Drainage Report (3)Drainage and Erosion Control
Report
for
Sunshine Cafe
Yelm, WA
May 21, 2024
PO Box 12690
Olympia WA 98508
360.705.2474
www.olyeng.com
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 1
COVER SHEET
SUNSHINE CAFE
Yelm, Washington
May 21, 2024
Owner/Applicant
Prepared for: Yelm Carlson, LLC
Contact: Marian Licxandru
7310 Onyx Dr. SW
Lakewood, WA 98498
(360) 960-0165
Reviewing Agency
Jurisdiction: City of Yelm, Washington
Project Number: ____________
Project Contact: ____________
(360) 458-8496
Contractor
Contact:
References
WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW),
2019 edition, with Errata
Project Engineer
Prepared by: Olympic Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 12690
Olympia, WA 98508
(360) 705-2474
Contact: Chris Merritt, PE
Project Number: 22074
5/21/2024
"I hereby certify that this Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and
Report and Construction SWPPP for the Sunshine Cafe project has
been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the
requirements of the City of Yelm Stormwater Standards and the
standards of care and expertise which is usual and customary in this
community for professional engineers. I understand that the City of
Tumwater does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency,
suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me.”
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER SHEET ........................................................................................................................ 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 1 – PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 3
Permit ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Project Location ................................................................................................................................. 3
Property Boundaries & Zoning ........................................................................................................... 3
Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 3
Minimum Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 3
Timing of the Project .......................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2 – EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 5
Topography ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Ground Cover .................................................................................................................................... 5
Drainage ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Critical Areas ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Adjacent Areas .................................................................................................................................. 6
Precipitation Records ......................................................................................................................... 6
Reports and Studies .......................................................................................................................... 6
SECTION 3 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT .............................................................................. 6
SECTION 4 – WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 6
SECTION 5 – FUEL TANKS .................................................................................................... 6
SECTION 6 – ANALYSIS OF THE 100-YEAR FLOOD .......................................................... 6
SECTION 7 – AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES ....................................... 6
SECTION 8 – FACILITY SIZING AND OFF-SITE ANALYSIS ................................................ 6
Proposed Permanent BMP’s ............................................................................................................. 7
Off-Site Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 8
SECTION 9 – COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS ................................................ 8
SECTION 10 – PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 8
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Drainage Plan
Appendix 2 - Drainage Calculations
Appendix 3 - Soils Reports
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 3
SECTION 1 – PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Permit
The applicant is applying for permits to construct a drive thru coffee stand and an axe
throwing venue building (or possibly general retail/office space).
Project Location
See Vicinity Map on plans for reference.
Site Address: 407 Yelm Ave. E
Yelm, WA 98597
Tax Parcel Number(s): 22719342700
Section, Township, Range: Section 19
Township 17 North
Range 02 East, W.M.
Property Boundaries & Zoning
The eastern portion of the parcel is zoned C-1 and the eastern portion is located in
UGA of Thurston County and is zoned RR 1/5. The parcel boundaries are shown on
the site/drainage plan (see Appendix).
Project Description
The proposal is to construct a 480 sf drive-thru coffee stand and a 2,400 sf proposed
an axe throwing venue building) with associated access, parking lot, storm drainage,
and public and private utility improvements.
Minimum Requirements
The Minimum Requirements for stormwater development and redevelopment sites
are listed in Section I-2.4 of Volume I of the SWMMWW. The proposed project
creates and/or replaces more than 5,000 square-feet of new hard surface area;
therefore, the proposed project must address Minimum Requirements #1 through #9.
The Minimum Requirements have been addressed as follows:
Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans
Drainage Plans have been prepared for this project (see Appendix).
Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (C-
SWPP)
A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (C-SWPP) Plan will be
provided with the final Drainage Report.
Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution
A Permanent Source Control Plan will be provided with the storm drainage
maintenance agreement prior to final project approval.
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 4
Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and
Outfalls
There are no existing natural drainage systems or outfalls located on or near
the subject parcel; therefore, this Minimum Requirement is not applicable.
Minimum Requirement #5 – On-Site Stormwater Management
This project will meet the LID Performance Standard. The proposed BMPs
are as follows:
Lawn and Landscape Areas:
• All disturbed and/or new lawn and landscape areas will contain soils
meeting the Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth (BMP T5.13)
requirements.
Roof Areas:
• Stormwater runoff from the roof areas will be routed to a Bioretention
Facility (BMP T7.30).
Other Hard Surface Areas:
• Stormwater runoff from the new driveway, parking lot, and sidewalk areas
will be routed to a Bioretention Facility (BMP T7.30).
See Section 8 and the drainage plans for additional information.
Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment
This project will create/replace more than 5,000 square-feet of new total
effective pollution-generating hard surface (PGHS) area; therefore, Runoff
Treatment is required. Runoff treatment will be provided in the Bioretention
Facility (BMP T7.30).
See Minimum Requirement #5 above and Section 8 below for additional
information along with the WWHM modeling results in the Appendix.
Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control
This project will have less than 10,000 square-feet of “effective” impervious
surface area; will convert less than ¾-acre of vegetation to lawn/landscape;
convert less than 2.5-acres of native vegetation to pasture; and cause less
than a 0.15-cfs increase in the 100-year flow frequency; therefore, Flow
Control is not required. Per WWHM, this project will meet the LID
Performance Standard.
See Minimum Requirement #5 above and Section 8 below for additional
information along with the WWHM modeling results in the Appendix for
infiltration trench sizing.
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 5
Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetlands Protection
There are no known wetlands located on-site or within the immediate vicinity;
therefore, this Minimum Requirement is not applicable.
Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance
A storm drainage maintenance agreement, including a pollution source
control plan, will be prepared and recorded prior to final project approval.
Optional Guidance #1 – Financial Liability
A Financial Guarantee will be provided prior to final project approval, if
required.
Optional Guidance #2 – Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation
See Section 8 below. No downstream impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Timing of the Project
It is anticipated that site work construction will begin in spring 2024 with substantial
completion by summer 2024 and with building construction complete by winter 2024.
SECTION 2 – EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Topography
Site topography slopes down from the southwest and northeast towards the middle
of the parcel (proposed Bioretention Facility location). The proposed project and
surrounding areas are generally flat.
Ground Cover
Site vegetation consists mainly of field grass with some brush.
Drainage
See drainage plan and Section 8 below.
Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Thurston
County classifies the on-site soils as Nisqually Loamy Fine Sand (HSG A). A
Geotechnical Report prepared by Mud Bay Geotechnical Services (MBGS) (see
Appendix) classified the on-site soils as sand with silt overlying gravel with sand.
Seasonal groundwater was encountered at 16’ below-grade. MBGS recommends a
long-term infiltration rate of 4”/hr for infiltration facilities down to 72” below-grade and
a 6”/hr rate for facilities below 72”.
Critical Areas
There are no known critical areas (i.e. wetlands, landslide hazards, streams, etc.)
located on-site or within the immediate vicinity of the site based on review of
Thurston County critical areas maps and a site visit. The project is located within a
Category I Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) and a 1-year time of travel zone of
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 6
a wellhead protection area.
Adjacent Areas
The project site is bounded by a carwash to the northwest; by a bank to the
southeast; by Yelm Ave. to the northeast; and by a single-family parcel to the
southeast.
Precipitation Records
Precipitation data is included within the WWHM model.
Reports and Studies
A Geotechnical Report has been prepared by MBGS, dated July 2, 2023 (see
Appendix).
SECTION 3 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
A Geotechnical Report has been prepared by MBGS, dated July 2, 2023 (see
Appendix).
SECTION 4 – WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS
One on-site well was located during the survey work and this well will be decommissioned , if
needed. There are no other known on-site wells or off-site wells within 200-feet of this
project’s boundaries.
SECTION 5 – FUEL TANKS
No fuel tanks were located during a site inspection or during the soils evaluation work.
Olympic Engineering reviewed the latest “LUST” list (Leaking Underground Storage Tank)
and found no listing for the subject site.
SECTION 6 – ANALYSIS OF THE 100-YEAR FLOOD
According to FEMA FIRM #53067C0353E dated October 16, 2012, the project site and
surrounding area are located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard.
SECTION 7 – AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES
The proposed Bioretention facility (BMP T7.30) will be landscaped. All disturbed pervious
areas will be vegetated and/or landscaped and will contain soils that meet the Post-
Construction Soil Quality and Depth (BMP T5.13) requirements.
SECTION 8 – FACILITY SIZING AND OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
Parcel Area: 56,770 sf (1.303 ac)
Existing Development Coverage
Land Coverage Table – Pre-Developed
(Acres)
Pasture 1.303
Total 1.303
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 7
Proposed Development Coverage
Land Coverage Table – Post-Developed
(Acres)
Roof 0.087
Driveway/Parking 0.388
Walkways/Solid Waste Pad 0.029
Lawn/Landscape 0.335
Pasture 0.464
Total 1.303
38.7% Hard Surface Coverage
61.3% Landscape Coverage
Proposed Permanent BMP’s
The following Permanent BMP’s have been incorporated into the design (see
drainage plans):
1. BMP T7.30 Bioretention Facility (for roof, drive/parking, walkways,
and refuse pad)
2. BMP T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth (all disturbed,
lawn/landscape, and stormwater dispersion areas)
Flow Control & Runoff Treatment Facilities
A Bioretention Facility (BMP T7.30) will provide treatment and temporary
detention of stormwater runoff from all pollution generating hard surface
(PGHS) areas. Per WWHM modeling results, this project will treat and
infiltrate 100% of the runoff volume.
The bioretention facility will provide just over 2’ of freeboard. At a maximum
ponding depth of 0.95’, the facility will draw down in 3.8 hours
(0.95’x12”)/3”/hr = 3.8 hours).
See WWHM modeling results in the Appendix for infiltration trench sizing.
Modeling & Assumptions
• Stormwater runoff from the hard surface areas will be infiltrated. These
areas are considered “ineffective” and can be excluded from the impervious
area threshold determination of Minimum Requirement #7.
• When analyzing the difference in the pre- to post-developed runoff rate, the
existing ground cover can be used (typically a more conservative approach).
However, the entire area to be disturbed was modeled as “forest” in the pre-
developed scenario for simplicity and for use in analyzing the Low Impact
Development standard.
