HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2011-00060 for MEP2011-00026 - GEO Geological Review - 8/24/2011 GE0,11/ -
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#: d
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed:
1. (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK? L-'- Comment:
(b) A discussion of specific soil types
OK?_��Comment:
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions
OK? y Comment:
(d) A discuss!iorvof the upslope geomorphology
OK? Comment:
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
OK? Comment:
(f) A discussion 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? V", Comment:
3. Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
OK? `� Comment:
4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall
be delineat (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
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? i/ Comment:
7. (a) Appropriate restrictions on placemen ofArainage features
OK? Comment: Ave
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placemrt septic drain fields
OK?��Comment: //��
(c) Appropriate restrictions on place rr y►tt f compacted fills and footings.
OK? V/ Comment: �V
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
(d) Recommenddd buffers from t� ��lide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? ,/ Comment:
(e) Recommensied setbacks from the la tide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? r 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: Pvl
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? ✓ Comment:
10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
OK? Comment: ��
11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widths.
OK? ✓ Comment: ale e 111V
12. Recommendations for the preparation ructural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
OK? ✓Comment: S�
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? V"Comment: /2°K 74-7 swd,�. b4„/ p �� s
Are the Documents signed and stamped? By whom? l e ✓) 1" S'
License#: (3Y 722— License type: �n
FIRST REVIEW Approved ❑ Need more info.
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action?
Reviewed by ?M on 1 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
Mason County Department of Community Development
Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report
Instructions:
This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed
professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County
Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable,the report should explain the basis for the conclusion.
Applicant/Owner WSDOT Parcel#N/A
Site Address US 101 Mile Post 316.16
(1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
Located on page(s) Page 1
(b) A discussion of specific soil types,
Located on page(s) Pages 1 and 2
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions,
Located on page(s) Page 2
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology,
Located on page(s) Page 1
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands,
Located on page(s) Not applicable to this proiect
(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 Geologic map attached to report
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
Located on Map(s) Maps 1 and 2 attached to report
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Located on Map(s) Map 1 and Boring logs attached to report
(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)Not applicable to this project
(5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which
incorporates the details of proposed grade changes.
Located on Map(s) See Plan sheets attached to JARPA
(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) Page 2
(7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features,
Located on pages Not applicable to this project
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields,
Located on page(s) Not applicable to this project
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings,
Located on page(s) Not applicable to this project
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) Not applicable to this project
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) Not applicable to 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) Will be prepared as part of the contract plans at a later date
(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) Will be prepared as part of the contract plans at a later date
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) Not applicable to this proiect
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widths.
Located on page(s) Not applicable to this project
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
Located on page(s) Not applicable to this project
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of
existing and proposed development on the site.
Located on Map(s) See proiect plan sheets attached to JARPA
I, ��if rl ;GAS 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/
I
Report, dated and entitled S G� �P�car
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 h e mitigated in such a manner as to prevent
harm to property and public health and safety. 11;�4QAN p,
(Signature and Stamp) "' "s&,.bc
x
r
fl[AAES:lY4U9/
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
RECEIVED
Washington State
Department of Transportation 426 W. C EL AR ST Memorandum
April 27, 2011 � -
,' a
TO: Jerry Moore, 4-7440
FROM: Bryan Dias, 4-7440
fit?i lifts:o'A-1w
SUBJECT: US 101 MP 316.16 Vic. XL-3657
S of Beacon Point Drive—Culvert Replacement
Geotechnical Investigation Report
As requested,the Olympic Region Materials Office has completed the soils investigation
for a 36-in culvert replacement project located along US 101 at approximately MP 316.16
in Mason County(see attached plan sheet for location). This project proposes to replace
an existing culvert by placing a new one slightly above at a different angle than the
existing one.
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations provided in this memprandum are
based on our reconnaissance of the site and subsurface explorations in the vicinity of the
proposed culvert replacement alignment.The geotechnical recommendations contained in
this memorandum are based on subsurface conditions observed in two drilled borings. If
different subsurface soil conditions are encountered or appear to be present during
construction, our office should be contacted to evaluate changed soil conditions.
PROJECT GEOLOGY
The site is largely composed of Quaternary non-glacial deposits. Soil units are composed
of land slide deposits of clay silt sand and gravel as well as larger blocks chaotically
mixed and poorly sorted. The geography is commonly hummocky and includes talus and
Holocene moraines. See attached geologic Map.
