error Code-99 reported for 2867 surfaces Error Code-101 reported for 1 surface Error Code-103 reported for 966 surfaces Error Code-113 reported for 114 surfaces Error Codes The following errors were encountered during the computation: -99=Slip surface intersects an infinite strength material.If infinite strength regions are defined for a model,a large number of potential slip surfaces may show this error code.This is Normal. -101 =Only one(or zero)surface/slope intersections. -103=Two surface/slope intersections, but one or more surface/nonslope external polygon intersections lie between them.This usually occurs when the slip surface extends past the bottom of the soil region,but may also occur on a benched slope model with two sets of Slope Limits. -113 =Surface intersects outside slope limits. Slice Data Global Minimum Query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:1.4735 Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SUDEINTERPREf 6.015 �l•. Page 4 of 7 Base Base Shear Shear Base Pore Effective Slice Width Weight Base Friction Normal Normal Number Cohesion Stress Strength Pressure [ft] [lbs] Material [psf] Angle 101 [Psf) Stress 101 Stress [degrees] [psf] [PA 1 9.76502 786.085 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 33.7713 49.762 76.596 0 76.596 deposits 2 9.76502 2140.32 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 90.8911 133.928 206.199 0 206.199 deposits 3 9.76502 2902.15 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 121.847 179.541 276.438 0 276.438 deposits 4 9.76502 2269.21 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 94.1968 138.799 213.701 0 213.701 deposits 5 9.76502 3668.44 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 150.54 221.821 341.543 0 341.543 deposits 6 9.76502 22250.7 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 856.96 1262.73 1944.41 0 1944.41 deposits 7 9.76502 43833.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1732.46 2552.78 3930.9 0 3930.9 deposits 8 9.76502 59043.5 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 2553.72 3762.91 5794.34 0 5794.34 deposits 9 9.76502 56106.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 2549.89 3757.26 5785.64 0 5785.64 deposits 10 9.76502 51608.2 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 2342.67 3451.93 5315.48 0 5315.48 deposits 11 9.76502 46707 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 2157.52 3179.1 4895.35 0 4895.35 deposits 12 9.76502 43037.6 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1722.73 2538.45 3908.83 0 3908.83 deposits 13 9.76502 43239.5 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1610.04 2372.39 3653.13 0 3653.13 deposits 14 9.76502 43214.2 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1587.66 2339.41 3602.35 0 3602.35 deposits 15 9.76502 42717 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1547.78 2280.65 3511.87 0 3511.87 deposits 16 9.76502 41724.2 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1490.21 2195.83 3381.25 0 3381.25 deposits 17 9.76502 40208.5 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1414.71 2084.58 3209.95 0 3209.95 deposits 18 9.76502 38138.6 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1321 1946.49 2997.31 0 2997.31 deposits 19 9.76502 35477.8 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1208.72 1781.05 2742.55 0 2742.55 deposits 20 9.76502 32183.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1077.49 1587.68 2444.79 0 2444.79 deposits 21 9.76502 28203.8 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 926.875 1365.75 2103.04 0 2103.04 deposits 22 9.76502 23479.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 756.376 1114.52 1716.18 0 1716.18 deposits 23 9.76502 17935.6 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 565.482 833.237 1283.04 0 1283.04 deposits Fill-Slide Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SLIME RRRI 1,1111 �l►� Page 5 of 7 deposits 25 9.76502 4008.47 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 120.289 177.246 272.904 0 272.904 deposits Interslice Data Global Minimum Query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:1.4735 Slice X y Interslice Interslice Interslice Number coordinate coordinate-Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle [ft] [ft] [Ibs] [lbs] [degrees] 1 83.6288 247.393 0 0 0 2 93.3938 248.523 242.85 0 0 3 103.159 249.919 841.495 0 0 4 112.924 251.585 1569.57 0 0 5 