Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2010-01101 Geotechnical Report - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 12/18/2010 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: /V1 Permit# {3�D"V w ' �'�� ( Parcel# 22T3o 57 Date(s)of the Document(s)reviewed: 'be;c, �;6 t (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? Comment: (b) A discussion of specific soil types OK? Comment: (c) A discussion of ground water conditions OK? Comment: (d) A discussion of 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 activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records OK? Comment: (2) A site pl which identifies Uie i fnportant development and geologic features. OK? Comment: l (3) Locations and logs of expl ra oles or probes. OK?_V Comment: (4) The area of the proposed de elopment, 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? Comment: (5) A minimum of one cross se io at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorgorates the details o rgposed grade changes. OK? i/ Comment: I (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 sa y factor is 1.1. ano the q-uasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. OK? Comment: !� (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions o Illacement of drainage features OK? Comment: (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields OK? Comment: (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings OK? Comment: (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 OK? Comment: 3 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. - OK? Comment: ( ) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically (�, identifies v getation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the i method 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 rosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. OK? V Comment: 0 ) n analys of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. OK? l/ Comment: (11)[ Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, 'erosion VComment: rol, and buffer widths. OK? (1 ) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed 3 mitigation. OK? Comment: (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and natur, of existing and propo ed development on the site. OK? Comment: Are the Documents signed and stamped? Type and #of License: If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? I � Reviewed by , on Time spent in review: SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE: Reviewed by , on Time spent in second review: THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE: Reviewed by , on Time spent in third review: Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnicall Report e Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnicai 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 DON MAMIE M A N Parcel# ZZ33 � DjlS Site Address .3t Y /y E 44yEN l-AKe D . I (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) Pq .P c-I-3 ( t) (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) P4 3 0-F 3 C t (c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) y ? 4-3 ( I ) (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) 4 3 of 3 C I ) (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s) P (f) A discussion of histoN of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) P _ (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) .? 4.3 C Z) .IV (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) f'a 3 j;f J' ( 3) (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) f 3 N ?af3 (4) (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) Pa Hof 3 CS) (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) _P Of 3 l(.) (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s) Pr. (b) Appropriate restriction on placement of septic drain fields Located on page(s) 10 C o 4 3 C 71 (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) Q G 3 6f-7 C 7) Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. ► (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) Po .? a f 3 ( 7) (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 3 43 C 7 (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) po J' a t` ,1 (e) (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) Po X a^F.r t 4 ) (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) Pa _? 