SITE&SOIL CONDITIONS
The proposed culvert will be placed in an existing fill.
In Boring H-1-I I located along NB US 101 at approximately MP 316.16, Lt. the soils
generally consist of loose silt(Fill)in the upper 5.5 feet. From 5.5 feet to 12.5 feet soils
generally consist of very loose sandy silt to a silt with sand(Fill). From 12.5 feet to 20.5
feet soils generally consist of very loose silt. From 20.5 feet to 25.5 feet soils generally
consist of soft elastic silt with sand to a elastic silt with wood. From 25.5 feet to 30.5 feet
DOT 700.00BEF
Revised 3/93
Jerry Moore
April 27, 2011
Page 2
soils generally consist of wood and gravel.From 30.5 feet to 40.5 feet soils generally
consist of loose to medium dense silt(see attached boring log H-1-11).
In Boring H-2-11 located along SB US 101 at approximately MP 316.16, Rt. the soils
generally consist of medium dense silty sand with gravel in the upper 5.5 feet(Fill). From
5.5 feet to 10.5 feet soils generally consist of very loose silt(Fill). From 10.5 feet to 25.5
feet soils generally consist of soft elastic silt with sand to a elastic silt. From 25.5 feet to
30.5 feet soils generally consist of medium stiff sandy elastic silt with gravel(see
attached boring log H-2-11).
An unstable slope is noted in the WSDOT Unstable slope Data Base between MP limits
316.02 and 316.03 Left. The slope is currently rated 213 which is less than the rating
needed for slope repair. The instability is typically confined to the shoulder and requires
periodic re-leveling with asphalt by maintenance. See the attached slope rating.
Additional slope stability of similar scope is present at the proposed culvert replacement
location. Based on the observed and yearly settlement of the east shoulder it is clear that
the embankment stability is slightly above 1 in static conditions.
It should be emphasized that replacing the existing culvert will only improve slope
stability from its current condition. Water moving through the culvert will be directed to
an armored outfall which will promote slope stability. In addition the new culvert will
ensure water does not discharge into the roadway embankment.
GROUNDWATER
Perched water and/or ground water should be expected approximately 22.2 feet from
existing ground elevation, as shown in boring log H-1-11.
Fluctuations in the ground water table will occur due to variations in rainfall as well as
other seasonal factors.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Culvert Installation
Based on Boring log H-1-I I and H-2-11 the contractor should expect to encounter soils
consisting of very loose sandy silt grading to soft elastic silt. Boring H-1-11 indicates that
an approximately 1.5' diameter log was encountered about 25 feet below the surface. The
contractor should be prepared to install the new culvert pipe through wood logs or other
wood debris which may be present. In addition the contractor should expect that the
loose/soft silts are prone to caving and sloughing if left unsupported. Excavation ahead of
the casing should be prohibited.
Jerry Moore
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Construction Access
The existing roadway alignment of US 101 consists of embankments with 1H:1V side
slopes on the out flow side 21-1:1 V on the inflow side. Construction access down to the
out flow area will occur will be difficult.
Temporary Slopes and Shoring
We anticipate that temporary slopes and shoring will be necessary to construct temporary
access roads and trenchless culvert installation pits. The design of all temporary slopes
and shoring should be the responsibility of the contractor, as the contractor will have
control of key factors that could influence the stability(such as length of time for slope
cut exposure, control of groundwater and surface water, etc).
Construction Dewatering
We anticipate that some amount of dewatering and surface water control will be
necessary, even during the drier summer months, to keep the trenchless culvert
installation pits free of ponding surface water due to a ditch line that intercepts the
jacking pit location. Groundwater or surface water flowing into the pits should be
removed or rerouted to an appropriate location where it can be treated(if necessary) and
discharged. Discharged water should be tight lined to the base of any slopes in the project
vicinity to avoid destabilizing existing slopes. Temporary dewatering and maintaining the
stability of the trenchless culvert installation pit subgrade may be difficult.
We recommend requiring a submittal item for temporary dewatering to be reviewed by
the Engineer prior to proceeding with the culvert construction. The submittal should
provide a detailed explanation of the methods and procedures proposed by the
Contractor,the design calculations and shop drawings.
CLOSURE
If you have any questions or require further information,please contact Bryan Dias at
(360)704-3213 or Terry MacAuley at(360) 704-3279.