122.689 253.523 2074.08 0 0 6 132.454 255.74 2785.55 0 0 7 142.219 258.239 15215.1 0 0 8 151.984 261.026 25612.6 0 0 9 161.749 264.109 41551.5 0 0 10 171.514 267.496 51265.9 0 0 11 181.279 271.196 58878.8 0 0 12 191.044 275.218 60232.8 0 0 13 200.809 279.575 60006.1 0 0 14 210.574 284.28 58523.4 0 0 15 220.339 289.348 55753.4 0 0 16 230.104 294.796 51716.9 0 0 17 239.869 300.645 46476.9 0 0 18 249.634 306.917 40143.5 0 0 19 259.399 313.639 32881 0 0 20 269.164 320.842 24916.6 0 0 21 278.929 328.563 16551.5 0 0 22 288.694 336.844 8175.78 0 0 23 298.459 345.739 288.375 0 0 24 308.224 355.311 -6476.67 0 0 25 317.989 365.638 -11313.3 0 0 26 327.754 376.82 0 0 0 List Of Coordinates Line Load X y 193.674 310 154.974 310 Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM woarrrenrner s.ois Page 6 of 7 Line Load x Y 353.69 382 337.224 381.539 External Boundary x Y 125.476 255.352 104.643 252.607 99.3996 251.139 84.2487 247.576 71.5574 243.828 57.8583 239.129 47.4556 235.541 28.825 230.919 24.9885 230.989 24.9925 220.141 24.9926 220 25 200 451,557 200 451.557 350 451.557 359.92 451.557 382 451.557 422.671 436.884 422 353.69 382 337.224 381.539 310.637 368.289 193.674 310 154.974 310 127.81 255.352 Material Boundary x Y 353.69 382 451.557 382 Material Boundary x Y 337.224 381.539 332.902 359.92 451.557 359.92 Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SUDEINTERPRET 6.015 tell Page Page 7 of 7 Material Boundary X Y 125.149 250 165.149 250 200 270 300 340 332.902 359.92 Material Boundary X Y 24.9925 220.141 165.15 240 385 325 451.557 350 Material Boundary X Y 28.825 230.919 125.149 250 Material Boundary X Y 125.476 255.352 125.149 250 127.81 255.352 Lilliwap-Static Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Slope Stability Analysis Input Data and Design Assumptions A. MSE Wall a. 0.5:1 slope at the face b. Height = Approx. 60 feet c. Length of grids = 40 feet d. Distance between grids = 2 feet e. Embedded toe of approximately 6 feet within the hillside. This will help key in the MSE wall and it is within the AASHTO guidelines of 10% of wall height. f. Footing to be constructed on Qva material. Resident Engineer shall ensure material is competent for bearing. g. Fill material within grids, shall be slide deposits. If possible, I would recommend the contractor to mix in some of the more competent soil that is on the site with this material. h. Grids will have to consist of a minimum of 4500lbs/ft tensile strength i. Grids shall be corrosion protected (black steel) B. Slope behind the wall a. 2:1 slope b. Proposed 10' wide access road C. Materials a. Refer to results for geologic contact locations b. Qvr i. Unit weight = 130 pcf ii. Cohesion = 150 psf iii. Phi = 36 deg c. Qvt i. Unit weight = 130 pcf ii. Cohesion = 300 psf iii. Phi = 36 deg d. Qva i. Unit weight = 130 pcf ii. Cohesion = 500 psf iii. Phi = 36 deg e. Basalt i. Unit Weight = 162 pcf ii. Cohesion/Phi = infinite f. Fill — Slide Deposits i. Unit Weight = 130 pcf ii. Cohesion = 0 iii. Phi = 33 deg D. Loading Conditions a. 200 psf for maintenance on roadway b. 200psf for piping and approx. 800 psf for 6 feet of material on top of the MSE wall = 1000psf c. 0.15g for horizontal seismic component (City requirement) E. Factors of Safety a. Static Condition = 1.5>=1.5 Good b. Dynamic Condition = 1.1>=1.1 Good Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Safety Factor 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 Shear 0 2.5 Support Name Color Adhesion(psf) Friction Strength Force Anchorage Strip Coverage Tensile Strength tO 2 8 Angle(deg) Model Orientation N Qbs/ft) 3.0 Bisector of 3.3 Geogrids/MSE Wall ■ 4 40 Linear Parallel and Slope Face 100 4500 3.5 8 Tangent 3.4.0 0 4.3 ,n 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 200.00lbs/ft2 41 5.8 6.0+ ° ° 0 1000.00 Ibs/ft2 c C _-A0. c i Unit Weight Cohesion CD Material Name Color f Ibs/ft3 sf Phi(deg) r� i Qvr 130 150 36 Qvt 130 300 36 Fill-Slide deposits 130 0.02 33 Qva 130 500 36 o Basalt 162 C>— t �rr� -� -r r r r I r .