• All lawn/landscape areas that meet the Post-Construction Soil Quality and
Depth (BMP T5.13) requirements have been modeled as “pasture”.
• A 4”/hr design (corrected Ksat) infiltration rate has been used for the native
subgrade beneath the Bioretention facility as recommended in the
________________________________________________________________________________
May 2024 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 8
Geotechnical Report. A 12”/hr rate, with a correction factor of 4, was used
for the default bioretention soil mix.
• The bioretention surface area in the model automatically receives rainfall;
therefore, the area of the facility has been excluded from the lawn/landscape
basin area.
Off-Site Analysis
Stormwater runoff generated from the new on-site improvements will be fully
infiltrated on-site. Stormwater runoff from the Yelm Ave. frontage currently sheet
flows to roadside swales containing catch basins and it is assumed this runoff is
infiltrated within the swales and/or below-grade (to be confirmed by City). There
does not appear to be any noticeable stormwater run-on from adjacent parcels.
Due to site grades, the proposed bioretention facility does not have a means to
provide for emergency overflow to a downstream release point. As a result, it has
been designed to provide 2’ of freeboard. 2’ of freeboard provides an additional 2.7
times the storage volume available in the 1’ working depth of the pond and the side
slopes in the freeboard area will have a slightly higher infiltration rate than the BSM;
therefore, the pond has adequate capacity to accommodate premature
failing/clogging.
No downstream impacts, including impacts to structures, are anticipated as a result
of this project. Based on the above, a quantitative off-site analysis or mitigation is
not warranted.
SECTION 9 – COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS
No easements are required for the storm drainage system components.
SECTION 10 – PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
The property owner will be required to maintain the on-site stormwater systems.
Appendix 1
Drainage Plan
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
VANVAN
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
SH
E
E
T
1
O
F
1
S
H
E
E
T
FA
B
R
I
C
(
G
E
O
T
E
X
T
I
L
E
)
(T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
)
1.2.3.
(W
O
O
D
P
O
S
T
S
S
H
O
W
N
)
SP
L
I
C
E
D
F
E
N
C
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
C
L
O
S
E
E
N
O
U
G
H
TO
G
E
T
H
E
R
T
O
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
S
I
L
T
L
A
D
E
N
W
A
T
E
R
F
R
O
M
ES
C
A
P
I
N
G
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
T
H
E
F
E
N
C
E
A
T
T
H
E
O
V
E
R
L
A
P
.
SE
E
N
O
T
E
1
SE
E
N
O
T
E
1
GE
O
T
E
X
T
I
L
E
F
O
R
S
I
L
T
F
E
N
C
E
~
S
E
E
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
SP
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9-
3
3
.
2
(
1
)
,
T
A
B
L
E
6
(S
T
E
E
L
P
O
S
T
S
S
H
O
W
N
)
(S
T
E
E
L
P
O
S
T
S
S
H
O
W
N
)
PO
S
T
~
S
E
E
ST
D
.
SP
E
C
.
8
-
0
1
.
3
(
9
)
A
GE
O
T
E
X
T
I
L
E
FLOW
BU
R
Y
G
E
O
T
E
X
T
I
L
E
IN
T
R
E
N
C
H
4"
2' - 0" MIN.
2' - 0" MIN.
FA
S
T
E
N
G
E
O
T
E
X
T
I
L
E
T
O
PO
S
T
E
V
E
R
Y
6
"
(
I
N
.
)
O
.
C
.
4"
BA
C
K
F
I
L
L
E
D
&
CO
M
P
A
C
T
E
D
NA
T
I
V
E
S
O
I
L
FA
S
T
E
N
T
O
P
O
S
T
EV
E
R
Y
6
"
O
.
C
SE
L
F
-
L
O
C
K
I
N
G
T
I
E
~
N
Y
L
O
N
6
/
6
(
M
I
N
.
G
R
A
D
E
)
,
12
0
#
M
I
N
.
T
E
N
S
I
L
E
S
T
R
E
N
G
T
H
,
U
V
S
T
A
B
I
L
I
Z
E
D
PO
S
T
~
W
O
O
D
O
R
S
T
E
E
L
(T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
)
4.
DU
R
I
N
G
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
,
M
I
N
I
M
I
Z
E
D
I
S
T
U
R
B
I
N
G
T
H
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
AR
OU
N
D
T
R
E
N
C
H
A
S
M
U
C
H
A
S
I
S
F
E
A
S
I
B
L
E
,
A
N
D
S
M
O
O
T
H
SU
R
F
A
C
E
F
O
L
L
O
W
I
N
G
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
T
O
A
V
O
I
D
C
O
N
C
E
N
T
-
RA
T
I
N
G
F
L
O
W
S
.
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
I
O
N
M
U
S
T
B
E
A
D
E
Q
U
A
T
E
T
O
PR
E
V
E
N
T
U
N
D
E
R
C
U
T
T
I
N
G
F
L
O
W
S
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
h
e
e
n
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
e
t
o
p
o
i
n
t
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
up
s
l
o
p
e
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
f
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
f
e
n
c
e
.
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
8-
0
1
.
3
(
9
)
A
a
n
d
8
-
0
1
.
3
(
1
5
)
.
Sp
l
i
c
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
e
v
e
r
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
n
l
o
w
s
p
o
t
s
o
r
s
u
m
p
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
f
sp
l
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
l
o
w
o
r
s
u
m
p
a
r
e
a
s
,
t
h
e
f
e
n
c
e
m
a
y
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
re
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
t
o
m
a
p
p
e
d
c
o
n
t
o
u
r
l
i
n
e
s
.
1.2.3.4.
OV
E
R
F
L
O
W
B
Y
P
A
S
S
5"
M
A
X
.
TR
I
M
GR
A
T
E
F
R
A
M
E
FI
L
T
E
R
E
D
WA
T
E
R
SE
D
I
M
E
N
T
A
N
D
D
E
B
R
I
S
SH
E
E
T
1
O
F
1
S
H
E
E
T
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
G
R
A
T
E
BE
L
O
W
I
N
L
E
T
G
R
A
T
E
D
E
V
I
C
E
OV
E
R
F
L
O
W
B
Y
P
A
S
S
(
T
Y
P
.
)
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
G
R
A
T
E
~
R
E
C
T
A
N
G
U
L
A
R
G
R
A
T
E
S
H
O
W
N
RE
T
R
I
E
V
A
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
(
T
Y
P
.
)
BE
L
O
W
I
N
L
E
T
G
R
A
T
E
D
E
V
I
C
E
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
VANVAN
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
VANVAN
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
PO
B
o
x
1
2
6
9
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
,
W
A
9
8
5
0
8
36
0
.
7
0
5
.
2
4
7
4
o
f
f
i
c
e
ww
w
.
o
l
y
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
CHRI
M.
M
E
RS
T
R
I
T
HOT
EP
R
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Appendix 2
Drainage Calculations
WWHM2012
PROJECT REPORT
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:31 PM Page 2
General Model Information
Project Name: 22074_082923
Site Name: Sunshine Cafe
Site Address: 407 Yelm Ave. E
City:Yelm
Report Date: 8/31/2023
Gage:Lake Lawrence
Data Start: 1955/10/01
Data End: 2008/09/30
Timestep: 15 Minute
Precip Scale: 0.857
Version Date: 2019/09/13
Version: 4.2.17
POC Thresholds
Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:31 PM Page 3
Landuse Basin Data
Predeveloped Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass:No
GroundWater:No
Pervious Land Use acre
A B, Forest, Flat 0.831
A B, Pasture, Flat 0.472
Pervious Total 1.303
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 1.303
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:31 PM Page 4
Mitigated Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass:No
GroundWater:No
Pervious Land Use acre
A B, Pasture, Flat 0.08
Pervious Total 0.08
Impervious Land Use acre
ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.087
SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.029
PARKING FLAT 0.388
Impervious Total 0.504
Basin Total 0.584
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
Surface Bioretention Surface Bioretention
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:31 PM Page 5
Basin 2
Bypass:Yes
GroundWater:No
Pervious Land Use acre
A B, Pasture, Flat 0.688
Pervious Total 0.688
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 0.688
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:31 PM Page 6
Routing Elements
Predeveloped Routing
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:31 PM Page 7
Mitigated Routing
Bioretention
Bottom Length: 37.00 ft.
Bottom Width: 37.00 ft.
Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: SMMWW 12 in/hr
Material thickness of second layer: 0
Material type for second layer: Sand
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate:4
Infiltration safety factor:1
Wetted surface area On
Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.):92.277
Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 0
Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 92.277
Percent Infiltrated:100
Total Precip Applied to Facility:6.231
Total Evap From Facility:2.456
Underdrain not used
Discharge Structure
Riser Height:1 ft.