BD:cv
CV
Attachments
SEC.12 T.24N. R.M. W.M.
/ -7— -1
10.STA,.410..Do / \� ` I I sT, �_A 6xz.00.oD
to.o.fio.D L \ �� � 1 � 'r / 1i+� ea.D•.sD.D• LrsD.D• Lr�j��. l� ,
BEGIN PROJECT I i 1 1 ELEv aJ.50' —+—J//r —
I `� \ �\ \ �� H-1-11
1 316.0L61
1 ` , , LL
US I0 MP 1 .' r ' STe 6YS:a T.00= aeo_ �^�—+-- /
' �`�`----•1 6 IY. DIeY. CULVERT �Y
------ --620 _ _ r� ------------ ----------621 --------- -'ll - ------622------- ---us 101
r
EXISTING
•--------•..------ 36 IN Oi AM. CULYERT � 4TA 621.59.00 _
__________„ _____________ �7__ ______---_______________ ____------------
___-._ \\ \! I i STA 6YY+OO.OD _J
------------------ ---- END PROJECT
67A cIs•oo.oD �� \�\1 `� H-2-11 US 101 MP 316.26
30.0',50.0' AT
5U GRI•l6.00
Sa.O' IT
\\11 I1`I /
20
11 D AD
SCALE iN FEET
/ LEGEND
STA 62D•5s.90 !7A{21•a7.DD ••—r-• Ex IST[NG DITCH LINE
50.0'. 11D.0 AT TEYPORLIT IlO.D'. 50.D• RS ————- EXISTING R/Y LINE
CONSTII1ICTION ----- E%ISITNG EDGE PAVEMENT
O Boring Location EASEIUNT
--------- EXISTING EDGE OF SHOULDER
EKISTING CULVERT
T7====== CULVERT
F NAME G:\ Ps�X 3657 S PO S of 9aocon Point Oriva-Motor Drcln a Ladd eoc n P Int. A P T
M .41� qa +'•� FED.AID PROJ.NO. i US 701
DATE12/10/2010 64r
10 t1A5 S OF BEACON POINT DRIVE
DESIGNED ET J.STYIECI[ ;, , MAJOR DRAINAGE rr.
ENTERED BT a L1N a,^r,a`�- Washington State
ENTER D Br W.LImoAHI .ter Iat�+s a apartment of Transportation ArRARI
PROD. ENGR. J.o,MOoeI AUGNMENDRIGHT OF WAY43RAINAGE P �cn
REGIONAL ADM. R Y DY D► T
y 3
�-
AV
.s a
m
� a
s"
MP 316.06 v
- -- MP 316.26 U
s .
Qao
y
. �.
Z -
f�,
4
s�
. t
.. . 1G...b�„ . Y.1. -
` w: • i g % 1
s
Qts = Quaternary age, Land slide depost
FILE NAME C:IAAWork1GEO MAP.dgn
TIME 3:53:12 PM REGION STATE FED.AID PROJ.NO.
DATE 4/27/2011 -- N0 PLAN REF NO
PLOTTED BY VaughnC 10 WAS us 101
IVTV
DESIGNED BY JOB NUMBER Washington State MP 316.06 to MP 316.26 SHEET
ENTERED BY
CHECKED BY CONTRACT NO. LOCATION NO. Department of Transportation
OF
PROJ.ENGR.
REGIONAL ADM. REVISION DATE BY P E STAMP Box DATE A E SHEETS
P E.ST4N1 PO%
Washington State LOG OF TEST BORING
Department of Transportation Start card S 42773
HOLE No. H-1-11
Job No XL-3657 SR 101 Elevation ft
Sheet 1 of 3
Project US 101 South of Beacon Point Drive---Culvert Replacement Driller Shepherd,Robert Lic# 2710
Site Address SR-101 Vic.MP 316 Inspector Hilts,Brian#2249
Start January 20,2011 Completion January 20,2011 Well ID# Equipment CME 55 truck(9C1-3)-AH
Station Offset Hole Dia 6 Method Wet Rotary
(inches)
Northing tasting Collected by Other Datum
County Mason Subsection SE1/4 of NE1/4 Section 12 Range 3 WWM Township 24N
" w/lows6
Field SPT(N) B n o ^ c
K (N) F z z 3 m
n Moisture Content and/or n a a m Description of Material
p 2 o_ ® ROD RQD m F ~ 2 c
w 20 40 60 80 FF
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 3 D-1 SILT,loose,brown,moist,homogeneous, HCI not
I I I I 4 tested,with a trace of gravel.
