HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2006-02015 Geotechnical Exploration Report - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 10/25/2006 MASON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
Shelton, Washington 98584
NCO.
DATE: December 18, 2006
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Chuck McCoy PARCEL # 22325-44-02021
FROM: Patricia Carroll-PW BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: BLD2006-02015
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Report NAME: Stephen Johnson, Inc
Hi Chuck:
The Geotechnical Report of a single-family residence located at 1270 NE Mission Creek Road, Belfair has
been received and reviewed by Public Works.
The footings dictated by the in-situ soils indicates that the structure can be established on 12-inch wide
shallow continuous footings placed at a minimum, of one foot below finished grade. The foundations for
the planned structure should be designed for an allowable maximum bearing pressure of 1500 psf for
foundation established on undisturbed native soil. If drainage problems occur during or after construction,
water mitigation may be required. This may include a combination of swales, berms, plastic drainpipes or
outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structure and/or reduce erosion. Roof drains may
be installed to transport the water from the roof directly into a permeable soil at least 5 feet away from
foundations and floor slabs. If roof and foundation drains are utilized, they should be installed as a
separate drainage system, and not tie into each other.
All areas to be excavated should be cleared of deleterious matter including any existing structures, debris,
duff, and vegetation. Removal of natural vegetation should be minimized and limited to the active construction
areas. Yard landscaping around the home and on the slopes should be encouraged as much as possible as
a deterrent to erosion. Adequate erosion and sediment control features need to be implemented during land
disturbing activities to protect neighboring properties and State waters from adverse stormwater runoff
impacts. The migration or release of silty water or mud from the applicant's property will be considered a
violation of County and State water quality protection regulations.
The report appears to satisfactorily address County requirements for Geotechnical Reporting.
Recommendations contained in the report must be incorporated into the site development plans and made
conditions for permit issuance
Please feel free to contact me at 724 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any
features need further discussion or attention.
Sincerely,
Patricia Carroll
Public Works
MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS WORK ORDER
Permit #: $ -D Z
Date: It — 2 NOV 212006
Requested by: Gb4uC*, K-e_ e Ws
Authorized by:
MASnnI rrniN�Y CNJ�R.�
Type of Work: Ca av r_F_uw_w
Public Works
employee in charge:
CHARGE TO:
Name:
Billing Address:
Phone:
WORK PERFORMED:
Employee:
Date:
Hours:
Hourly Rate: 56
Total: �--�
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE INFO:
Billed Date:
Invoice #:
Amount Billed:
Receipt #
Date:
Amount Paid:
Geotechnical Exploration Report
Johnson Single Family Residence
1270 NE Mission Creek Road
Belfair, Washington 98528
October 25, 2006
Project#0603
Prepared For:
Stephen Johnson, Inc
PO Box 488
Belfair, Washington 98528
Prepared By:
Envirotech Engineering
74 NE Hurd Road
Belfair, Washington 98528
Phone: 1-800-3 87-6806
Fax: 360-275-4789
RECEI\IED
Nov 16 2006
BELFAIR OFFICE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Purpose of Investigation 1
1.3 Scope of Work 1
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3
2.1 General Observations 3
2.2 Drainage 3
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 4
3.1 Field Methods 4
3.2 Field Sampling 4
3.3 Field Testing 4
3.4 Subsurface Conditions 4
3.5 Laboratory Testing 6
3.5.1 Limited Particle Size Analysis 6
3.5.2 Atterburg Limits 6
3.5.3 Visual Classification 6
3.5.4 SOILS LOG 6a
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
4.1 Foundation Recommendations 7
4.2 Settlement 7
4.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 8
4.4 Earthwork Construction Recommendations 8
4.5 Slope Stability 9
4.5.1 Vegetation Considerations 9
4.5.2 Septic Drainfield Impacts 9
4.6 Surface and Subsurface Drainage 10
4.7 Building and Footing Setbacks 10
4.8 Erosion Control 10
4.9 Other Considerations 10
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 12
SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS
Foundations
Type: Continuous, shallow
Width: 12 inches minimum
Depth: 12 inches minimum
Bearing: 1500 pounds per square foot
Bearing Strata: Undisturbed Native Soil,
Re-compacted Native Soil, or
Compacted Engineered Fill.