Riser Diameter:6 in.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
0.0000 0.0486 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0495 0.0484 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
0.0989 0.0477 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000
0.1484 0.0471 0.0022 0.0001 0.0001
0.1978 0.0465 0.0029 0.0007 0.0007
0.2473 0.0459 0.0037 0.0012 0.0012
0.2967 0.0453 0.0045 0.0019 0.0019
0.3462 0.0447 0.0053 0.0028 0.0028
0.3956 0.0441 0.0061 0.0039 0.0039
0.4451 0.0435 0.0069 0.0053 0.0053
0.4945 0.0429 0.0077 0.0070 0.0070
0.5440 0.0423 0.0085 0.0089 0.0089
0.5934 0.0417 0.0094 0.0113 0.0113
0.6429 0.0412 0.0102 0.0139 0.0139
0.6923 0.0406 0.0111 0.0170 0.0170
0.7418 0.0400 0.0120 0.0204 0.0204
0.7912 0.0394 0.0129 0.0243 0.0243
0.8407 0.0389 0.0138 0.0287 0.0287
0.8901 0.0383 0.0147 0.0335 0.0335
0.9396 0.0378 0.0157 0.0389 0.0389
0.9890 0.0372 0.0166 0.0448 0.0448
1.0385 0.0367 0.0176 0.0513 0.0513
1.0879 0.0361 0.0186 0.0583 0.0583
1.1374 0.0356 0.0195 0.0660 0.0660
1.1868 0.0351 0.0206 0.0744 0.0744
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:32 PM Page 8
1.2363 0.0345 0.0216 0.0835 0.0835
1.2857 0.0340 0.0226 0.0932 0.0932
1.3352 0.0335 0.0236 0.1038 0.1038
1.3846 0.0330 0.0247 0.1151 0.1151
1.4341 0.0324 0.0258 0.1271 0.1271
1.4835 0.0319 0.0269 0.1399 0.1399
1.5000 0.0314 0.0272 0.1959 0.1959
Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)
1.5000 0.0486 0.0272 0.0000 0.0951 0.0025
1.5495 0.0492 0.0296 0.0000 0.0951 0.0051
1.5989 0.0498 0.0321 0.0000 0.1013 0.0077
1.6484 0.0505 0.0346 0.0000 0.1045 0.0102
1.6978 0.0511 0.0371 0.0000 0.1076 0.0128
1.7473 0.0518 0.0396 0.0000 0.1107 0.0155
1.7967 0.0524 0.0422 0.0000 0.1139 0.0181
1.8462 0.0531 0.0448 0.0000 0.1170 0.0207
1.8956 0.0537 0.0475 0.0000 0.1201 0.0234
1.9451 0.0544 0.0501 0.0000 0.1233 0.0261
1.9945 0.0550 0.0528 0.0000 0.1264 0.0288
2.0440 0.0557 0.0556 0.0000 0.1295 0.0315
2.0934 0.0564 0.0583 0.0000 0.1327 0.0342
2.1429 0.0571 0.0611 0.0000 0.1358 0.0370
2.1923 0.0577 0.0640 0.0000 0.1389 0.0397
2.2418 0.0584 0.0669 0.0000 0.1421 0.0425
2.2912 0.0591 0.0698 0.0000 0.1452 0.0453
2.3407 0.0598 0.0727 0.0000 0.1484 0.0481
2.3901 0.0605 0.0757 0.0000 0.1515 0.0510
2.4396 0.0612 0.0787 0.0000 0.1546 0.0538
2.4890 0.0619 0.0817 0.0000 0.1578 0.0567
2.5385 0.0626 0.0848 0.0000 0.1584 0.0595
2.5879 0.0633 0.0879 0.0000 0.1584 0.0624
2.6374 0.0641 0.0911 0.0000 0.1584 0.0654
2.6868 0.0648 0.0943 0.0000 0.1584 0.0683
2.7363 0.0655 0.0975 0.0000 0.1584 0.0712
2.7857 0.0662 0.1007 0.0000 0.1584 0.0742
2.8352 0.0670 0.1040 0.0000 0.1584 0.0772
2.8846 0.0677 0.1074 0.0000 0.1584 0.0802
2.9341 0.0684 0.1107 0.0000 0.1584 0.0832
2.9835 0.0692 0.1141 0.0000 0.1584 0.0862
3.0330 0.0699 0.1176 0.0000 0.1584 0.0892
3.0824 0.0707 0.1211 0.6009 0.1584 0.0923
3.1319 0.0715 0.1246 0.6259 0.1584 0.0954
3.1813 0.0722 0.1281 0.6499 0.1584 0.0984
3.2308 0.0730 0.1317 0.6731 0.1584 0.1016
3.2802 0.0738 0.1353 0.6955 0.1584 0.1047
3.3297 0.0745 0.1390 0.7172 0.1584 0.1078
3.3791 0.0753 0.1427 0.7383 0.1584 0.1110
3.4286 0.0761 0.1465 0.7588 0.1584 0.1141
3.4780 0.0769 0.1502 0.7787 0.1584 0.1173
3.5275 0.0777 0.1541 0.7982 0.1584 0.1205
3.5769 0.0785 0.1579 0.8171 0.1584 0.1238
3.6264 0.0793 0.1618 0.8357 0.1584 0.1270
3.6758 0.0801 0.1658 0.8538 0.1584 0.1302
3.7253 0.0809 0.1697 0.8716 0.1584 0.1335
3.7747 0.0817 0.1738 0.8890 0.1584 0.1368
3.8242 0.0825 0.1778 0.9061 0.1584 0.1401
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:32 PM Page 9
3.8736 0.0833 0.1819 0.9229 0.1584 0.1434
3.9231 0.0841 0.1861 0.9393 0.1584 0.1468
3.9725 0.0850 0.1902 0.9555 0.1584 0.1501
4.0220 0.0858 0.1945 0.9714 0.1584 0.1535
4.0714 0.0866 0.1987 0.9871 0.1584 0.1569
4.1209 0.0875 0.2030 1.0025 0.1584 0.1603
4.1703 0.0883 0.2074 1.0177 0.1584 0.1637
4.2198 0.0892 0.2118 1.0326 0.1584 0.1671
4.2692 0.0900 0.2162 1.0473 0.1584 0.1705
4.3187 0.0909 0.2207 1.0619 0.1584 0.1740
4.3681 0.0917 0.2252 1.0762 0.1584 0.1775
4.4176 0.0926 0.2297 1.0904 0.1584 0.1810
4.4670 0.0935 0.2343 1.1043 0.1584 0.1833
4.5000 0.0940 0.2374 1.1181 0.1584 0.0000
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:32 PM Page 10
Surface Bioretention
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Bioretention
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:46:32 PM Page 11
Analysis Results
POC 1
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 1.303
Total Impervious Area: 0
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 0.768
Total Impervious Area: 0.504
Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.002976
5 year 0.010018
10 year 0.020196
25 year 0.044928
50 year 0.077529
100 year 0.129176
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.002832
5 year 0.01004
10 year 0.020285
25 year 0.044352
50 year 0.07485
100 year 0.121313
Annual Peaks
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:23 PM Page 12
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
Year Predeveloped Mitigated
1956 0.009 0.007
1957 0.006 0.009
1958 0.002 0.003
1959 0.002 0.003
1960 0.001 0.002
1961 0.006 0.005
1962 0.001 0.001
1963 0.008 0.010
1964 0.002 0.002
1965 0.004 0.005
1966 0.001 0.001
1967 0.003 0.003
1968 0.001 0.001
1969 0.001 0.001
1970 0.001 0.001
1971 0.011 0.008
1972 0.019 0.015
1973 0.001 0.001
1974 0.005 0.004
1975 0.001 0.001
1976 0.002 0.002
1977 0.001 0.001
1978 0.005 0.006
1979 0.001 0.001
1980 0.001 0.002
1981 0.007 0.008
1982 0.005 0.006
1983 0.001 0.001
1984 0.001 0.001
1985 0.001 0.001
1986 0.006 0.007
1987 0.006 0.007
1988 0.001 0.001
1989 0.001 0.001
1990 0.025 0.029
1991 0.014 0.010
1992 0.001 0.001
1993 0.001 0.001
1994 0.001 0.001
1995 0.009 0.007
1996 0.020 0.014
1997 0.015 0.013
1998 0.014 0.019
1999 0.001 0.001
2000 0.002 0.002
2001 0.001 0.001
2002 0.008 0.005
2003 0.001 0.001
2004 0.126 0.122
2005 0.046 0.057
2006 0.063 0.048
2007 0.030 0.024
2008 0.004 0.006
Ranked Annual Peaks
Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:23 PM Page 13
Rank Predeveloped Mitigated
1 0.1261 0.1225
2 0.0630 0.0572
3 0.0460 0.0478
4 0.0295 0.0290
5 0.0247 0.0240
6 0.0196 0.0190
7 0.0193 0.0153
8 0.0154 0.0140
9 0.0140 0.0128
10 0.0138 0.0105
11 0.0112 0.0102
12 0.0093 0.0086
13 0.0088 0.0085
14 0.0080 0.0076
15 0.0076 0.0075
16 0.0068 0.0072
17 0.0062 0.0069
18 0.0061 0.0066
19 0.0060 0.0063
20 0.0059 0.0058
21 0.0052 0.0057
22 0.0052 0.0054
23 0.0048 0.0049
24 0.0043 0.0047
25 0.0038 0.0037
26 0.0031 0.0035
27 0.0025 0.0032
28 0.0022 0.0028
29 0.0021 0.0023
30 0.0020 0.0022
31 0.0015 0.0016
32 0.0015 0.0016
33 0.0014 0.0016
34 0.0013 0.0014
35 0.0012 0.0014
36 0.0010 0.0011
37 0.0009 0.0009
38 0.0009 0.0008
39 0.0009 0.0008
40 0.0009 0.0007
41 0.0008 0.0007
42 0.0008 0.0006
43 0.0008 0.0006
44 0.0008 0.0006
45 0.0008 0.0006
46 0.0008 0.0006
47 0.0008 0.0006
48 0.0008 0.0006
49 0.0008 0.0005
50 0.0008 0.0005
51 0.0008 0.0005
52 0.0008 0.0005
53 0.0007 0.0005
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:23 PM Page 14
LID Duration Flows
The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
0.0002 22246 12894 57 Pass
0.0003 21372 12061 56 Pass
0.0003 20369 11218 55 Pass
0.0003 19532 10511 53 Pass
0.0003 18566 9857 53 Pass
0.0003 17709 9227 52 Pass
0.0003 16945 8636 50 Pass
0.0003 16126 8038 49 Pass
0.0003 15345 7451 48 Pass
0.0004 14619 6969 47 Pass
0.0004 13872 6415 46 Pass
0.0004 13223 5951 45 Pass
0.0004 12558 5505 43 Pass
0.0004 11928 5031 42 Pass
0.0004 11361 4579 40 Pass
0.0004 10811 4146 38 Pass
0.0004 10249 3739 36 Pass
0.0005 9764 3355 34 Pass
0.0005 9248 2972 32 Pass
0.0005 8776 2606 29 Pass
0.0005 8229 2213 26 Pass
0.0005 7724 1866 24 Pass
0.0005 7261 1583 21 Pass
0.0005 6754 1247 18 Pass
0.0005 6252 942 15 Pass
0.0006 5785 676 11 Pass
0.0006 5315 624 11 Pass
0.0006 4931 613 12 Pass
0.0006 4470 603 13 Pass
0.0006 4061 587 14 Pass
0.0006 3689 577 15 Pass
0.0006 3329 563 16 Pass
0.0006 3001 555 18 Pass
0.0007 2706 547 20 Pass
0.0007 2370 536 22 Pass
0.0007 2148 519 24 Pass
0.0007 2007 510 25 Pass
0.0007 1844 502 27 Pass
0.0007 1727 495 28 Pass
0.0007 1594 486 30 Pass
0.0007 1451 472 32 Pass
0.0008 1324 469 35 Pass
0.0008 1232 459 37 Pass
0.0008 1133 454 40 Pass
0.0008 1020 448 43 Pass
0.0008 909 441 48 Pass
0.0008 815 432 53 Pass
0.0008 700 425 60 Pass
0.0008 605 423 69 Pass
0.0009 532 420 78 Pass
0.0009 470 411 87 Pass
0.0009 447 402 89 Pass
0.0009 438 396 90 Pass
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:23 PM Page 15
0.0009 428 389 90 Pass
0.0009 422 383 90 Pass
0.0009 414 377 91 Pass
0.0009 408 374 91 Pass
0.0010 404 373 92 Pass
0.0010 396 370 93 Pass
0.0010 392 365 93 Pass
0.0010 386 358 92 Pass
0.0010 381 356 93 Pass
0.0010 376 355 94 Pass
0.0010 373 349 93 Pass