I I I I 4 Length Recovered:1.1 ft. Length Retained:1.1 ft.
5 I I I I 5
I I I I (6)
I I I I
I I I I
I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I 1 1 D-2 Sandy SILT with gravel,very loose,brown,moist,
I I I 1 2 stratified, HCI not tested,with some hair roots.
I I I I 1 Length Recovered:0.8 ft. Length Retained:0.8 ft.
I I I I 2
a 10 I I I I (3)
I I I I 1 D-3 SILT with sand,very loose,gray,moist,homogeneous,
I I I I 1 HCI not tested,with some gravel,and stratified with some
I I I I 2 brown color.
a I I I I 2 Length Recovered:1.2 ft. Length Retained:1.2 ft.
I I I I (3)
Ui
I I I I
o I I I I S-4 SILT,gray,homogeneous,
Z I I I I
CL I I I I
0 15 I I I I
a I I I I
00 I I I I o Q5LU
SILT,very loose,gray,moist,stratified, HCI not tested,
1 the top S with some fine sand,trace gravel and hair
2 roots.
I I I I
D I I I I 1 Length Recovered:1.5 ft. Length Retained:1.5 ft.
0
I I I I (3)
I I I I
I I I I
J
I I I I o D-6 SILT,very loose,gray,moist,stratified, HCI not tested,
I I I I o with a trace of sand and hair roots.
g I I I I o Length Recovered:11.2 ft. Length Retained:1.2 ft.
U) 20 2
vp FWashington State LOG OF TEST BORING
Department of Transportation Start Card S 42773
HOLE No. H-1-11
Job No XL-3657 SR 101 Elevation ft
Sheet 2 of 3
Project US 101 South of Beacon Point Drive---Culvert Replacement Driller Shepherd,Robert Lic# 2710
r Field SPT(N) Blows/6" a d
t ` a� * Moisture Content (N) a) Z o w E
a mo and/or n o M �, Description of Material
o _m' a ® RQD RQD F ~ 2
w FF in �
20 40 60 80
I I I I (0)
I I I I 1 D-7 Elastic SILT with sand,soft,gray,moist,stratified, HCI
I I I I 2 not tested,with some dark brown organics,hair roots,
I I I I 1 and FeO stains.
I I 1 1 2 Length Recovered:1.5 ft. Length Retained:1.5 ft. SZ
I I I I (3) -
I I I I 1/20/2011
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 0 D-8 Elastic SILT,Wood,soft,gray,moist,stratified, HCI not
I I I I 2 tested,with some dark brown organics,the bottom .6'
I I I I 2 was wood.
I I I I 9 Length Recovered:1.5 ft. Length Retained:1.5 ft.
25 1 1 1 I
I (4)
I I I 1 21 D-9 Wood,medium dense,reddish brown,moist,
I I I 1 14 homogeneous, HCI not tested.
I I I I 10 Length Recovered:0.9 ft. Length Retained:0.9 ft.
I I I I 9
I I I I (24)
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 2 D-10 Wood with one large Gravel,loose,reddish brown,
I I I I 2 moist,stratified, HCI not tested,the bottom had one
I I I I 3 large gravel,had to use the over-sized split-spoon to get
3o I I I I 7 recovery.
I I I I (5) Length Recovered:0.8 ft. Length Retained:0.8 ft.
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I 1 3 D-11 SILT,loose,gray,moist,homogeneous, HCI not tested.
I I 1 1 4 Length Recovered:0.8 ft. Length Retained:0.8 ft.
I I I I 6
a I I I I 7
a 35 I I I I (10)
o I I I I
o I I I I
N I I I I
I I I I
w I I I 1
I I I I
I I I
o I I I 5 D-12 SILT,medium dense,gray,moist,homogeneous, HCI
Z I I I I 9 not tested.
1 1 1 1 12 Length Recovered:1.9 ft. Length Retained:1.9 ft.
a.