Material Beneath Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Material Type: Undisturbed Native Soil,
Re-compacted Native Soil, or
Compacted Engineered Fill.
Thickness: 6 inches
Earthwork
Engineered Fill: Granular with less than 10%fines
Compaction: 12 inch lifts, and 95% Standard Compaction (ASTM 698)
Or
Hydro-compaction
Over-excavate: None
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Envirotech Engineering (EE) has completed a geotechnical investigation for the property
located at 1270 NE Mission Creek Road, Belfair, Washington 98528 (Project). As
presented herein, this report includes information pertaining to the Project in the
Introduction Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface
Conditions Section; field methods and soils descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation
Section; and, foundation, settlement, slabs-on-grade, earthwork, slope stability and other
considerations in the Engineering Analysis and Recommendations Section.
An initial evaluation of the Project was conducted by the owner/ developer, Stephen
Johnson, Inc. and EE on October 19, 2006. Subsequently it was determined to prepare a
geotechnical evaluation/ report pursuant to Mason County requirements. A site visit by
EE on October 23, 2006 was accomplished in order to evaluate the surface and subsurface
conditions of the Project. After completion of the field work, EE performed laboratory
tests on soil samples that were collected at the Project, and lastly, prepared this
geotechnical report.
1.1 Project Description
Information pertaining to the Project was provided by Steve Johnson, owner and
developer of the Project. The Project is comprised of almost 1/3 acre of land and will
consist of constructing a I-story single family residence with over 2900 square feet of
building footprint, which includes the residence and garage. Additional Project
improvements will include a septic system and possibly other ancillary features. The
approximate building footprint is currently designated by flag markers, and the septic drain
field is planned to be located within the general vicinity of the existing three test pits that
were excavated near the southwest corner of the property.
1.2 Purpose of Investigation
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the Project in order to
provide geotechnical recommendations relating to the planned site improvements. The
investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and subsurface
conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the proposed
improvements.
1.3 Scope of Work
In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program completed for the
proposed improvements of the Project include:
Envirotech Engineering Gcotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 1 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25. 2006
• Review project information provided by the Project owner;
• Conduct a site visit to document and photograph the site conditions that may
influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements;
• Define the general subsurface conditions of the project site by observing 3 trenches
to depths of approximately six feet, observing the surface of the adjacent slope,
probing the soils below the surface within the building footprint, and reviewing
well logs in the vicinity of the Project;
• Collect bulk samples at various depths and locations;
• Perform laboratory testing to determine selected index properties of the soils,
including 3 limited particle size analyses and 2 Atterburg limits;
• Complete an engineering analysis based on planned improvements, and the surface
and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation and
laboratory testing; and
• Establish conclusions based on findings and make recommendations for
foundations, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements,
and other considerations.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 2 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25. 2006
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Information pertaining to the surface conditions for the Project was gathered on October
23, 2006. During this time, photographs were taken of the surface and surrounding areas
and site features were documented that may influence construction. Observation and
documentation included topography, vegetation, and drainage.
2.1 General Observations
An approximate 150 feet in length, 45 degree ascending slope exists on the east side of the
subject property, and begins near the east end of the cleared building pad. The cleared
building pad is approximately 80 feet by 100 feet with flag delineations of the approximate
location of the planned single family residence building footprint. The planned septic
drainfield is located near the southwest corner of the subject property. Vegetation has
been cleared on the building pad and a small area of a lower portion of the slope. The
majority of the slope is densely populated with trees and underbrush.
2.2 Drainage
It appears that most of the stormwater runoff originating from beyond the top of the slope
is prevented from flowing down the slope on the subject property by an access road and
drainage features on the adjacent property. Due to the nature and composition of the
relatively small slope face on the subject property, sheet flow originating from the slope
during periods of high intensity rainfall should be insignificant. The cleared building pad
has a small gradient towards the southwest that leads to the roadway drainage ditch.