0.0010 365 344 94 Pass
0.0011 358 339 94 Pass
0.0011 357 336 94 Pass
0.0011 355 331 93 Pass
0.0011 350 330 94 Pass
0.0011 348 327 93 Pass
0.0011 346 324 93 Pass
0.0011 341 323 94 Pass
0.0011 335 319 95 Pass
0.0012 329 316 96 Pass
0.0012 326 314 96 Pass
0.0012 320 314 98 Pass
0.0012 318 304 95 Pass
0.0012 316 300 94 Pass
0.0012 310 297 95 Pass
0.0012 306 295 96 Pass
0.0012 302 292 96 Pass
0.0013 301 289 96 Pass
0.0013 299 289 96 Pass
0.0013 296 286 96 Pass
0.0013 293 282 96 Pass
0.0013 290 278 95 Pass
0.0013 290 278 95 Pass
0.0013 286 277 96 Pass
0.0013 284 274 96 Pass
0.0014 282 274 97 Pass
0.0014 278 272 97 Pass
0.0014 276 271 98 Pass
0.0014 275 269 97 Pass
0.0014 272 267 98 Pass
0.0014 266 265 99 Pass
0.0014 264 261 98 Pass
0.0015 263 258 98 Pass
0.0015 263 254 96 Pass
0.0015 260 254 97 Pass
0.0015 257 252 98 Pass
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:37 PM Page 16
Duration Flows
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
0.0015 257 252 98 Pass
0.0023 157 148 94 Pass
0.0030 110 99 90 Pass
0.0038 84 75 89 Pass
0.0046 65 64 98 Pass
0.0053 50 55 110 Pass
0.0061 44 43 97 Pass
0.0069 38 36 94 Pass
0.0076 33 29 87 Pass
0.0084 31 26 83 Pass
0.0092 26 24 92 Pass
0.0099 24 22 91 Pass
0.0107 23 17 73 Pass
0.0115 21 14 66 Pass
0.0122 19 13 68 Pass
0.0130 17 12 70 Pass
0.0138 13 11 84 Pass
0.0145 10 9 90 Pass
0.0153 10 8 80 Pass
0.0161 8 8 100 Pass
0.0168 8 8 100 Pass
0.0176 8 7 87 Pass
0.0184 8 7 87 Pass
0.0192 8 6 75 Pass
0.0199 6 6 100 Pass
0.0207 6 6 100 Pass
0.0215 6 6 100 Pass
0.0222 6 6 100 Pass
0.0230 6 6 100 Pass
0.0238 6 6 100 Pass
0.0245 6 5 83 Pass
0.0253 5 5 100 Pass
0.0261 4 5 125 Fail
0.0268 4 5 125 Fail
0.0276 4 5 125 Fail
0.0284 4 5 125 Fail
0.0291 4 4 100 Pass
0.0299 3 4 133 Fail
0.0307 3 4 133 Fail
0.0314 3 4 133 Fail
0.0322 3 4 133 Fail
0.0330 3 3 100 Pass
0.0337 3 3 100 Pass
0.0345 3 3 100 Pass
0.0353 3 3 100 Pass
0.0361 3 3 100 Pass
0.0368 3 3 100 Pass
0.0376 3 3 100 Pass
0.0384 3 3 100 Pass
0.0391 3 3 100 Pass
0.0399 3 3 100 Pass
0.0407 3 3 100 Pass
0.0414 3 3 100 Pass
0.0422 3 3 100 Pass
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:37 PM Page 17
0.0430 3 3 100 Pass
0.0437 3 3 100 Pass
0.0445 3 3 100 Pass
0.0453 3 3 100 Pass
0.0460 3 3 100 Pass
0.0468 2 3 150 Fail
0.0476 2 3 150 Fail
0.0483 2 2 100 Pass
0.0491 2 2 100 Pass
0.0499 2 2 100 Pass
0.0506 2 2 100 Pass
0.0514 2 2 100 Pass
0.0522 2 2 100 Pass
0.0530 2 2 100 Pass
0.0537 2 2 100 Pass
0.0545 2 2 100 Pass
0.0553 2 2 100 Pass
0.0560 2 2 100 Pass
0.0568 2 2 100 Pass
0.0576 2 1 50 Pass
0.0583 2 1 50 Pass
0.0591 2 1 50 Pass
0.0599 2 1 50 Pass
0.0606 2 1 50 Pass
0.0614 2 1 50 Pass
0.0622 2 1 50 Pass
0.0629 2 1 50 Pass
0.0637 1 1 100 Pass
0.0645 1 1 100 Pass
0.0652 1 1 100 Pass
0.0660 1 1 100 Pass
0.0668 1 1 100 Pass
0.0675 1 1 100 Pass
0.0683 1 1 100 Pass
0.0691 1 1 100 Pass
0.0698 1 1 100 Pass
0.0706 1 1 100 Pass
0.0714 1 1 100 Pass
0.0722 1 1 100 Pass
0.0729 1 1 100 Pass
0.0737 1 1 100 Pass
0.0745 1 1 100 Pass
0.0752 1 1 100 Pass
0.0760 1 1 100 Pass
0.0768 1 1 100 Pass
0.0775 1 1 100 Pass
The development has an increase in flow durations
from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow
or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50
year flow.
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:37 PM Page 18
Water Quality
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1
On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:37 PM Page 19
LID Report
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:54 PM Page 20
Model Default Modifications
Total of 0 changes have been made.
PERLND Changes
No PERLND changes have been made.
IMPLND Changes
No IMPLND changes have been made.
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:54 PM Page 21
Appendix
Predeveloped Schematic
22074_082923 8/31/2023 1:47:55 PM Page 22
Mitigated Schematic
Appendix 3
Soils Reports
1001 Cooper Point Rd SW, STE 140 PMB 108 | Olympia, WA 98502 | 360.481.9784 | CHeathman@MudBayGeotech.com
July 2, 2023 Job: 2131-THU
Page 1
Subject: Site Development Geotechnical Report
407 E Yelm Ave,
Yelm, WA 98597
Parcel #22719342700
Dear Marian Licxandru,
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and contains geotechnical
recommendations for the site development project located at 407 E Yelm Ave in Yelm, WA. The
analyses, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are based on the information
available. These informational resources include: five (5) excavated test pits completed
specifically for the subject project, (2) two EPA falling head infiltration tests completed specifically
for the subject project (1) one shallow groundwater monitoring well installed specifically for the
subject project, laboratory testing, published geologic information for the site and vicinity and our
experience with similar geologic materials. The conditions observed in the explorations are
assumed to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the project area. If during
construction, subsurface conditions differ from those described in the explorati ons, we should be
advised immediately so that we may reevaluate our recommendations and provide further
assistance. This is a revised report that supersedes all previous versions of the report for this
project.
SITE CONDITIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Parcel #22719342700 consists of a total of 1.32 acres in Yelm, Washington. The parcel location
has been given the situs address of 407 E Yelm Ave, and is identified on the Site Map included
as Figure 1 attached to this report. The property is located off the southwestern side of Yelm Ave
E and can be accessed via the northeastern property boundary from the street. The parcel is
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |2
currently undeveloped, has been previously cleared, and is vegetated with various native
shrubbery and grasses. The property grades gently downslope from northeast to south. The
minimal amount of elevation loss across the subject parcel is attributed to a minor sloped bank
bisecting the parcel from east to west, measuring roughly 6 feet in total height.
The purpose of this report is to provide site development geotechnical recommendations,
including bearing capacity of foundations and other site development considerations, as well as
a final design infiltration rate for stormwater design. The scope of the project is to develop the
parcel with a drive-thru coffee stand and associated paved surfaces. A proposed site plan has
not been provided for our review prior to completion of this report. We understand based on
conversations with the client and contracted engineers that stormwater infiltration facilities are
proposed as a flow control and treatment BMP for the new impervious surface generated as part
of the development. The parcel is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Yelm; therefore, the
stormwater and infiltration design requirements of the Department of Ecology 2019 Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) needs to be satisfied. To meet the
requirements for that method, we performed one (1) deeply excavated test pit and performed
laboratory testing on selected samples to further refine soil classification and to determine key
soil index parameters such as grain size distribution and plasticity. Based on the laboratory testing
results, we further classified selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM D2487 to
characterize the infiltration rate of the site soils. Two (2) EPA falling head infiltration tests were
also performed to characterize the infiltration rates of the site soils. These infiltration tests were
performed within the upper ~3 to 4 feet based on the assumption that shallow infiltration trenches,
basins, swales, or rock galleries may be used for treatment and flow control. The infiltration tests
were performed near the location of proposed stormwater facilities.
SITE GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As part of this project, we reviewed available geologic data and prepared a site -specific geologic
map. The project vicinity geologic map is attached as Figure 2, WA DNR Geologic Map. This
figure indicates the project vicinity consists of Pleistocene continental glacial drift. The DNR
describes these deposits as follows: Pleistocene till and outwash clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles,
and boulders deposited by or originating from continental glaciers; locally includes peat,
nonglacial sediments, modified land, and artificial fill. Conditions observed at the site are generally
consistent with the mapped geology at the site.