0+'? 6101 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) Po 2 04F3 cit) (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on pages) JDc cf •? (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) �P5 / ef3 I, �S7Ec1eK 1: MOkTA . E_ hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the Stale 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 l!�� Report, dated a E�• 1IF Z010 and entitled (5�7TCHeV1 Cot_ &J 1,V 1EF-,Qlu6 $lQ—/O0R-r l-0,2 2- J-TbRY Rfis,"DgNG0_ 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) t P. At'--w t.I 0 0, �p►a�s /-! -zoi3 Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOR 2-STORY RESIDENCE 381 N.E. HAVEN LAKE DRIVE TAHUYA, MASON COUNTY, WA (Parcel #2233 0500 0115) Prepared for: Don and Bonnie Ninneman 5022 — 9 1" Ave West University Place, WA 98467-1731 (253) 566-1712 Prepared by: Morta Engineering and Testing, PLLC 1018 E. Wishkah St. Aberdeen, WA 98520 (360) 289-0958 Contact: Steven P. Morta, P.E. 2 -!P 2a/0 A'" December 18, 2010 0 3307 ssfavn�. . SITE PLAN FOR NEW RESIDENCE AT 381 N.E. HAVEN LAKE DR. TAYUYA, WA __V(_CI_N_ITy WA (PARCEL#2233 0500 0115) N Typical,topographical Cross-section(AA AA) opopd building oar ` 381 N.E.Haven Lk Dr (Ab)Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Base material is from basal till ` x Tahuya,WA 98588 i with a component of volcanic ash. Allowable soil bearing capacity is 1500 psf with an insitu moisture content of 8 to 10%. Proposed Residence will have same building footprint as NE Haven v\my existing residence. Existing 8'high Very gravelly brown sandy loam with some large cobbles with an allowable Ecology blk ret.wall < soil bearing capacity of 1800 psf as indicated with a pocket penetrometer. Insitu moisture content is 6 to 8%. $s r� o NE Belfair-Tahuya Rd Haven Lk Dark brown very dense glacial till cemented together with fine silts and an allowable WA m /v off° 00 00 oG o0 c• soil bearing capacity of 2300 psf as indicated by a pocket penetrometer. Insitu Y weight.moisture content is 6 to 8%bN,- °�� ° o0 00 0o Oo 0 00 00 0o Oo O 00 00 oio o °oo o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o HOOD CANAL j c o o0 0p0700 oG SR-3 O O O O O o Oo Oo Oi�Oo Oo°Oo Oo Oo�O�o Oo�o°oo oo,°/oo�oo o��oo 00 00 070"00� I . ' I I I M 16 I I 1 4'high block wall ' I I 1 I - ---- l I c�No o i 1 I I I am N I I a X AA I I I ; / i I I � , A'A a� - I ---------- -------- I d rn -{----------- ------------- ,4- --=t Existing ' i --___ I I 15 Existing �'Q^ 40 TO 60%SLOPES setback I ° I I 0 to 30%SLOPES 15 6)A � o d�� 5 I 30 TO 40%SLOPES I m I This existing residence will be o I I replaced b a new structure Observation Ports , ~ I p y ! New Garage will SepticTank o (Dashed Line) 9 Drainfield L Man CoversLj LC) be located in this ': y/ w I I �, blocked in area. I Area,Okay � i I I Soil Lou#2 I I --LU ---------- o I M I I o - - Sop Loa#1 1 I I i 1 3 n 245'Elev. 250'Elev. 255'Elev. 265'Elev. ( 4'high block wall �Q Q� 240'Elev. 260'Elev. 270'Eiev. Cd Preserve 60 to 70 275'Elev. 280'Elev. 285'Elev. <_ 1 J TLN year Doug Fir for r___________ ______ I _iO4 a� to increase slope Proposed 2-story residence j 1 -'f-o stability with crawispace facing Maintain existing 5'to 10' Preserve 60 to 70 .� o \ Z mlC�(0 __________i _ C N,[) setback from edge of slope ' �-Haven Lake. year Doug Fir for 290'Elev. o� as per existing residence. to increase slope 295'Elev. Z.>co (Slope stability analysis stability e E N indicates very stable slopes) g c- $ 300'Datum Elevation W > 8 �-= ml�5 ui �iLD co O m Slope Stability Calculations (Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles) 30' 60 ft Rotational Failure Plane Not to scale(NTS) Alpha=30.96 deg (60%slope) 1. Compute factor of safety(FS)against sliding-Static Case(Ref: "Stability Charts for Uniform Slopes"by Radoslaw L. Michalowski, FASCE) - "Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering",April 2002. From Figure 3"Stability charts for uniform slopes"the following parameters are known for native Alderwood gravelly sandy loam(Ab): c(cohesion)=250 psf, gamma(insitu unit density)= 141 pcf, H(height of slope)=60 ft, phi(internal friction angle)=37 deg, then c/[gamma x H x tan(phi)]=250/(141 x 60 x tan 37)=0.0392 Then for a 30.96 deg(60%)slope from Fig. 