0 40 I I I I 15
a I I I I (21)
w
m I I I I
° I I I I
o I I I I
o I I I I
D I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
x I I I I
0 I I I I The implied accuracy of the borehole location
Washington State LOG OF TEST BORING
7"I� Department of Transportation Start Card S 42773
Job No XL-3657 101 ft HOLE No. H-1-11
SR Elevation
Sheet 3 of 3
project US 101 South of Beacon Point Drive---Culvert Replacement Driller Shepherd, Robert Lic# 2710
Field SPT(N) Blows/6' 8 z° o m
c
a) Moisture Content (N) ~ �, z E
a m o and/or a n .8 10 Description of Material 2
O a ® ROD RQD E m o c
w FF cn N t 0
20 40 60 80
I I I I information displayed on this boring log is typically
I I I I sub-meter in(X,Y)when collected by the HQ Geotech
I I I I Division and sub-centimeter in(X,Y,Z)when collected by
I I I I the Region Survey Crew.
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I End of test hole boring at 40.5 ft below ground elevation.
I I I I This is a summary Log of Test Boring.
I I I I Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field
I I I I identifications and laboratory test data.
50— I I I I
I I I I Note: REF=SPT Refusal
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I Bail/Recharge test:
I I I I Hole Diameter:6
I I I I Depth of boring during bail test:40.5'
I I I I Depth of casing during bail test:38'
I I I I Bailed bore hole water level to 33'
I I I I
Recharge after 5 minutes:27.3'
55 I I I I Recharge after 10 minutes:25.4'
I I I I Recharge after 15 minutes:24.9'
I I I I Recharge after 20 minutes:24.6'
I I I I Recharge after 25 minutes:24.6'
I I I I tripped out all the casing,the hole stayed open to 33',the
I I I I water table was at 22.2'
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
60 1 1 1 1
o I I I I
o I I I I
� I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
> I I I I
o I I I I
z I I I I
a I I I I
0 65 I I I I
a I I I I
a) I I I I
o I I I I
= I I I I
D I I I I
0 I I I I
b I I I I
w I I I I
n I I I I
I I I I
S I I I I
0
I I I I
70
_JA.VWashington State LOG OF TEST BORING
Department of Transportation Start Card S 42773
' HOLE No. H-2-11
Job No XL-3657 SR 101 Elevation ft
Sheet 1 of 2
Project US 101 South of Beacon Point Drive---Culvert Replacement Driller Shepherd, Robert Lic# 2710
Site Address SR-101 Vic.MP 316 Inspector Hilts,Brian#2249
Start January 20,2011 Completion January 20,2011 Well ID# Equipment CME 55 truck(9C1-3)-AH
Station Offset Hole Dia 6 Method Wet Rotary
(inches)
Northing Easting Collected by Other Datum
County Mason Subsection SE1/4 of NE1/4 Section 12 Range 3 WWM Township 24N
Blows/6" �
Field SPT(N) n o (D
t g c Moisture Content (N) . d z a 4 3 E
o and/or d a a) m a Description of Material
p a ® ROD RQD E m ' J ~ 2'
w FF �n C7 —
20 40 60 80
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 4 D-1 Silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,brown,moist,
I I I I 6 stratified, HCI not tested,the top.6'was sand with
I I I I 5 gravel,the middle.2'was silt,and the bottom .2'was silty
5 I I I I 9 sand with gravel..
I I I I (11) Length Recovered:11 ft. Length Retained:1 ft.
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I 1 0 D-2 SILT,very loose,gray,moist,homogeneous, HCI not
I I I I 1 tested,with a trace of sand and hair roots..
I I I I 1 Length Recovered:0.8 ft. Length Retained:0.8 ft.
a I I I I 2
N 10 I I I I (2)
I I I I 1 D-3 Elastic SILT with sand,soft,gray,moist,stratified, HCI
❑ g y,
I I I I 2 not tested,with some black and brown organics,hair
I I I I 1 roots,and a trace of gravel..
IL 2 Length Recovered:2 ft. Length Retained:2 ft.
I I I I
I I I I (3)
I I I I
o I I I I 0 D-4 Elastic SILT,soft,gray,moist,homogeneous, HCI not
z I I I I 1 tested,with a trace of sand and hair roots..
1 1 1 I 1 Length Recovered:0.8 ft. Length Retained:0.8 ft.
CL
z I I I I 1
0 15 I I I I (2)
I I I I 1 D-5 Elastic SILT,soft,gray,moist,homogeneous, HCI not
0 I I I I 2 tested,with some dark brown organics,hair roots,and a
I I I I 1 trace of fine sand..
o I I I I 2 Length Recovered:2 ft. Length Retained:2 ft.