--. r-�- r ---r--r--rT -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 POW Lilliwap Hydro Landslide Evaluation Ana/ysisDesmpbon Bishop Simplified Analysis -ienr, Drawn By P. Campbell/F. Pita Company Jacobs Associates sLIDEIWERPRET6.015 j Date 4/4/2012, 10:07*35 AM File Name Lilliwap- Dynamic Condition -04-04-2012.slim AIDEIMERPREf 6.015 Page 1 Of 7 �l=Y►.. Slide Analysis Information Lilliwap Hydro Landslide Evaluation Project Summary File Name:Lilliwap-Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012 Slide Modeler Version:6.015 Project Title:Lilliwap Hydro Landslide Evaluation Analysis:Bishop Simplified Analysis Author:P.Campbell/F. Pita Company:Jacobs Associates Date Created:4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM Comments: Dynamic Condition General Settings Units of Measurement:Imperial Units Time Units:days Permeability Units:feet/second Failure Direction:Right to Left Data Output:Standard Maximum Material Properties:20 Maximum Support Properties:20 Analysis Options Analysis Methods Used Bishop simplified Number of slices:25 Tolerance:0.005 Maximum number of iterations:50 Check malpha<0.2:Yes Initial trial value of FS:1 Steffensen Iteration:Yes Groundwater Analysis Groundwater Method:Water Surfaces Pore Fluid Unit Weight:62.4 Ibs/ft3 Advanced Groundwater Method:None Random Numbers Lilliwap-Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM 1U."TEMIT 6.011 Page 2 of 7 Pseudo-random Seed:10116 Random Number Generation Method:Park and Miller v.3 Surface Options Surface Type:Circular Search Method:Slope Search Number of Surfaces:5000 Upper Angle:Not Defined Lower Angle:Not Defined Composite Surfaces:Disabled Reverse Curvature:Create Tension Crack Minimum Elevation:Not Defined Minimum Depth:Not Defined Loading Seismic Load Coefficient(Horizontal):0.15 2 Distributed Loads present Distributed Load 1 Distribution:Constant Magnitude[psf]:1000 Orientation:Normal to boundary Distributed Load 2 Distribution:Constant Magnitude[psf]:200 Orientation:Normal to boundary Material Properties Property Qvr Qvt Fill-Slide deposits ova Basalt Color F F F F Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Infinite strength Unit Weight[lbs/ft3] 130 130 130 130 162 Cohesion [psf] 150 300 0.02 500 Friction Angle[deg] 36 36 33 36 Water Surface None None None None None Ru Value 0 0 0 0 0 Support Properties Lilliwap-Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SU NTERRRET 6.015 �1•� Page 3 of 7 Geogrids/MSE Wall Support Type:GeoTextile Force Application:Active Force Orientation:Bisector of Parallel and Tangent Anchorage:Slope Face Shear Strength Model:Linear Strip Coverage:100 percent Tensile Strength:4500 Ib/ft Pullout Strength Adhesion:4 psf Pullout Strength Friction Angle:40 degrees Global Minimums Method: bishop simplified FS:1.057140 Center:-18.230, 748.471 Radius:515.401 Left Slip Surface Endpoint:55.777, 238.411 Right Slip Surface Endpoint:343.897,381.726 Resisting Moment=2.35004e+008 lb-ft Driving Moment=2.22302e+008 lb-ft Valid/Invalid Surfaces Method: bishop simplified Number of Valid Surfaces:1052 Number of Invalid Surfaces:3948 Error Codes: Error Code-99 reported for 2867 surfaces Error Code-101 reported for 1 surface Error Code-103 reported for 966 surfaces Error Code-113 reported for 114 surfaces Error Codes The following errors were encountered during the computation: -99=Slip surface intersects an infinite strength material.If infinite strength regions are defined for a model,a large number of potential slip surfaces may show this error code.This is Normal. -101 =Only one(or zero)surface/slope intersections. -103=Two surface/slope intersections, but one or more surface/nonslope external polygon intersections lie between them.This usually occurs when the slip surface extends past the bottom of the soil region, but may also occur on a benched slope model with two sets of Slope Limits. -113=Surface intersects outside slope limits. Slice Data Lilliwap-Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SLIDONT1111IT 6.015 al►^ Page 4 of 7 Global Minimum Query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:1.05714 Effect ve Slice Width Weight Base BaseFriction Base Shear Shear Normal Pore Normal Number Cohesion Stress Strength Pressure [ft] [lbs] Material Angle Stress Stress [Psfl [degrees] [l l [Psfl [psf] [Ps�l [Psf] 1 11.6624 1651.56 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 79.3691 83.9043 129.17 0 129.17 deposits 2 11.6624 4559.5 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 216.227 228.582 351.955 0 351.955 deposits 3 11.6624 6266.57 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 293.299 310.058 477.417 0 477.417 deposits 4 11.6624 6728.11 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 310.789 328.547 505.887 0 505.887 deposits 5 11.6624 6343.42 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 289.184 305.708 470.718 0 470.718 deposits 6 11.6624 4022.06 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 180.952 191.292 294.533 0 294.533 deposits 7 11.6624 12046.8 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 505.426 534.306 822.728 0 822.728 deposits 8 11.6624 41460 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1753.35 1853.54 2854.17 0 2854.17 deposits 9 11.6624 66616.