Storm water entering the Project from neighboring properties on the north and south sides
appear to be negligible or non-existent. On the west side of the property, the roadway and
associated drainage ditches appear to prevent water from entering the property. Although
much of the Project has been previously graded, significant scour or erosion due to
drainage was not observed on the subject property.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 3 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25. 2006
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered by Michael
Staten, geotechnical engineer with EE, on October 23, 2006. Specific information on field
methods, sampling, field testing, subsurface conditions, and results from the laboratory
testing are presented in this section of the report.
3.1 Field Methods
Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by observing,
sampling and testing the soils within 3 existing trench excavations extending to a depth of
approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. Additional information on
subsurface conditions was collected by shallow probing up to 2 feet below the existing
ground surface within the area of the proposed building pad, and reviewing well logs for
neighboring properties.
3.2 Field Sampling
Three bulk samples were collected at the Project site from within the existing excavated
trenches at 1.5 feet, 3 feet and 6 feet below the existing ground surface. These soils are
expected to represent the soils beneath the planned building. All soil samples collected
were secured and transported for laboratory testing.
3.3 Field Testing
Relative density of the in-situ soils were acquired by recording the resistance from driving
a '/2" steel bar into the varying site soils within the proposed building footprint and existing
excavated trenches. These results indicated loose to medium dense soils in the upper 12
inches, and medium dense to dense soils below 12 inches of the existing ground surface.
3.4 Subsurface Conditions
The Project subgrade within the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling and observed
locations appeared to be composed of native soils. These native soils consisted primarily
of 4 distinguishable layers ranging from the ground surface to a depth of six feet below the
existing ground surface.
The upper 6 inches to 10 inches of soil, primarily consisted of a dark brown silty sand
(SM) with a trace of gravel. The silty sand soils were loose to medium dense, and
exhibited a medium moisture content.
The soils between approximately 8 inches to 2 feet below the existing undisturbed ground
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-Ci806 Page 4 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25. 2006
surface were a brown silt (ML) with a trace of fine sand. These soils had a stiff to very
stiff consistency, retained a medium moisture content, and a very low plasticity of fines.
The soils from about 2 feet to 4 feet below the existing undisturbed ground surface
consisted mainly of a brown, medium dense to dense, well-graded or poorly-graded gravel
with sand (GW or GP). The gravel was primarily coarse and subrounded, while the sand
content was mostly medium and coarse.
From about 4 feet to 6 feet below the existing undisturbed ground surface, the soils were
mostly a very stiff silt with sand (ML). The soil had a fine to medium grain sand content,
and the fine soils exhibited non-plastic properties.
In most instances, the upper 6 inches to 10 inches of soil contained many roots and other
organic material with a dark brown hue. Neither groundwater nor bedrock was
encountered during the field exploration.
t
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 5 of 12 Johnson Residence
Far 360-275-4789 October 25,2006
3.5 Laboratory Testing
The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved
and transported for specific laboratory testing. The following laboratory tests were
performed in accordance to the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
• 3 Limited Particle Size Analyses (ASTM D422);
• D4318 2 Atterburg Limits(ASTM ), and
• 10 Visual Classifications(ASTM D2488).
3.5.1 Limited Particle Size Analysis
A limited particle size analysis was performed on three soil samples collected at the
Project site. Only the No. 4 and No. 200 sieves were utilized in order to determine
the gravel, sand and fines content of the individual soil sample.
For the upper silty (ML) soils from approximately 8 inches to 2 feet below the
existing ground surface, the silt content was 89%, and the sand made up the
remaining 11% of the sample.
The well-graded or poorly-graded gravel with sand (GW or GP) consisted of a
gravel content of 58%, sand content of 39%, and the fines content of 3%.
The lower silt with sand (ML) soils below 4 feet from the existing ground surface
contained 81% silt and 19%fine and medium-grained sand.