3: FS/tan(phi)=FS/tan(37)=2.40 or, FS=Factor of Safety Against Sliding= 1.809>1.500 OKAY 2. Compute factor of safety(FS)against sliding-Quasi-Static(seismic)Case(Ref: "Stability Charts for Uniform Slopes" by Radoslaw L. Michalowski, FASCE) - "Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering",April 2002. From Figure 4"Stability charts for uniform slopes"the following parameters are known for native silty glacial till(SM-G": c(cohesion)=250 psf, gamma(insitu unit density)=141 pcf, H(height of slope)=60 ft, phi(internal friction angle)=37 deg, then c/[gamma x H x tan(phi)]=250/(141 x 60 x tan 37)=0.0500 Then for a 30.96 deg slope(60%slope)from Fig.4 for a quasi-static analysis coefficient of 0.1: F/tan(37)=1.95 or FS=Factor of Safety= 1.469, For a quasi-static analysis coefficient of 02. F/tan(37)= 1.60 or FS=Factor of Safety= 1.206 As a result,for a quasi static analysis coefficient of 0.15,the Factor of Safety, FS=(1.469+1206)/2=1.337>1.100 OKAY Slope Stability Analysis for property located 381 N.E. Haven Lake Drive,Tahuya,M Prepared by: Morta Engineering&Testing,PLLC,1018 E.Wishkah St,Aberdeen,WA 98520 (Parcel#2233 0500 0115) (360)289-0958, (800)590-0958,(360)861-8493 fax,Smorta@aol.com Prepared for:Don and Bonnie Ninneman 5022-91 st Ave W,University PI,WA 98467-1731 Dec.18,2010 Site Visit on Wed.12-15-2010 Sheet 2 of 3 (Keith Chynoweth of Level Best:360-701-6643 c.) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT (6)Description and results of a slope stability analyses for both the static and seismic loading conditions and should examine worst case failures. (11)Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative (1)General Geologic Conditions and Upland Geomorphology. During the The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles with management,drainage,erosion control,and buffer widths. It is important Quanternary period most of the Puget Sound area including the Hood Canal was a quasi-static analysis coefficient of 0.15. that all vegetation especially trees be preserved on the property and that any covered a number of times by continental ice sheets. The most recent(Fraser) As indicated on engineering sheet 2 of 3 a detailed slope stability analysis has bare ground areas such as on the slope on the uphill side of the upper driveway glaciation reached its peak about 14,000 years ago. The Fraser ice sheet been performed for both the static and dynamic cases using a modified form of the get replanted. Plants such as junniper,ferns, ivy, and salal, to name a few provide v extended to Littlerock,south of Olympia. Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The resulting factor of safety for the excellent ground cover vegetation. The drainage system will need to be checked, Maximum ice thickness during the Fraser Glaciation was approximately 1,000 feet static case was 1.809 which is greater than 1.500 and,therefore,the static slope especially after heavy rainstorms that may plug up the tightlines and the down- N at Olympia, 3,000 feet at Seattle, and over 5,000 feet at Bellingham. The Fraser stability factor of safety was considered satisfactory, spouts and may need to be cleaned out. Erosion control can be maintained by =' ice retreated quickly, leaving behind a landscape sculpted by galcial erosion and Simlarly,for the dynamic or seismic case.the resulting factor of safety for a controlling surface water runoff to ensure that runoff gets directed into the existing covered by newly deposited glacial drift, normally identified as glacial till. The quasi-static analysis coefficient of 0.15 was computed to be 1.337. Since this is drainage system. location of present-day waterways and river drainages was established by the greater than 1.100,the factor of safety for the quasi-static case was considered Due to the narrow and long lot(50'x 300')their is minimal vegetative buffer widths. As N pattern of Fraser glacial erosion and deposition. The geologic map unit is a Qgt, satisfactory. mentioned earlier, all remaining trees and vegetation after construction are to i.e.,Till, late Wisconsian(Pleistocene): unsorted, unstratified, highly compacted be preserved and maintained since they help to maintain overall slope stability. mixture of clay, silt,sand, gravel, and boulders deposited