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 3061.13 3236.04 4983.02 0 4983.02 deposits 10 11.6624 64616.5 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 3180.99 3362.75 5178.15 0 5178.15 deposits 11 11.6624 57575.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 2873.27 3037.45 4677.23 0 4677.23 deposits 12 11.6624 50163.4 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 2476.98 2618.51 4032.12 0 4032.12 deposits 13 11.6624 47911.9 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1956.99 2068.81 3185.66 0 3185.66 deposits 14 11.6624 48111.4 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1936.41 2047.06 3152.17 0 3152.17 deposits 15 11.6624 47749.5 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1893.1 2001.27 3081.65 0 3081.65 deposits 16 11.6624 46803.4 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1827.11 1931.51 2974.23 0 2974.23 deposits 17 11.6624 45247.6 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1738.47 1837.81 2829.95 0 2829.95 deposits 18 11.6624 43053.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1627.2 1720.18 2648.81 0 2648.81 deposits 19 11.6624 40187.4 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1493.26 1578.58 2430.77 0 2430.77 deposits 20 11.6624 36613.1 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1336.6 1412.97 2175.75 0 2175.75 deposits 21 11.6624 32287.9 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 1157.15 1223.27 1883.64 0 1883.64 deposits 22 11.6624 27163 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 954.84 1009.4 1554.31 0 1554.31 deposits 23 11.6624 21181.5 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 729.583 771.271 1187.62 0 1187.62 deposits Lilliwap- Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SLIDE NTERPREf 6.015 ell Page 5 of 7 24 11.6624 14277.6 Fill-Slide 0.02 33 481.31 508.812 783.472 0 783.472 deposits 25 8.22363 4048.66 Qvt 300 36 441.013 466.212 228.772 0 228.772 Interslice Data Global Minimum Query(bishop simplified)-Safety Factor:1.05714 Slice X Y Interslice Interslice Interslice Number coordinate coordinate-Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle [ft] fft] [lbs] fibs] [degrees] 1 55.7769 238.411 0 0 0 2 67.4393 240.24 441.546 0 0 3 79.1016 242.344 1538.46 0 0 4 90.764 244.726 2881 0 0 5 102.426 247.392 4147.41 0 0 6 114.089 250.344 5178.13 0 0 7 125.751 253.589 5729.09 0 0 8 137.413 257.132 11351.8 0 0 9 149.076 260.98 23481.8 0 0 10 160.738 265.14 37324.4 0 0 11 172.401 269.62 50376.5 0 0 12 184.063 274.429 57166.2 0 0 13 195.725 279.577 57766.8 0 0 14 207.388 285.076 55882.6 0 0 15 219.05 290.938 52767.9 0 0 16 230.712 297.177 48452.8 0 0 17 242.375 303.81 43010.7 0 0 18 254.037 310.854 36561.9 0 0 19 265.699 318.329 29278.2 0 0 20 277.362 326.258 21388.2 0 0 21 289.024 334.668 13184.6 0 0 22 300.687 343.588 5032.63 0 0 23 312.349 353.052 -2618.84 0 0 24 324.011 363.102 -9223.86 0 0 25 335.674 373.784 -14121.9 0 0 26 343.897 381.726 0 0 0 List Of Coordinates Line Load X Y 193.674 310 154.974 310 Lilliwap-Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SUDSNTERPREf 6.015 �1•. Page 6 of 7 Line Load X Y 353.69 382 337.224 381.539 External Boundary x Y 125.476 255.352 104.643 252.607 99.3996 251.139 84.2487 247.576 71.5574 243.828 57.8583 239.129 47.4556 235.541 28.825 230.919 24.9885 230.989 24.9925 220.141 24.9926 220 25 200 451.557 200 451.557 350 451.557 359.92 451.557 382 451.557 422.671 436.884 422 353.69 382 337.224 381.539 310.637 368.289 193.674 310 154.974 310 127.81 255.352 Material Boundary x Y 353.69 382 451.557 382 Material Boundary x Y 337.224 381.539 332.902 359.92 451.557 359.92 Lilliwap-Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM SIIDEIMER1R1 I III t1►. Page 7 of 7 Material Boundary X Y 125.149 250 165.149 250 200 270 300 340 332.902 359.92 Material Boundary X Y 24.9925 220.141 165.15 240 385 325 451.557 350 Material Boundary X Y 28.825 230.919 125.149 250 Material Boundary X Y 125.476 255.352 125.149 