In addition to the site geology, site-specific soil data made available by the United States
Department of Agriculture was consulted. The USDA Soil Map is attached to this report as Figure
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |3
3. This figure suggests that the parcel is underlain by No. 74 – Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15
percent slopes. The Nisqually soil series is described by the USDA as follows: a somewhat
excessively draining loamy fine sand to loamy sand derived from sandy glacial outwash occurring
on terraces. The soils observed in-situ are generally consistent with the mapped soils on-site. It
should be noted that the slope percentages displayed on the map are estimates and do not
necessarily reflect true surface topography.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
To characterize the surface and subsurface conditions, Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC
performed five (5) excavated test pits designated TP-1-22, TP-2-22, EPA-1-22, EPA-2-22, and
TP-3-23. The excavated test pits were completed from the existing ground surface at the
approximate locations shown on Figure 4, Site Exploration Map.
The excavated test pits were completed using a compact excavator and loader backhoe with Mud
Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC personnel onsite to observe excavation, log the soils
encountered in the pits and collect samples.
In situ testing was performed at selected depths using a Humboldt Manufacturing model H-4202A
dynamic cone penetrometer to estimate the density of the soil. The dynamic cone penetrometer
uses a 15-lb steel mass falling a height of 20-inches onto an anvil to penetrate a 1.5-inch diameter
45-degree cone tip seated into the bottom of the hole. The penetrometer is driven 1-inch through
the upper slough within the test pit and the number of blows is recorded, afterwards the number
of blows required to achieve a total of ¾ inches of penetration into the undisturbed soil is recorded.
The number of blows from three intervals of the ¾ inches are averaged and recorded as the field
N-value. This recorded blow count is correlated to the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) field N-
value blow count determined in accordance with ASTM D1586, which is the standard in situ test
method for determining relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive
soils. Samples were removed from the bottom of the hole after the dynamic cone penetration
testing was performed to observe the soil material at the approximate depth the test was
performed.
Following the excavation of TP-1-22, a shallow groundwater monitoring well was installed in the
test pit. The monitoring well consisted of a lower five (5) feet of slotted PVC pipe with a five (5)
foot length of solid riser extending to the existing grade. The base of the PVC pipe was capped
and placed in the center of the test pit. The void space around the well casing was backfilled with
10/20 silica sand to near the existing ground surface and a cap was placed at the top of the upper,
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |4
riser segment. The upper approximately eight (8) inches of the well was sealed using from surface
water and precipitation using bentonite clay chips.
The soil samples were classified visually in the field in general accordance with ASTM D2488,
the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). Once
transported back to the office, the samples were re-examined, and the field classifications were
modified accordingly. Summary logs of the excavated test pits are included in Appendix A. Note
the soil descriptions and interfaces shown on the logs are interpretive, and actual changes may
be gradual. Upon completion, the test pits were backfilled to the original ground surface using
excavated material from the spoil piles.
Representative samples were selected for a suite of laboratory tests. The ove rall soil-testing
program included cation exchange capacity, organic content testing and grain size analysis for
classification purposes,. The results of these laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B.
SUBSURFACE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Findings in the excavated test pits within the upper northeastern portion of the parcel suggest the
subsurface consists of an upper 78-inches of very loose to loose, moist, brown, poorly-graded
sand with silt (SP-SM), underlain by a very loose, moist, tan, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-
SM) to a depth of approximately 102-inches to 104-inches followed by a final unit of very loose,
moist, tan, well-graded gravel with sand (GP) to a final depth of approximately 210-inches below
ground surface (bgs).
Findings in the excavated test pits within the middle to southwestern portion of the parcel suggest
the subsurface consists of an upper, shallower, 36-inches of very loose to loose, moist, brown,
poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM), underlain by a very loose, moist, tan, poorly-graded sand
with silt (SP-SM) to a depth of approximately 72-inches followed by a final unit of very loose,
moist, tan, poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP) to a final depth of approximately 96-inches bgs.
Gravels and cobbles up to 24-inches in size were found throughout the base of the test pits. This
final GP soil unit appeared to be fairly loose and is interpreted as recessional outwash deposits.
The excavated test pits performed are assumed to be representative of the project area
subsurface conditions, however, the true nature of glacial deposits can be difficult to ascertain as
they are highly variable units. If conditions vary significantly during construction, we should be
contacted to reassess the recommendations included in this report.
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |5
Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration of the site on April 21st, 2023 at
approximately 192-inches (16-feet) below the existing ground surface in TP-3-23. As a part of this
project, well logs made available by the Washington State Department of Ecology for the
surrounding region were consulted. These well logs suggest that the depth to groundwater in the
area surrounding the subject property is approximately 30-feet below ground surface. The
shallow groundwater monitoring well installed in TP-1-22, was periodically monitored for signs of
groundwater over the course of the 2022-2023 rainy season. No indications of groundwater levels
less than 9.5-feet below ground surface elevation were present.
FIELD MEASURED INFILTRATION TESTING
A total of two (2) EPA test wells, designated EPA-1-22 and EPA-2-22 were completed to further
explore the subsurface conditions at the site location , and to perform field measured infiltration
testing. We understand that the infiltration design needs to meet the requirements of the 2019
Department of Ecology Western Washington Stormwater Design Manual. The EPA test procedure
for determining infiltration is not an allowable method in that design manual. However, the results
of the tests were still useful as a comparison to the grain size method of analysis which was used
to determine the final design infiltration rate, so that appropriate reduction factors could be applied
to that method using engineering judgment.
The approximate locations of the EPA test wells are shown on Figure 4, Site Exploration Map.
Falling head percolation tests were performed by Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC personnel
according to the general guidelines laid out by the EPA, On-site Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems, 1980 publication.
Excavated pits were performed at select locations and the base of the pits were cleaned out. PVC
pipes 6 inches in diameter and 48-60 inches in length were placed into the excavated pits. The
PVC pipes were embedded to a depth of 6 inches below the base of the pits. The void around the
well casing was backfilled using material from the spoil piles by placing and tamping the material
in approximately 6-inch lifts. Two inches of ½”-¾” diameter washed river rock base course was
placed into the base of the pipes to prevent scouring and reduce turbidity.
In sandy soils with little or no clay, soaking is not necessary. EPA-1-22 was filled twice with 12-
inches of water, and the water seeped completely away in less than 10-minutes, therefore the
tests were able to proceed immediately. Percolation test measurements began on January 19,
2023, at 9:30AM after it was determined that no soaking period was necessary. The EPA well
designated EPA-2-22 failed the “fast test”, therefore the well was soaked for 4 hours starting at
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |6
9AM. Percolation test measurements began on January 19, 2023, at 1PM after the soaking
period. The first 6-inches of water added after the soaking period seeped away in less than 30
minutes. Therefore, per protocol the water level was raised to 6 inches above the river rock and
measured to the nearest 1/16” in 10-minute intervals for a 1-hour period in EPA-1-22 and EPA-2-
22. The last water level drops were used to calculate the percolation rate. A summary of the test
results is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Falling Head Percolation Test Results
EPA Falling
Head Well
Trial #1
in./hr.
Trial #2
in./hr.
Trial #3
in./hr.
Trial #4
in./hr.
Trial #5
in./hr.
Trial #6
in./hr.
EPA-1-22 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0
EPA-2-22 12.875 12.75 12.75 12.875 12.75 12.75
The percolation rate was calculated for each test hole by dividing the time interval used between
measurements by the magnitude of the last water level drop. This calculation results in a
percolation rate in terms of inches per hour. To determine the perco lation rate for the area, the
rates obtained from each hole were averaged. The unfactored percolation rates in EPA-1-22 and
EPA-2-22 were measured at 36 in./hr. and 12.75 in./hr., respectively.
The test pits were further utilized to investigate the infiltrating soil conditions, to observe the
potential depth of saturation, to look for natural groundwater, and to look for a non-infiltrating
hardpan. The underlying soil conditions consisted of poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) and
poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP), the materials observed throughout the test pits across the
subject parcel. Mottling was absent within these units and the induration of the sediment was
noted to be poorly to moderately indurated. The excavations indicated that water would
completely infiltrate beyond the limits of excavation and no groundwater seepage was observed.
An impervious layer was not encountered within the test pits nor was a lowermost limit to the
coarse sand and cobble outwash sediment. Based on the explorations and testing performed for
this project, we believe the on-site, native soil material to consist of well-draining glacial outwash
material. The test pit excavations beyond the scope of the base of the EPA wells appears to
indicate that any surface water will infiltrate vertically into the underlying, pervious strata rather
than horizontally along any impervious layers.
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |7
GEOLOGIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Landslide Hazard
We performed a cursory review of the available online site information to determine the potential
for landslide hazards at the site. The Landslide Map available from the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources revealed no mapped landslide deposits near the project vicinity.
No indications of deep-seated landslide activity, past or present, were observed during our on -
site investigation nor during our review of online resources. The landslide hazard map has been
omitted from this report.
A map of liquefaction susceptibility developed by the Department of Natural Resources is
attached as Figure 5, Liquefaction Hazard Map. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby
saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous fluid in response to
cyclic loading. These behaviors are most common in saturated, loose, sandy soils with lesser
impacts occurring in silty soils. Figure 5 indicates that the glacial deposits mapped across the
parcel are at very low risk of soil liquefaction.
The geomorphology (shape of the land) was analyzed during the site evaluation and compared
to the Light Detection and Ranging images (LiDAR) from the Washington State LiDAR portal.
LiDAR is a remote sensing method were light is pulsed down to the surface of the Earth and back
to a sensor. This methodology enables bare earth images of the surface to be analyzed for the
presence of geologic landforms. The most recent available LiDAR imagery of this site is included
as Figure 6 attached to this report, WA LiDAR Map (2019). The bare earth imagery highlights the
gently grading topography of the parcel and surrounding region, along with moderate urban
grading activities. We conclude the onsite landslide hazard risk to be low.