deposited by glacial ice o (7)Restrictions on placement of drainage features,septic drain fields and � of the Puget lobe: gray, may contain interbedded stratified sand,silt,and gravel; , (12)Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or f compacted fills and footings and buffer and setbacks from landslide sand size fraction is very angular and contains abundant polycrystalline quartz which details of other proposed mitigation. An existing concrete ecology block ' hazard areas. The drainage system or the proposed residence can utilize the o distinguishes this unit from alpine till, existing drainage system for the existing residence that will be torn down. This wall will be used as an integral part of the proposed 2-story structure. As The upland geomorphology gradualy levels off with no signs of wet areas or geotechnical engineer examined the daylight end of the 4"diameter tightline and indicated in the structural drawings.the holes in the ecology blocks will contain 90 standing water or any unstable features such as escarpments or slides. degree bent#4 rebar as reinforcement for the proposed garage slab and then the did not observe any signs of soil erosion or soil displacement for the existing Soils are identified as an Alderwood gravelly sandy loam(Alb)with parent material drainage system and,therefore, can be continued to be used for the proposed holes will be filled in with concrete for additional structural strength of the residence. originating from basal till with a component of volcanic ash are very compacted to residence. It is important that all downspouts are connected to the 4"diameter form a dense glacial till cemented together by fine silts. (13)A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries,scale, drainage system so that no water from the roof is allowed to drain back into the There was no indications of past landslide activity such as hummocky land forms concrete foundation of the structure, north arrow,and the location and nature of existing and proposed co at the base of the slope, no escarpments past or present, no bare slope areas The septic drainfield location as shown on Sheet 1 of 3 is in a stable area with development on the site. Refer to sheet 1 of 3 for the site plan. Note that 8 6 that would have indicated past slides. Also,there were no leaning or pistol butted no signs of slope instability present such as ground fissures, recent or past slides, the site plan and geologic map with the elevation contours and other geodata o trees in the area that would have indicated moving slopes. In addition,there were such as soil borings and cross-sections have been included on the same plan. co or soil erosion. P) no ground fissures near the 60%slopes at the Haven Lake end of the property. coSince the proposed residence will be constructed on the same footprint as the r existingresidence, no significant compacted fills is anticipated for the new structure. N o 0 (2)Site Plan of the important development and geologic features, g p p �;3 J Concrete footings will be constructed in the same location as the existing footings a�, The site plan on sheet 1 of 3 shows the location of the proposed two story and,therefore,the existing footing subgrade will already be dense and compacted. a � residence that will be constructed on the same building footprint as the existing a N residence which will be torn down. The septic tank has been relocated to its The existing 5 to setback provides adequate protection since the proposed 24 present uphill location from the original site near the existing residence. residence will have "deep concrete footings which places the weight of the � �� Constant elevation contours provide the topography and the percent slope is structure further down into the ground. There were no signs of any slope instabilities such as pistor butted tree trunks,ground fissures, soil erosion,or escarpments. o 10 to 30 percent on the uphill side of the property and increases to 50 to 60 ¢s y This geotechnical engineer shall be called out to the job site PRIOR to any percent at the Haven Lake end of the property. s 5 concrete forming to check the foundation subgrade for any soft spots and for .