3.5.2 Atterburg Limits
Atterburg Limits were performed on both silt (ML) samples obtained at the Project
site. These tests indicate that the soils are generally nonplastic to very low
plasticity.
3.5.3 Visual Classification
In addition to laboratory classification of the soil, 11 distinctive soil stratifications
in the field were visually classified. These results were consistent with the
laboratory classification as presented in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.1 of this report.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 6 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25,2006
TEST PIT LOG
TYPICAL
PROJECT: Johnson Residence DATE OF TEST PIT: 10/23/06
PROJECT NO:0603 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: Stephen Johnson,Inc. DRILLER: WA
LOCATION: 1270 NE Mission Creek Road DRILL RIG: WA
Belfair,Washington 98525 ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: NIA FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION Tr T
DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE
AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50
g ... ............ ..............
'! SM Dark frown SILTYSAND with some NP
organics and a trace of fine gravel,loose
r to medium dense,non-plastic,moist.
1 .. .. .. ......
er ML Brown SILT with a trace of fine sand,stiff
SMaw
1.it consistency to very stiff,non-plastic,
moist.89%silt,and 11%fine send-
2r ....I..................._...................
O O GP Brown Poorly-or Well-Graded GRAVEL
q 0 with Sand and a trace of lines,medium
O 0 dense to dense,moist
3 O O sit. 58%fine and coarse gravel,subrounded.
gg00 Rios, 39%send.predominantly coarse
O O 3%non plastic sift
ML Brown SILT oath Sand,very stiff
consistency,nor-plastic,moist.
WA 81%silt,and 19%fine and medium
5 � grained sand.
e
Toot Pit depth at 6.0 feet
7
8
9
10
No Groundvrater Encountered EWWTECH ENGINEERING
Geolechnical Engineering
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present engineering analysis and recommendations for the
proposed improvements of the Project. These recommendations have been made available
based on the planned improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report,
and the surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation
and laboratory testing. Engineering analysis and recommendations for foundations,
settlement, slope stability, concrete slabs-on-grade, earthwork construction, building and
footing setbacks, surface and subsurface drainage and erosion control are provided herein.
4.1 Foundation Recommendations
The recommended allowable bearing capacities as presented herein consider the type of
construction as well as the field investigation results by implementing practical engineering
judgment within published engineering standards. Evaluations include classifying site soils,
and deriving probable relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the
in-situ soils based on observed field conditions for this Project.
Beyond the upper 6 inches to 10 inches of undisturbed soil, there are apparently three
distinguishable layers that will influence the bearing capacity and settlement of the planned
single family residence. For the existing site conditions, bearing values should increase
with depth. Existing in-situ soils under the planned building footprint at the Project
site indicates that the structure can be established on 12-inch wide shallow
continuous footings placed at a minimum of one foot below finished grade.
Foundations for the planned structure should be designed for an allowable
maximum bearing pressure of 1500 psf for foundations established on undisturbed
native soil. If the foundation is not placed on undisturbed native soil, then
foundations may be established on re-compacted native soil or compacted
engineered fill as described in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations
Section (Section 4.4) of this report.
4.2 Settlement
Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the
subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the
structure, and in some instances, the infiltration of free moisture. Based on the expected
native soil conditions and recommended bearing capacities presented above, the proposed
foundation system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum
differential settlement of 0.5 inch.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 7 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25, 2006
4.3 Concrete Slabs on Grade
Interior slabs should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of compacted material that is
placed over undisturbed native subgrade. Native soils found at the Project site or
structural fill are acceptable soils to support concrete slabs. It is recommended to support
concrete slabs with structural fill or gravelly GP/ GW soils such as those found on site for
unheated structures such as a garage, or structures that may be unheated during periods of
freeze/ thaw. Also, these coarse soils may provide a positive drainage barrier underneath
the planned concrete slab. Although not required for the structural integrity of the
concrete slab-on-grade, a vapor barrier may be utilized for damp-proofing as presented in
the Other Considerations Section of this report. Re-compacted native soils or compacted
engineered fill recommendations are found in the following Earthwork Construction
Recommendations of this report.