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Stormwater Infiltration
Onsite stormwater infiltration facilities are proposed to address the excess runoff due to increased
impervious surface. Shallow infiltration may occur within the moist, tan-brown, poorly-graded sand
with silt (SP-SM) that was observed in the test pits. Deep infi ltration may occur within the moist,
brown, poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP). Laboratory testing for grain size distribution was
performed on selected samples within the infiltrating soils below the proposed infiltration facility
subgrade. The results from the gradation tests were applied to the Massmann equation to
estimate the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate to be used for design. A
groundwater depth of 16-feet was assumed, based on the depth to groundwater observed during
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |8
the deeply excavated test pit. Based on the time of year the explorations were performed, this
likely represents close to the maximum groundwater level for a seasonal recharge aquifer.
Based on the analysis and with consideration given to the results of the EPA falling head testing,
we recommend a long-term infiltration rate of 4 inches per hour for shallow infiltration at the site
from 18-72 inches below the existing ground surface which will primarily occur within the poorly
graded sand with silt (SP-SM) that was observed in the test pits. We recommend a long termin
filtration rate of 6 inches per hour for deeper infiltration used to design flow control and treatment
facilities that are currently planned at 7 to 8 feet below the ground surface where infiltration will
occur within or be heavily influenced by the poorly graded sand (GP) that was observed deeper
below the existing ground. The design infiltration rate assumes that moderate level of
maintenance in order to reduce the potential for biofouling. We recommend that the treatment
areas undergo regular inspection and maintenance so that the system is not significantly clogged
due to biofouling. The dimensions of the pond should be sized to an aspect ratio (width/length) of
no less than 0.5. The treatment areas should be sized accordingly. The design infiltration rate can
be increased depending on the actual aspect ratio used in the final design of the facility. It should
also be noted that the infiltration rates at ALL DEPTHS can likely be improved with small PIT
infiltration testing.
The correction factors assume a moderate amount of maintenance over the lifetime of the
infiltration facility. Based on the infiltration rates within the grain size analysis, EPA falling head
percolation tests, onsite soil conditions, and our experience with similar geologic conditions, we
conclude that the site is well-draining and that on-site infiltration is feasible. This infiltration rate
assumes that the groundwater level during the design storm event is a minimum of 4 feet below
the bottom of the infiltration. The bottom of the infiltrating facilities subgrade should be verified at
the time of construction to ensure that the anticipated soils are present throughout.
Pavement Section Design
Asphalt pavement (both pervious or impervious) may be used for the development, with primarily
passenger vehicle travel and anticipated light use (a few times per week) travel from a greater
than 10,000 pound gross weight commercial vehicle. For this type of usage, we recommend a n
asphalt pavement section consisting of a minimum of 0.5 feet (6 inches) of crushed surface base
course (CSBC), overlain by hot mix asphalt (HMA) with a minimum thickness of 0.25 feet (3
inches). A thicker section could be used depending on the desired life cycle, with as much as 0.67
feet of CSBC and 0.33 feet of HMA. The aggregates for HMA and the HMA design, an d field
testing, should be completed in accordance with the criteria in Section 9-03.8 of the WSDOT
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |9
Standard Specifications, based on an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) of less than 0.3
million. The CSBC material should meet the criteria of Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard
Specifications.
Prior to construction of the pavement section, the subgrade should be cleared and grubbed and
the exposed native subgrade soils should be compacted in place. The CSBC should be placed in
layers no greater than 3-inches and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
Concrete pavement may be used as part of the development. We recommend using a concrete
pavement section consisting of a minimum of 6 inches of crushed surface base course (CSBC),
overlain by concrete pavement with a minimum thickness of 8 inches. The CSBC material should
meet the criteria of Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Concrete pavement
mix design and construction should be done in accordance with the requirements in Section 5-05
of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
Prior to construction of the concrete pavement section, the subgrade should be cleared and
grubbed and the exposed native subgrade soils should be compacted in place. The CSBC should
be placed in layers no greater than 3-inches and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum
dry density.
We recommend subgrade preparation and crushed surfacing placement and compaction be
evaluated by Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC prior to the construction of the pavement.
Subgrade preparation should not be performed during periods of wet weather. We recommend
staging the subgrade excavation, compaction of native subgrade soils, and placement of CSBC
to limit the time the pavement subgrade is exposed to weather.
Foundation Support
Shallow strip footings or mat/slab foundations are anticipated to support the new structure. Based
on the observed soil conditions, we recommend locating the bottom of the new footings and
mat/slab foundations on the native soil deposits at a minimum depth of approximately 6 inches
below the existing ground surface.
Prior to placement of concrete, the footing subgrade should be cleared and grubbed, and the
exposed native subgrade soils should be compacted in place. The subgrade should be inspected
for any pockets of loose material. Loose material should be compacted in place to a firm and
unyielding condition or removed and replaced with a minimum of 6 -inches of CSBC. The CSBC
should be placed in layers no greater than 6-inches and compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density.
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |10
Footings bearing on a subgrade prepared as described above can be designed using a maximum
allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. The maximum allowable bearing pressure may be
increased by up to one-third for short-term transient loading conditions such as wind and seismic
loading. We anticipate that total settlement will not exceed one inch, and differential settlement
along an equivalent 50-foot length of footing will not exceed half of the total settlement. The
settlement is expected to be elastic and will occur as the footings are loaded.
We recommend footing subgrade preparation be evaluated by Mud Bay Geotechnical Services,
LLC prior to placement of concrete. Foundation subgrade preparation should not be performed
during periods of wet weather. We recommend staging the foundation subgrade excavation,
compaction of native subgrade soils, and placement of CSBC to limit the time the foundation
subgrade is exposed to weather.
RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Before construction begins, we recommend a copy of the draft plans and specifications prepared
for the project are made available for review so that we can ensure that the geotechnical
recommendations in this report are included in the Contract. Mud Bay Geotechnical Services,
LLC is also available to provide geotechnical engineering and construction monitoring services
throughout the remainder of the design and construction of the project. The integrity of the
geotechnical elements of a project depend on proper site preparation and construction
procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may need to be made in the field if conditions are
encountered that differ from those described in this report. During the construction phase of the
project, we recommend that Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC be retained to review
construction proposals and submittals, excavation and fill placement, drainage installation,
foundation subgrade preparation, and provide recommendations for any other geotechnical
considerations that may arise during construction.
INTENDED USE AND LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared based on observations of the surface and subsurface conditions at the
site, review of geology and other information available for the site, and conversations with the
property owner about the soil and surface water conditions on the p roperty and the nature of the
proposed development. The geotechnical recommendations in this report are based on the
current site conditions and understanding of the proposed development as described previously.
Any modification of the current property conditions or the nature of the proposed development
beyond what is described in this report would render these geotechnical recommendations invalid.
2131-T H U : 4 0 7 E Y e l m A v e , Y e l m W A P a g e |11
It should not be used, in part or in whole for other purposes without contacting Mud Bay
Geotechnical Services, LLC for a review of the applicability of such reuse.
We have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you and serve your geotechnical needs for the
permitting phase of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any
questions or would like to discuss any of the content of this report.
Sincerely,
Chris Heathman, P.E.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC
7/2/2023
Legend
Approximate Site Location
Figure 1: Site Map
407 E Yelm Ave
Yelm, WA 98597
Geotechnical Report
Job #:2131-THU Date:April, 2023
Approximate Parcel Boundary
Legend
Figure 2: WA DNR Geologic Map
407 E Yelm Ave
Yelm, WA 98597
Geotechnical Report
Job #:2131-THU Date:April, 2023
Geologic Units 100k
Pleistocene continental glacial
drift
Sources: Esri, USGS | WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS | Washington Geological
Survey, 2019, Surface geology, 1:24,000--GIS data, November 2019: Washington Geological Survey Digital Data Series DS-10, version 3.1.
N
Approximate Parcel Boundary
Legend
Figure 3: USDA Soil Map
407 E Yelm Ave
Yelm, WA 98597
Geotechnical Report
Job #:2131-THU Date:April, 2023
Approximate Parcel Boundary
Legend
Approximate Test Pit Locations
EPA-1-22
Figure 4: Site Exploration Map
407 E Yelm Ave
Yelm, WA 98597
Geotechnical Report
Job #:2131-THU Date:April, 2023
Approximate Parcel Boundary
Approximate EPA Well Locations
EPA-2-22
TP-1-22
TP-2-22
TP-3-22
Figure 5: Liquefaction Hazard Map
407 E Yelm Ave
Yelm, WA 98597
Geotechnical Report
Job #:2131-THU Date:April, 2023
Legend
Approximate Parcel Boundary
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Moderate
Low to Moderate
Moderate to High
Low
High
Very Low to Low
Very Low
Bedrock
Peat
Sources: Esri, USGS | WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS | Palmer, Stephen P.;
Magsino, Sammantha L.; Bilderback, Eric L.; Poelstra, James L.; Folger, Derek S.; Niggemann, Rebecca A., 2007, Liquefaction susceptibility and site
class maps of Washington State, by county: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2004-20, [78 plates, 45 p. text].
N
Figure 6: WA DNR LiDAR Map
407 E Yelm Ave
Yelm, WA 98597
Geotechnical Report
Job #:2131-THU Date:April, 2023
Sources: Esri, USGS | WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS | Washington Geological
Survey Legend
Approximate Parcel Boundary
N
APPENDIX A – FINAL TEST PIT LOGS
Completed:Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Groundwater Depth:
Lithology
Gravel content and coarseness increasing with depth.
Very loose, moist, tan, poorly-graded sand with silt and gravel
(SP-SM).
Gravel content and coarseness increasing with depth.
Transition: Very loose, moist, tan, poorly-graded gravel with sand
(GP). Groundwater monitoring well installed into base of test pit.
Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
California Sampler Blows/3/4"Density
Shelby Tube 0-4 Very Loose
CPP Sampler 5-10 Loose
StabIlized Ground water 11-24 Medium Dense
Groundwater At time of Drilling 25-50 Dense
Bulk/ Bag Sample REF Very Dense
TP-1-22
Project Number: Contractor: Equipment:
Loose, moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Loose, moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Very loose, moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
2131-THU n/a Compact Excavator
Address:
Da
t
e
Started:Bit Type:Diameter:
407 E Yelm Ave,
Yelm, WA 98597
11/30/2022
Project:Client:Test Pit No. 1 of 5:
Site Development Marian Licxandru
n/a n/a
Fluid:
11/30/2022 Humboldt H-4202A n/a
Logged By:Backfilled:Hammer Drop:
Hannah Anderson 11/30/2022 15 lbs 20 inches
Helper:Elevation:Total Depth of Test Pit:
n/a n/a Existing Surface 114 inches
GPS Method:GPS Coordinates:GPS Elevation:
n/a (± __ ft.)(± __ ft.)