__ any debris that may be in the soils and prepare a Field Report. It is recom- .J 0 in (3)A log of exploratory test hole. On sheet 1 of 3 both test hole locations "' N CD that a 350+lb vibratory plate compactor be used to compact the and the resulting soil logs have been identified.The native insitu soils consists .2�R of a dark brown gravelly sandy loam(GW-SW)with 2"to 4"diameter smooth cobbles foundation subgrade and be made available,if needed,during engineer's w o and an allowable soil bearing capacity of 1500 psf as indicated by a pocket site visit. w o o {— —p N penetrometer. The moisture content was relatively dry at 6 to 8%. The Natural (8)Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey identifies these soils as a grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, 'Ab- Aldenvood gravelly sandy loam". Sheet 1 of 3 also provides a typical cross- a schedule of vegetation removal and replanting,and the method of I B section of the insitu soils at the site. vegetation removal. As indicated on Sheet 1 of 3 the Douglas Firs on the a slope shall be preserved to increase slope stability. These firs have been 2 CL (4)Area of proposed development,hazard boundaries,buffers and limbed approximately 15 to 20' up from the base to provide additional views setback delineated on a geologic map. The proposed residence will be built of the Haven Lake and at the same time reduce the likelihood of the trees on the existing footprint of the existing building that will be torn down. Existing blowing over since their foilage which acts as a sail has been reduced. setbacks will be maintained on the Haven Lake side of the structure which is n approximately 5 to 10'as indentified on Sheet 1 of 3. A detailed slope stability (9)Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary o analysis has shown that these dense gravelly sandy loam slopes are very stable erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures o as indicated on Sheet 2 of 3 and, therefore,existing setbacks can be applied to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, —'Co with no adverse impact on the proposed 2-story structure with a crawvlspace. landslides and harmful construction methods. � Q Prior to construction activities on the site, geotextile siltation fencing shall be o< o (5)A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts placed on the downhill(northwest)side of the building site to prevent soil erosion a a the subsurface profile,and which incorporates the details of proposed of the embankment. It is recommended that initial construction take place during o cd..� m grade changes. A detailed cross section on sheet 1 shows that the top layer the drier times of the year from mid May to mid October and that the residence t A consist of a dark brown gravelly sandy loam(GW-SM)with some 2"to can be weathered in by the beginning of November, if possible. If rain is expected. �M o J 4"diameter smooth cobbles and an allowable soil bearing capacity of 1500 psf all bare ground is to be protected with 6 mil visqueen to minimize soil erosion o as indicated with a pocket penetrometer.The soils were relatively dry at 8 to 10% of the building site and the resulting water runoff is to be directed into the c d i°' moisture The next lower layer consists of a dark brown very gravelly sandy loam existing 4''dia. tightlines where the surface water runoff can percolate back into ` -E Q (GW-SM)with 4 to 6"smooth cobbles and an allowable soil bearing the ground to help recharge the groundwater, c`� capacity of 1800 psf as indicated with a pocket penetrometer and a moisture > 3 content of 6 to 8%. (10)An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed _ l r N Y The proposed new 2-story residence will be constructed on the same building development. As stated in section(8)above, impacts to the neighbors on w= .8 footprint as the existing residence that will be torn down to make room for the new the northeast and southwest sides of the property can be minimized by not t z structure, removing any trees or vegetation. All downspouts shall be tightlined to the existing drainage system to minimize any soil erosion. m `9 n a` GO'jle maps Address 318 NE Haven Lake Dr Notes Don Ninneman residential Tahuya,WA 98588 jobsite 2 c Sv r 4P Be►fair NE BeMarT BOW gas State Park !1F-13%. r o %Rd 3 1U6 e gd � 302 a� Ike 186 �3 irk 1eRd a 106 Allyn Tw na hnrth Ray 106 State Park Allyn-Grapeview hole Ra Rncvc% am a Google Map data WIM 0 Google 123°1'15" 123°1'0" 123°0'45" 123730" 123*0'15" 123°07 122'SW45" 122°59'30" 122*59'15" 122'59'0" 122°58'45" 122'58'30" 122'58'15" 122'58'0" 122°57'45" 122"57'30" 4 99 000 DT5 00 DOOET 501000 5 02 000 5 03 000 V f3 . 