S I I I I (3)
y I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
J
I I I I 1 as Elastic SILT,soft,gray,moist,homogeneous, HCI not
I I I I 1 tested,with some wood debris..
o I I I I 1 Length Recovered:0.9 ft. Length Retained:0.9 ft.
ti 20 2
�A111k
Washington State LOG OF TEST BORING
Department of Transportation Start Card S 42773
Job No XL-3657 SR 101 Elevation ft HOLE No. H-2-11
Sheet 2 of 2
Project US 101 South of Beacon Point Drive--Culvert Replacement Driller Shepherd, Robert Lic# 2710
Field SPT(N) Blows/6" 2a d :?
c
N
a o Moisture Content and/or a Q Description of Material 2
O a ® RQD RQD E m 2 c
w FF in Cn c7
20 40 60 80
I I I I (2)
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 1 D-7 Elastic SILT with sand,soft,gray,moist,stratified, HCI
I I I I 2 not tested,with a trace of black organics and gravel..
I I I I 1 Length Recovered:1.4 ft. Length Retained:1.4 ft.
I I I I 5
25 1 1 1 1
I I I I (3)
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 13 D-8 Sandy Elastic SILT with gravel,medium stiff,gray,moist,
I I I I 4 homogeneous, HCI not tested,with a trace of black
I I I I 4 organics..
30 I I I I 6 Length Recovered:1 ft. Length Retained:1 ft.
I I I I (8)
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
a I I I I The implied accuracy of the borehole location
35 I I I I information displayed on this boring log is typically
o I I I I sub-meter in(X,Y)when collected by the HQ Geotech
I I I I Division and sub-centimeter in(X,Y,Z)when collected by
o I I I I the Region Survey Crew.
I I I I
Ui
I I I I
I I
o I I I I End of test hole boring at 30.5 ft below ground elevation.
z I I I I This is a summary Log of Test Boring.
1 1 I 1 Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field
0.
0 40 I I I I identifications and laboratory test data.
I I I I Note: REF=SPT Refusal
0 I I I I
= I I I I
0 I I I I
n I I I I
I I I I
g I I I I
0
I I I I
cn 45
Unstable Slope Management System: Unstable Slope Rating Edit Page 1 of 1
EGION IF OL [RATED BY Unknown
SR 101 ATE IL 10/13/1995
[BEG MP 316.020
ND MP 316.030 SPEED:posted(mph) 50
SIDE of ROAD(L/R) [ACTUAL SIGHT DISTANCE: 0
stimated t.
FUNCTIONAL CLASS R1 ECISION SIGHT DISTANCE: (ft.) IL 0
See Guidelines for Definitions of Categories and Rating Criteria.(Click Appropriate Button for each catergory.)
CATEGORY 3 9 27 81 POINTS
SOIL 4, Erosion Settlement Landslide Debris Flow
PROBLEM o' )
TYPE ROCK J ,
Rockfall/
Minor/Good Mod./Fair Major/Ltd. Major/None
Catchment (_
ADT, ADT 1751 <5K 5-20K 20-40K >40K
avg.
daily Trucks 0 0 3
traffic
PDSD , %of decision 100%+ 80-99% 60-79% <60%
sight distance. 0 0�0 1 11
( g1
IMPACT of 0 <50' 50'-200' 200'-500' >500'
FAILURE
on ROADWAY fill in value(/t) �'
Shoulder 1/2 Roadway 3/4 Roadway Roadway
ROADWAY IMPEDENCE
AVERAGE VEHICLE 0% <25% 25-50% 50-75% >75%
RISK
Minor Moderate Severe Extreme
PAVEMENT DAMAGE
0/5 YR 1/5 YR 1/YR 1+/YR
FAILURE FREQUENCY
<5000 5-10K 10-50K >SOK
MAINTENANCE COSTS,$/year IF
� I
Not Needed Short(<3mi) Long(>3mi) Sole Access
ECONOMIC FACTOR,e.g. Detours
IF 11 , 1
ACCIDENTS, in 0 0 To 1 2 To 3 IF 4 To 5 >5 1 --]last 10 years 3
TOTAL POINTS 213
http://wwwi.wsdot.wa.gov/Systems/Slope/Rating/RatingEdit.cf n?Unstable_Slope Num=2... 4/27/2011
1