250 127.81 255.352 Lilliwap- Dynamic Condition-04-04-2012.slim Jacobs Associates 4/4/2012, 10:07:35 AM Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Appendix C Drainage System Design Data & Calculations Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Particle Size Distribution Report = -,�! .. = _ = o pp g � (gy �O N 100 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I 90 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 70 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I LLI 60 z I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I U- 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I Z 50 I I I I I I I I 1 11 I 1 I w I I I I 1 I I I I I I I U 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I I 1 - 40 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 30 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 20 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 -- I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 0 1 1 1 I I I I I 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE- mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 49.1 45.5 5.4 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC. PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X_NO) Well-graded gravel with silt and sand 3 in. 100.0 Laboratory No.: 10895A 2.5 in. 96.7 2 in. 93.9 1.5 in. 93.2 Atterberg Limits 1 in. 90.9 PL= LL= P1= 3/4 in. 86.9 1/2 in. 80.0 Coefficients 3/8#450.9 D 16.9 D 6.28 D 4.60 #4 50.9 85= 60= 50= #10 34.9 D30= 1.42 Di5= 0.454 D10= 0.252 #30 18.2 CU= 24.89 Cc= 1.27 #50 11.2 #100 7.5 Classification #200 5.4 USCS= GW-GM AASHTO= Remarks Sampled By:Contractor Tested By:B.Della Reviewed By:B.Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: 10895A Source of Sample: Date: Location: Sample 1 Elev./Depth: NA Client: Jacobs Associates K L E I N F E L D E R, INC. Project: Lilliwaup Slide Pro�ect No: 125774 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report �o gg gg gg 100 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 90 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 80 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I 70 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I W 60 P. Z W I I 1 I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 W 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I U I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I a 40 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 30— — I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 20 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE- mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 43.5 51.6 4.9 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC! PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) Well-graded sand with gravel 1.5 in. 100.0 Laboratory No.: 10895B 1 in. 94.0 3/4 in. 90.3 1/2 in. 83.2 Atterbera Limits 3/8 in. 77.6 PL= LL= PI= #4 56.5 #10 30.2 Coefficients #50 13.8.7 D85= 14.0 D60= 5.26 D50= 3.92 #100 6.3 D30= 1.98 D15= 0.707 D10= 0.373 #200 4.9 Cu= 14.10 Cc= 2.00 Classification USCS= SW AASHTO= Remarks Sampled By:Contractor Tested By:B.Della Reviewed By:B.Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: 10895B Source of Sample: Date: Location: Sample 2 Elev./Depth: NA Client: Jacobs Associates K L E I N F E L D E R, INC. Project: Lilliwaup Slide Project No: 125774 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 100 i I I 90 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 i I 1 I i I 1 80 I I 1 1 1 1 I 70 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 A w 60 Z I I 1 I 1 I F_ M Y I I Z 50 Wcc: 40 I 1 1 i 1 I L I I I I I (L I 1 I 1 I 1 30 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I i 1 1 1 I I I I I 20 1 1 i I I I I I 1 I I 1 I i 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 0 500 100 1 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE- mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 43.5 51.6 4.9 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC! PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Well-graded sand with gravel 1.5 in. 100.0 Laboratory No.: 10895B 1 in. 94.0 3/4 in. 90.3 1/2 in. 83.2 Atterbera Limits 3/8 in. 77.6 PL= LL= P1= #4 56.5 #10 30.2 Coefficients #30 13.6 D85= 14.0 D 5.26 D = 3.92 #50 8.7 #100 6.3 D30= 1.98 D 1560= 0.707 D5010= 0.373 #200 4.9 Cu= 14.10 Cc= 2.00 Classification USCS= SW AASHTO= Remarks Sampled By:Contractor Tested By:B.Della Reviewed By:B.Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: 10895B Source of Sample: Date: Location: Sample 2 Elev./Depth: NA Client: Jacobs Associates K L E I N F E L D E R, INC. Project: Lilliwaup Slide Project No: 125774 Figure /1 C4 Colo o -Sr 'ON 133road 43l133HO Ae 31VQ ! � _I iowsng s;uv3jnsuo3/sa9auj3u3 J a 4/ 7 1 Al 'ON 1o3f021d 03H33HQ A8 31tlQ S;YE;��15U0,/SdaaYlSY3 133ranS • • ONE QUEENSR.IDGE PLACE Friday, March 02, 2007 Mr.Alan Turner JMA Architecture Studio 10190 Covington Cross Dr. Suite 110 RE: JMA Action Item List Dated 01/04/07 Document Number GEN-LTR-155 One Queensridge Place-1 Dear Mr. Turner: Queensridge Towers LLC by its manager QT Management LLC (QTM)is writing to JMA to notice that items 3,4, 6 & 7 of the list that was sent to Alan Turner via GEN-LTR-110 dated January 04, 2007 have not been addressed with the City of Las Vegas, These items are critical to the construction schedule and is causing delays with inspections. It has been almost two months since the attached letter was sent out to JMA and none of the above reference items have been addressed. This is unacceptable. Furthermore the issue of the Aluminum Panda Door thresholds in contact with concrete was to have been addressed and signed off as acceptable by the City of Las Vegas before Tim Grantham left the employment of JMA, This is still outstanding and is also not acceptable. The cupola build out drawings is another outstanding item that has been repeatedly asked for from JMA. All of the above items need to be reviewed with the City of Las Vegas no later than Tuesday, March 06, 2007. JMA is to respond that this will be done as stated In this letter. Respectfully, SRI Q EENDGE TOWERS LLC By: QT MANAGEMENT LLC Its: Manager By: Gerald Turner Its: Sr. Project Manager Prolog Manager Page 1 i cc: Paul Davis—Foxcor Mike Deems—QTM Mark Pham—EH John Funderburk -QTM Read File File Prolog Manager Page 2 I ONE QUEENSRIDGE PLACE Thursday,January 04, 2007 Mr.Alan Turner JMA Architecture Studio 10190 Covington Cross Dr. Suite 110 RE: JMA Action Item List Document Number GEN-LTR-110 One Queensridge Place-1 Dear Mr. Turner: Queensridge Towers LLC by its manager QT Management LLC (QTM)is writing to JMA to provide a list of action items that are waiting for either JMA to resolve or complete. Some of these items have been pending resolutions for months. 1, JMA to detail/design the stair vestibule ceilings. JMA to provide 2 hour rating details for lights, access and conditioned air. 2. JMA to design elevator venting for each shaft to vent to exterior 3'-0"sq. ft.free area. 3. JMA to issue variance to City of Las Vegas by 1/9/07 for reduced width due to sprinkler riser for levels 2- 14. 4. JMA to issue variance to City of Las Vegas by 1/9/07 for reduced vestibule length levels 15— 19. 5. JMA to complete courtyard emergency exit alternates for presentation to EHB by 1/8107. ••- 6, JMA to issue letter to City of Las Vegas concerning vent less fireplaces for levels 15—17, 18— 19, low rise units by 1/9/07. Each permit requires separate letter. ..milp 7. JMA to issue letter for vent less dryers for levels 15—17, 18— 19 and low rise because each permit requires separate letter. 8. JMA—Bob Jacobson to coordinate meeting with Chips Davis for 1/8/07 to discuss Pool and Spa area acoustics. Prolog Manager Page 1 i 9. JMA to issue structural steel fireproofing submittal to City of Las Vegas by 1/9107. 10. JMA to issue 2 hour lid detail for courtyard level ceilings at exit passage ways. Ceiling details to include ceiling cut section, 2 hour rating of lights and 2 hour rated access panels. 11. JMA—Tim Grantham to complete delta 4 drawings (including MEP / Soffit Coordination)for levels 15— 17 by 1/15107. 12. JMA—Tim Grantham to complete delta 2 drawings (including MEP/ Soffit Coordination)for levels 18— 19 by 1/15/07. 