4.4 Earthwork Construction Recommendations
Founding material for the planned building foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade may
consist of undisturbed native soils, compacted engineered fill, or re-compacted native
soils. The following earthwork construction recommendations include excavations,
subgrade preparation, type of fill and placement of fill.
Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious
material, if present, beneath foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade. All soils below the
bottom of the excavation shall be minimally disturbed and completely dewatered before
placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or concrete.
For disturbed native silty and silty sand soils utilized directly beneath foundations and/ or
concrete slabs-on-grade, the following compaction requirements are necessary.
Compaction of these materials should be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6
inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). Each lift surface should be adequately maintained
during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding. If
coarse granular soils are utilized, compaction may be achieved by moderately densifying
granular soils with construction equipment and soaking periodically to promote hydro
compression and reduce desiccation. This type of compaction may be utilized if
engineered fill or disturbed native gravelly soils found approximately 2 feet to 4 feet below
the existing ground surface are utilized directly beneath foundations or concrete slabs.
For foundations, the limits of re-compacted disturbed native soils or compacted
engineered fill should extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of
one foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill beneath the foundation.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25, 2006
Engineered fill, if used, should consist mostly of gravel-sized material with sand and less
than 10% fines (particles passing #200 sieve) by weight. Both re-compacted native soils
and engineered fill should be free of roots and other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size,
or any other deleterious matter.
4.5 Slope Stability
An approximate 150 feet in length, 45 degree ascending slope exists beyond the east side
of the planned building footprint. During the site visit, there were no indications of deep-
seated slope or surficial slope failures. The Simplified Bishop Method was used to analyze
the slope stability utilizing site soils, topography and various slip surfaces. Building loads,
other surcharges or impacts from the septic drainfield are not expected to have any
influence on the stability of the slope. Based on observations, types of soils within the
Project, and the slope stability analysis, the subject property has an acceptable factor of
safety relative to deep-seated slope failures.
Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements are natural processes that
usually do not affect the structural capability of the slope. However, excessive and
repeated surficial slope movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural
integrity of the slope over time. It is unlikely that this Project will experience excessive
surficial movements in the near future, however, maintenance of the slope is recommended
if the situation does arise.
4.5.1 Vegetation Considerations
Vegetation is an excellent measure to minimize surficial slope movements and
erosion on slope faces and exposed surfaces. The existing slope is currently
vegetated sufficiently, and the property appears to be sufficiently cleared. EE
recommends to minimize removal of additional vegetation during and after
construction. If removal is necessary, ground disturbance should be avoided where
feasible, and it is also recommended to allow stumps and roots to remain as much
as possible. Vegetation and re-vegetation on exposed areas after construction is
recommended in order to reduce erosion.
4.5.2 Septic Drainfield Impacts
The planned location of the septic drainfield is located at a adequate distance from
the planned building and existing slope. For this Project, slope stability is not a
concern due to the location of the planned septic drai dield.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 9 of I Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25, 2006
4.6 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided in the final design by sloping the ground surface,
driveways and sidewalks away from the Project structures. Surface and subsurface drains,
if utilized, should be adequately maintained during the life of the structure.
Apparently, the ascending slope may not induce any drainage problems for the Project and
associated structures. This is based on the insignificant storm water runoff due to the size
of the slope, water being intercepted by the roadway and other drainage features at the top
of the slope, dense vegetation on the face of the slope, and the soil composition of the
slope. However, if drainage problems occur during or after construction, water mitigation
may be required. This may include a combination of swales, berms, plastic drain pipes or
outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structure and/or reduce erosion
Other drainage considerations may include the use of foundation drains or roof drains as
discussed in the Other Considerations Section of this report.
4.7 Building and Footing Setbacks
There appears to be sufficient clearance between the planned building location and the
ascending slope provided that the above Surface and Subsurface Drainage Section is
adhered to.