'J in -4N ,;e a ! . 1 ! 11 ' f ! 1 1 in ! � �i , �'' a `its.. � 'L rs r � �a � Ch • } ) -� e `\ ¢� `� '; , ,��� �,�f �' � `'. I, � ,✓ ��A`r� ,jam--'"_•-r`. 1 ) f 366 ol J� 394 10 8 50 In t ma 363 IL 179-2! 4 99 000 DT5 00 SET 501000 5 02 000 5 03 000m E 123°7'15" 123°1'0" 123°0'45" 123°0'30" 123°0'15" 123°0'0" 122°59'45" 122°59'30" 122'59'15" 122'59'0" 122*58'45" �122'5830" 122°58'15" 122°58'0" 122°5r45" 122°57'30" Universal Transverse Mercator(UTM)Projection Zone10 1:125W Sale North American Datum of 1983(NAD83) o _ o.+ u oa w. e• a3 imer.e 1000 meter UTM/USNG/MGRS Grid Zone Designation:10T 100,000-m Squares:D7 E7 Mepiuic decl . of 15E a of n°p en Dea+nber 13,201010 Fie Edit J$- Sa ks rods t* - �� •j httP:llmapnm=.co.frIllw Wa.utlwebste�rt�xanJ�iewe/.hun7QLerpPaF�M,2Tl�i3a6000l ls7 MI7 ,syzw—yes co GetOn9 started ..Latest HeadFies ----- ---- CI-Maw coudy Parcel search P, swan AOL -OS7ti itParcel information for parcel runkw:2233... fte frame search legend lavers , , JD Soundarla,&Places Parcels& O Site Addnss.sr O place N.m.,& f M7 NE RAVEN LAKE lNl O—� commission"DDriistricts& a _� '-O O County ZoningLY I - - _ - _ 431 NE MAVEN L1110E pt L, —0�O Allyn UGA 2onlny E; 1J O&Moir UGA 2oninq[py� OR O Shelton UGA Zonin CT !21 NE NAVEN LAKE pt- Mt ME MAVEN LAKE `'—'G O Election Precincts dirt 101 NE W1VEX LAKE �--- O To City o D' 391 NE HAVEM IAICE oN all ME HAVEN LAKE DR --�O City of sh shekon�3' —�O Federal Land.& 381 NE HAVEN LAKE O Cwnty Boundary(DNR) .JJ Transportation O Roads& �� J�d O Hiyh.aya& J Physics[Features : .-- rJ O Rm.&Str..m,& OL.k..& �� f— O Major Lakes& 371 NE HAVEN LAKE d[ l—�O Puy.,Soundg O Mad...I Wetlands I...wry 1 ME HAVEN LAKE Oft �1G1 i I FEMA 1998 Flood Zones L--FV 9 20ft Contours(Broun)& 20 ft Contours(Whne)& 3a1 NE HAVEN LAKE DR yell JfJ A.nal Photos --F 2005 DNR Aerial Photos S{t NE HAVEN U DR --F--,'2006 NAIP Aerial Photos ---k 2009 NAIP Aerial photos 331 NE HAVEN 1A10:OR ❑�AuW RefrE6h H*: _J A dosed 9^x0,dick to Near. J An ow vre»,tide to cl— E A hidden gm*J6yer,dick to andat Nit.. am NE MAVEN S A Nile go*layer,ay t at a hide. ._ �'A sable layer,GA na x the wale. O An euteue layr,dick no n"attire. The alc..Wyer, zoom to.- Zoom Factor: 125 0 Zoom bo Point D'LA*are on,did to on off. Dane USDA .. a! al Contact Us Download Soils Data Archived Soil Surveys Soil Survey Status Glossary Preferences Logout Help A A A Area of Interest(AOI) Soil Map Soil Data Explorer Shopping Cart(Free) Printable Version Add to Shopping Cart i Soil Map - �J d J Scale ITotmto P I "E Map Unit Description Xi Printable version Report—Map Unit Description Q F Mason County,Washington 111 Ab—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation:25 to 60 inches IP Mean annual air temperature:48 to 52 degrees F ■I Frost-free period: 180 to 220 days Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils:100 percent Description of Alderwood Setting a : Moraines Parent � Parentrent material: Basal till with a component of volcanic ash Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent i Depth to restrictive feature:24 to 32 inches to dense material Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low Search to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Map Unit Legend Frequency of flooding: None ©, Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity:Very low(about 2.5 inches) Mason County,Washington(WA645) Interpretive groups Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in cent of Land capability(nonirrigated):4s AOI AOI Typical profile Ab Alderwood 7.6 86.1% 0 to 10 inches:Gravelly sandy loam gravelly sandy 10 to 28 inches:Very gravelly sandy loam loam,5 to 15 28 to 60 inches:Gravelly sandy loam percent slope Mg Mu a teo peat,0 to 0.0 0.3% Description—Map Unit Description 2 percent slopes W Water 1.2 13.6% Totals for Area of Interest 8.8 100.0% FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Policy I Non-Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA.gov I White House