13. JMA—Tim Grantham to complete garden level reflected corridor ceilings as hand drawn by Patty Goorjian by 1/9/07. These drawings will be included in the delta 4 set. Respectfully, I �_ -� a,e�f QUEENSRIDGE TOWERS LLC By: QT MANAGEMENT LLC Its: Manager By: Gerald Turner Its: Sr. Project Manager cc: Paul Davis—Foxcor Mike Deems—QTM Patty Goorjian—EHB Mark Pham—EHI Alan Turner—JMA Gerald Turner—QTM Read File File Prolog Manager Page 2 Driving Directions- Beirut Restaurant- Downriver-Romulus, MI Page 1 of 1 yelp:: Beirut Restaurant 53Reviews 7650 Merriman Rd,Romulus,MI 48174 (734)326-1000 Ecmct Rd _•--mot Q Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport,1 EOOffQ Rd Ecorse Rd Street View W a A Detroit Metro Airport,Detroit,MI 48242 G0 n 2.6 mi(about 5 mins) 1. Head southwest on W G Rogell Dr 1.5 mi toward International Dr Partial restricted usage road _ - -, BinMhRd 2. Continue onto Merriman Rd 1.0 mi Destination will be on the left 5 © ' 7650 Merriman Rd,Romulus,MI 48174 Map data 02012 Google Wick Rd Wick Rd H�Rd — G°dd n _ OBvo,�lndJSMe` Go�aidRd _= Q Hlltle�rana 51 r° � n r Borman S� 0 �D C9 Detroit ropoIi Goddard Rd yne Co tyAirp Map jata 02012 Google- You Are Here http://www.yelp.com/map/beirut-restaurant-romulus 7/3/2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Appendix D Mason County Geotechnical Report Checklist Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechinical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s) who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Applicant/Owner: Lilliwaup Falls Hydroelectric Power Project Parcel # 32319-23-00000,32319-24-00000,32319-24-00030 Site Address: Lilliwaup Falls Area on the Reed Property (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) Page 2 Section 2.2 (b) A discussion of specific soil types, Located on page(s) Pages 4& 5 Section 4.2 (c) A discussion of ground water conditions, Located on page(s) Page 5 Section 4.3 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology, Located on page(s) Page 2 Section 2.1 (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, Located on page(s) Page 2 Section 2.1 describes that other than Lilliwaup Creek, there are no wetlands or waterbodies in project area (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on page(s) Page 2 Section 2.3 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Figures 2, 3, 4 (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Figure 3 Plan & Logs in Appendix A (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) Figure 3 shows the clearing or protect limits (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs Located on Map(s) Figure 4 depicts retaining structure & grading (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) Pages 6 & 7 Section 5.2 &Appendix B (7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, Located on page(s Groundwater Seepage must be controlled & it's design is presented on Page 7 Section 5.4 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields, Located on page(s) none in project (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings, Located on page(s) Figure 4 shows foundation excavation plan & drainage (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) Not applicable, project is repairing a landslide (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) Not applicable on this project (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) Page 6 Sectoin 5.2 describes re-vegetation recommendations to be plans in more detail (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) A temporary erosion control measures are needed for the earthwork, a drawing should be prepared by the designers (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) not covered in the geotechnical report but other submittals (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) Drawings are being prepared w/WSDOT std specification as reference (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) Geotechnical Structural recommendation on pages 6, 7 U. (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Lilliwaup Falls Power Project Geotechnical Report: Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs 6.1 Located on Map(s) Figure 1 & Figure 3; all the work is within the Reed Property. I, Frank W. Pita, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated 12Apr12 and entitled Lilliwaup Falls Power Project/Geotechnical Report regarding Landslide and Conveyance Pipe Repairs meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) w 17522� OtVAL Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 0/April 2012 Distribution To: William G. Reed,Jr. Lilliwaup Falls Generating Co. Craig Norsen Seneca Group From: Frank Pita, P.E., L.H.G. Jacobs Associates Prepared By: Sue Bednarz, L.G. Jacobs Associates Frank Pita,P.E., L.H.G. Jacobs Associates Maureen Kwolek,P.E. Jacobs Associates Reviewed By: Frank Pita, P.E.,L.H.G. Jacobs Associates Vrtl� s .r - �r ilk ,.n Jacobs Associates -ii- Rev. No. 0/April 2012