De
p
t
h
(
i
n
.
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Bl
o
w
C
o
u
n
t
s
(b
l
o
w
s
/
3
/
4
"
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Blows/3/4"Consistency
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
e
s
t
Soil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifier, color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
0-1 Very Soft
2-4 Soft
5-8 Medium Stiff
>60 Very Hard
9-15 Stiff
16-30 Very Stiff
31-60 Hard
24"S-1
72''S-3
6
3
48''
96''
S-2
S-4
5
4
108''S-5 4
78''
114''
Completed:Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Groundwater Depth:
Lithology
Transition: Moist, tan, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Gravel content and coarseness increasing with depth.
Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
California Sampler Blows/3/4"Density
Shelby Tube 0-4 Very Loose
CPP Sampler 5-10 Loose
StabIlized Ground water 11-24 Medium Dense
Groundwater At time of Drilling 25-50 Dense
Bulk/ Bag Sample REF Very Dense
TP-2-22
Project Number: Contractor: Equipment:
Moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
2131-THU n/a Compact Excavator
Address:
Da
t
e
Started:Bit Type:Diameter:
407 E Yelm Ave,
Yelm, WA 98597
11/30/2022
Project:Client:Test Pit No. 2 of 5:
Site Development Marian Licxandru
n/a n/a
Fluid:
11/30/2022 Humboldt H-4202A n/a
Logged By:Backfilled:Hammer Drop:
Hannah Anderson 11/30/2022 15 lbs 20 inches
Helper:Elevation:Total Depth of Test Pit:
n/a n/a Existing Surface 96 inches
GPS Method:GPS Coordinates:GPS Elevation:
n/a (± __ ft.)(± __ ft.)
De
p
t
h
(
i
n
.
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Bl
o
w
C
o
u
n
t
s
(b
l
o
w
s
/
3
/
4
"
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
e
s
t
Soil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifier, color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
5-8 Medium Stiff
Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
Blows/3/4"Consistency
>60 Very Hard
Moist, tan, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Transition: Moist, tan, poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP).
Moist, tan, poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP).
9-15 Stiff
16-30 Very Stiff
31-60 Hard
0-1 Very Soft
2-4 Soft
24"S-1
72''
S-3
n/a
n/a96''
S-2 n/a
36"
48"
Completed:Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Groundwater Depth:
Lithology
Moist, tan, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Base of falling head infiltration test, designated EPA-1-22.
Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
California Sampler Blows/3/4"Density
Shelby Tube 0-4 Very Loose
CPP Sampler 5-10 Loose
StabIlized Ground water 11-24 Medium Dense
Groundwater At time of Drilling 25-50 Dense
Bulk/ Bag Sample REF Very Dense
EPA-1-22
Project Number: Contractor: Equipment:
2131-THU n/a Compact Excavator
Address:
Da
t
e
Started:Bit Type:Diameter:
407 E Yelm Ave,
Yelm, WA 98597
11/30/2022
Project:Client:Test Pit No. 3 of 5:
Site Development Marian Licxandru
n/a n/a
Fluid:
11/30/2022 Humboldt H-4202A n/a
Logged By:Backfilled:Hammer Drop:
Hannah Anderson 11/30/2022 15 lbs 20 inches
Helper:Elevation:Total Depth of Test Pit:
n/a n/a Existing Surface 48 inches
GPS Method:GPS Coordinates:GPS Elevation:
n/a (± __ ft.)(± __ ft.)
De
p
t
h
(
i
n
.
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Bl
o
w
C
o
u
n
t
s
(b
l
o
w
s
/
3
/
4
"
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Soft
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
e
s
t
Soil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifier, color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
31-60 Hard
>60 Very Hard
Transition: Moist, tan, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
5-8 Medium Stiff
9-15 Stiff
16-30 Very Stiff
Blows/3/4"Consistency
0-1 Very Soft
2-4
36"
S-1 n/a48"
Completed:Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Groundwater Depth:
Lithology
Moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Base of falling head infiltration test, designated EPA-2-22.
Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
California Sampler Blows/3/4"Density
Shelby Tube 0-4 Very Loose
CPP Sampler 5-10 Loose
StabIlized Ground water 11-24 Medium Dense
Groundwater At time of Drilling 25-50 Dense
Bulk/ Bag Sample REF Very Dense
EPA-2-22
Project Number: Contractor: Equipment:
2131-THU n/a Compact Excavator
Address:
Da
t
e
Started:Bit Type:Diameter:
407 E Yelm Ave,
Yelm, WA 98597
11/30/2022
Project:Client:Test Pit No. 4 of 5:
Site Development Marian Licxandru
n/a n/a
Fluid:
11/30/2022 Humboldt H-4202A n/a
Logged By:Backfilled:Hammer Drop:
Hannah Anderson 11/30/2022 15 lbs 20 inches
Helper:Elevation:Total Depth of Test Pit:
n/a n/a Existing Surface 36 inches
GPS Method:GPS Coordinates:GPS Elevation:
n/a (± __ ft.)(± __ ft.)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
e
s
t
Soil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifier, color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.De
p
t
h
(
i
n
.
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Bl
o
w
C
o
u
n
t
s
(b
l
o
w
s
/
3
/
4
"
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
Blows/3/4"Consistency
0-1 Very Soft
2-4 Soft
5-8 Medium Stiff
>60 Very Hard
9-15 Stiff
16-30 Very Stiff
31-60 Hard
36"S-1 n/a
Completed:Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Groundwater Depth:
Lithology
Moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Sample 1 - CEC & Organic Matter testing at MTC.
Transition: Moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt
(SP-SM).
Moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Sample 3 - Sieve Analysis testing at MTC.
Gravel content and coarseness increasing with depth.
Transition: Moist, tan, poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP).
Sample 5 - Sieve Analysis testing at MTC.
Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
California Sampler Blows/3/4"Density
Shelby Tube 0-4 Very Loose
CPP Sampler 5-10 Loose
StabIlized Ground water 11-24 Medium Dense
Groundwater At time of Drilling 25-50 Dense
Bulk/ Bag Sample REF Very Dense
>60 Very Hard
Moist, brown, poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
TP-3-23 terminated due to excessive sidewall caving.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 16-feet bgs.
9-15 Stiff
16-30 Very Stiff
31-60 Hard
0-1 Very Soft
2-4 Soft
5-8 Medium Stiff
Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
Blows/3/4"Consistency
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
e
s
t
Soil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifier, color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.De
p
t
h
(
i
n
.
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Bl
o
w
C
o
u
n
t
s
(b
l
o
w
s
/
3
/
4
"
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
GPS Method:GPS Coordinates:GPS Elevation:
n/a (± __ ft.)(± __ ft.)
Helper:Elevation:Total Depth of Test Pit:
n/a 192 inches Existing Surface 210 inches
Logged By:Backfilled:Hammer Drop:
Hannah Anderson 4/21/2023 n/a n/a
n/a n/a
Fluid:
4/21/2023 n/a n/a
2131-THU n/a Case 580 Super N
Address:
Da
t
e
Started:Bit Type:Diameter:
407 E Yelm Ave,
Yelm, WA 98597
4/21/2023
Project:Client:Test Pit No. 5 of 5:
Site Development Marian Licxandru TP-3-23
Project Number: Contractor: Equipment:
24"S-1
66''S-4
n/a
n/a
48''S-3 n/a
S-5 n/a114''
21"S-2 n/a
210''
192''
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Lab
Test(s) Performed:Test(s) Performed:
X X
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark W. Peterson
Laboratory Manager
Sulfate SoundnessSieve
Proctor
Sand Equivalent
Bulk Density & Voids
WSDOT Degradation
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
If you have any questions concerning the test results, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call on us at
the number below.
Rice Density
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Atterberg Limits
Asphalt Extraction/Gradation
Hydrometer Analysis
Specific Gravity, Fine
Specific Gravity, Coarse
2.30%See Test Report Organic Content
Fracture Count CEC
Moisture Content
Test Results
Chris Heathman
May 4, 2023
S23-0484
Q.C. Mud Bay Geoech 2023 / 2131-THU
Date Sampled:April 21, 2023
23S021
Date:
Project:
Project #:
Sample #:
As requested MTC, Inc. has performed the following test(s) on the sample referenced above. The testing was performed in accordance
with current applicable AASHTO or ASTM standards as indicated below. The results obtained in our laboratory were as follows
below or on the attached pages:
Test Results
Mud Bay Geotech
Attn:
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Address:
Client:
Project:Date Received:
Project #:Date Sampled:
Client:Sampled By:
Source:Date Tested:
Sample#:Tested By:
Sample #Location Tare Wet + Tare Dry + Tare Wgt. Of Moisture Wgt. Of Soil % Moisture
S23-0484 Native, Sample 1 @ 21"639.9 2380.7 2178.2 202.5 1538.3 12.8%
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 X
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Sample #Location Tare % Organics
S23-0484 Native, Sample 1 @ 21"169.7 2.3%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Reviewed by:
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
229.8 228.4
Moisture Content - ASTM C-566, ASTM D-2216 & AASHTO T-265
Organic Content - ASTM D-2974, AASHTO T-267
Soil + Tare, Pre-Ignition Soil + Tare, Post Ignition
April 21, 2023
Client
Q.C. Mud Bay Geotech 2023
23S021 April 21, 2023
Mud Bay Geotech
Native, Sample 1 @ 21"
S23-0484
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is
reserved pending our written approval.
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Madison Miller
April 26, 2023
Lab
Test(s) Performed:Test(s) Performed:
X
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark W. Peterson
Laboratory Manager
Sulfate SoundnessSieve
Proctor
Sand Equivalent
Bulk Density & Voids
See Test Report
WSDOT Degradation
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
If you have any questions concerning the test results, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call on us at
the number below.