4.8 Erosion Control
Significant erosion is not expected for this Project because the disturbed soils present on-
site have a low to moderate erodibility factor, and the runoff volume and velocity is
expected to be minimal. Erosion control measures should be implemented during
construction if the loss of sediments appear to be greater than expected. Erosion control
during construction may include stockpiling a portion of the cleared vegetation, a
temporary 300 cubic feet retention area, silt fencing, straw bales or other standard
controls. Any erosion control should be located down-slope and beyond the limits of
construction.
Erosion control after construction may include promoting the growth of vegetation within
the exposed areas by seeding or an equivalent measure, and maintaining existing drainage
structures and features during the life of the structure.
4.9 Other Considerations
Other considerations that may be used for this Project includes the use of foundation
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 10 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25, 2006
drains, roof drains and vapor barriers beneath the concrete slabs-on-grade.
Foundation drains, if utilized, will help mitigate the excess moisture away from the
structure. If foundation drains are used, the outlet should be established in the native
gravelly soils or high permeable fill soils placed below the bottom of the footing, and at
least 5 feet away from the structure.
Roof drains may be installed to transport the water from the roof directly into a permeable
soil at least 5 feet away from foundations and floor slabs. Roof drains may decrease the
amount of potential erosion and divert water away from the structure. If both roof drains
and foundation drains are utilized, they should be installed as a separate drainage system,
and not tie into each other.
Vapor barriers installed beneath the concrete slab-on-grade is not required for structural
integrity, however, may be desirable in preventing moisture related problems in low heated
or storage environments. Vapor barriers will reduce the likelihood of moisture infiltration
through the concrete slab, and enhance the performance of carpet, tile and other flooring
materials. If vapor barriers are used, it is recommended to utilize a barrier that is
sufficiently thick to resist puncturing during construction, or place a 2 inch layer of sand
above the barrier prior to placing the concrete slab.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 11 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-2754789 October 25,2006
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the
geotechnical subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions
encountered during construction are different than those described in this report.
Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified engineer observes and documents the
construction, or EE is promptly notified if project and subsurface conditions found on-site
are not as presented in this report so that we can re-evaluate our recommendations.
This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner and
project described herein. This report should not be used to dictate construction procedures
or relieve the contractor of his responsibility.
The recommendations provided herein are valid for the proposed development at the
issuance date of this report. Changes to the site other than the expected development,
changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical
standards may affect the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
Sincerely,
Envirotech Engineerin
N 4 FF
�CarF p
� � Q`•rn
39524
W I MICH. =L C. I�
1\ STATEN I`
9 0�0
i ned
Michael Staten, P.E. Per RCLA/ /9 43.130
Geotechnical Engineer
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 1-800-387-6806 Page 12 of 12 Johnson Residence
Fax: 360-275-4789 October 25,2006
STATg O�
�4 Q
Q
1889 aQy
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
P.O. BOX 9025 (Correspondence)•P.O. BOX 9048(Remittance)
Board Staff (360)664-1575 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98507
Fax (360)664-2551
Web Site dot.wa.gov
September 21, 2006
Michael Clyde Staten
74 NE Hurd Rd
Belfair WA 98528
Dear Mr. Staten:
We are pleased to advise you that your application has been evaluated and
approved for licensure by comity.
Your license will reach you approximately two weeks from your confirmation date
that will be on October 19, 2006.
Until then, you may use your out of state stamp. You must note the statute, RCW
18.43.130 by your stamp on each document. This refers to the statute allowing you
to practice, pending your certification.
Please be advised, that the use of an out of state stamp during the interim period, is
ultimately the decision of the reviewing authority of the project.
Please feel free to call the Board's office should you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Carol Van Gilder
Licensing Specialist
CVG
Enc
Administrative services provided by the Department of Licensing which has a policy of providing equal access
._ :.- ---.[--' s......___.J____:_I...._....,.......r...:.._ ..f............It 10CnI CCA 4C7C—=V/O12n1 RRA.OODG
L