Rice Density
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Atterberg Limits
Asphalt Extraction/Gradation
Hydrometer Analysis
Specific Gravity, Fine
Specific Gravity, Coarse
Organic Content
Fracture Count CEC
Moisture Content
Test Results
Chris Heathman
April 26, 2023
S23-0450
Q.C. Mud Bay Geo-2023-2131-THU
Date Sampled:April 21, 2023
23S021
Date:
Project:
Project #:
Sample #:
As requested MTC, Inc. has performed the following test(s) on the sample referenced above. The testing was performed in accordance
with current applicable AASHTO or ASTM standards as indicated below. The results obtained in our laboratory were as follows
below or on the attached pages:
Test Results
Mud Bay Geo Tech
Attn:
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Address:
Client:
Project:DateSampled:
Project #:Date Received:
Client:Sampled By:Client
Source:Date Tested:
Sample#:S23-0450 Tested By:Madison Miller
D(5) =0.061 mm % Gravel =3.4%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =1.18
Specifications 0.144 mm % Sand =90.5%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =3.24
No Specs 0.194 mm % Silt & Clay =6.1%Fineness Modulus =2.05
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A 0.281 mm Liquid Limit =0.0%Plastic Limit =0.0%
0.389 mm Plasticity Index =0.0%Moisture %, as sampled =10.5%
D(60) =0.467 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent =
D(90) =0.894 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =0.0%Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face =75 Min. %
Dust Ratio =4/37 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual Interpolated See Test Report
Cumulative Cumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs
US Metric Passing Passing Max Min
12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%
10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%
6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%
4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%
3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%
2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%
2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%
1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%
1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%
3/4"19.00 99%99%100.0%0.0%
5/8"16.00 98%100.0%0.0%
1/2"12.50 98%98%100.0%0.0%
3/8"9.50 97%97%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 97%100.0%0.0%
#4 4.75 97%97%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 96%96%100.0%0.0%
#10 2.00 96%96%100.0%0.0%
#16 1.18 92%100.0%0.0%
#20 0.850 90%90%100.0%0.0%
#30 0.600 70%100.0%0.0%
#40 0.425 57%57%100.0%0.0%
#50 0.300 33%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 24%24%100.0%0.0%
#80 0.180 13%13%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 10%10%100.0%0.0%
#140 0.106 8%100.0%0.0%
#170 0.090 7%100.0%0.0%
#200 0.075 6.1%6.1%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Q.C. Mud Bay Geo-2023-2131-THU
23S021
Mud Bay Geo Tech
April 26, 2023
Sample Color:
JP-1-23 3 @ 4ft
April 21, 2023
April 25, 2023
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System
ASTM D-2216, ASTM D-2419, ASTM D-4318, ASTM D-5821
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Sieve Report
ASTM C-136, ASTM D-6913
SP-SM, Poorly graded Sand with Silt
Brown
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/
8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"
#4 #8
#1
0
#1
6
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#2
0
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes
Max Specs
Min Specs
Sieve Results
Lab
23S021
Test(s) Performed:Test(s) Performed:
X
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark W. Peterson
Laboratory Manager
Attn:
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Address:
Client:
Test Results
Chris Heathman
April 26, 2023
S23-0449
Q.C. Mud Bay Geo-2023-2131-THU
Date Sampled:April 21, 2023
23S021
Date:
Project:
Project #:
Sample #:
As requested MTC, Inc. has performed the following test(s) on the sample referenced above. The testing was performed in accordance
with current applicable AASHTO or ASTM standards as indicated below. The results obtained in our laboratory were as follows
below or on the attached pages:
Test Results
Mud Bay Geo Tech
Specific Gravity, Coarse
Organic Content
Fracture Count CEC
Moisture Content
Atterberg Limits
Asphalt Extraction/Gradation
Hydrometer Analysis
Specific Gravity, Fine
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
If you have any questions concerning the test results, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call on us at
the number below.
Rice Density
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Sulfate SoundnessSieve
Proctor
Sand Equivalent
Bulk Density & Voids
See Test Report
WSDOT Degradation
Project:DateSampled:
Project #:Date Received:
Client:Sampled By:Client
Source:Date Tested:
Sample#:S23-0449 Tested By:Madison Miller
D(5) =0.261 mm % Gravel =76.1%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =3.85
Specifications 0.495 mm % Sand =22.6%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =85.67
No Specs 1.105 mm % Silt & Clay =1.3%Fineness Modulus =6.82
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A 8.992 mm Liquid Limit =0.0%Plastic Limit =0.0%
31.037 mm Plasticity Index =0.0%Moisture %, as sampled =8.2%
D(60) =42.430 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent =
D(90) =#####mm Fracture %, 1 Face =0.0%Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face =75 Min. %
Dust Ratio =7/51 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual Interpolated See Test Report
Cumulative Cumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs
US Metric Passing Passing Max Min
12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%
10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%
6.00"150.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%
4.00"100.00 85%85%100.0%0.0%
3.00"75.00 79%100.0%0.0%
2.50"63.00 77%77%100.0%0.0%
2.00"50.00 69%69%100.0%0.0%
1.75"45.00 63%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 54%54%100.0%0.0%
1.25"31.50 50%100.0%0.0%
1.00"25.00 46%46%100.0%0.0%
3/4"19.00 41%41%100.0%0.0%
5/8"16.00 38%100.0%0.0%
1/2"12.50 34%34%100.0%0.0%
3/8"9.50 31%31%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 26%100.0%0.0%
#4 4.75 24%24%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 19%19%100.0%0.0%
#10 2.00 18%18%100.0%0.0%
#16 1.18 15%100.0%0.0%
#20 0.850 14%14%100.0%0.0%
#30 0.600 11%100.0%0.0%
#40 0.425 9%9%100.0%0.0%
#50 0.300 6%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 5%5%100.0%0.0%
#80 0.180 3%3%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 2%2%100.0%0.0%
#140 0.106 2%100.0%0.0%
#170 0.090 1%100.0%0.0%
#200 0.075 1.3%1.3%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System
ASTM D-2216, ASTM D-2419, ASTM D-4318, ASTM D-5821
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Sieve Report
ASTM C-136, ASTM D-6913
GP, Poorly graded Gravel with Sand
Brown
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Q.C. Mud Bay Geo-2023-2131-THU
23S021
Mud Bay Geo Tech
April 26, 2023
Sample Color:
JP-1-23 5 @ 9.5ft
April 21, 2023
April 25, 2023
8"6"4"2"3"
1½
"
1¼
"
10
"
1"
¾"
5/
8
"
½"
3/
8
"
¼"
#4 #8
#1
0
#1
6
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#5
0
#6
0
#8
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#1
7
0
#2
0
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes
Max Specs
Min Specs
Sieve Results
Sample No. Description Location Sampled
Spectra Labs - Tacoma received samples from Mud Bay Geotechnical Services on Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at
11:58 am. Unless otherwise noted, all samples were received in good condition and were tested in accordance
with the laboratory's quality control procedures. A summary of the samples received are outlined below.
306206-01 04/21/2023 11:00S1 @ 21"
This report package contains laboratory sample results and any attachments listed below. If you have any
questions please call (253) 272-4850 or email us at office@spectra-lab.com.
Attachments
Analytical Report: Analytical Resources, LLC.01)
Approved By
Randa Ross
Project Manager
This report is issued solely for the use of the person or company to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying or disclosure other than by
the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you have received this report in error, please notify the sender immediately at 253-272-4850 and
destroy this report promptly.
These results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced except in
full, without prior express written approval by Spectra Laboratories.
06/02/2023 Page 1 of 2
MUD BAY GEO
Accounts Payable
1001 Cooper Point Rd SW Suite 140
PMB 108
Olympia, WA 98502
Date Received 04/25/2023
Project 1721-THY
Analytical Report
PO Number 1721-THY
Lab No:306206-01 Sample Date: 04/21/23 11:00
Units AnalystAnalysis DateMethodResultAnalyte
Client ID:S1 @ 21"
QualifiersPQL
mEq/100g1.70 ARL5/25/2023EPA 9080Cation Echange Capcity D0.27
Lab Qualifiers Comments:
This report is issued solely for the use of the person or company to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying or disclosure other than by the intended recipient is
unauthorized. If you have received this report in error, please notify the sender immediately at 360-443-7845 and destroy this report promptly.
These results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without prior express
written approval by Spectra Laboratories.
ARL = Analyzed by Analytical Resources. See complete report provided.
D = The reported value is from a dilution
06/02/2023 Page 2 of 2
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS/COMMENTS:
1
2
3
4
E
E
i
E
c
1C
SPECTRA Laboratories
2221 Ross Way, Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 272-4850 Fax (253) 572-9838
www.spectra-lab.com info@spectra-lab.com
Return Samples: Y N Page of
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
SPECTRA PROJECT #eJ
STANDARD
4..nL.+O gQ�t (a.c�"�►a1-i�¢J�+c� AD E '
CLIENT: 'bize--J ADDRESS: CHANGE
PROJECT:
W
w
Z
z
0
LL
O
w
m
z
HYDROCARBONS
ORGANICS
METALS
OTHER
CONTACT-
p
U
=
a
r
z
w
m
=
z=
w
m
IL
x
a
a
~
w
cn
`o
o
LL
w
2
`O
¢
N=
co
o
Nw
FCo
W
p
O
U
0
a
a
>
g
rn
N¢
co
6
Co
z
a.
a
o"
C11
m
a
Co
0
0
W
v
Q¢
W
H
��
r
-
a
W
H
M
L)
J
F
a
H
LL
a
Cl)
F
s
H
�
o
o
M
a�
O
R
O
o
m
Cl
H
O
a
=
N
g
p-
M
}
U
W
N
O
J
J
..
SAMPLED BY:
PHONE:3��`��'Z1e� FAX:
Prefer FAX
e-MAIL: w.�tdp�gi+� w G%,o,.c 5=4—A or a - MAIL 0
PURCHASE ORDER #
SAMPLE ID
DATE
SAMPLED
TIME
SAMPLED
MATRIX
LAB USE ONLY
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME COMPANY DATE TIME
RELINQUISHED BYA7�
�NtaF�
1.� gt T
1
RECEIVED BY
��
r f"r
y� ��
6 • sa
RELINQUISHED BY
RECEIVED BY
Payment Terms: Net 30 days. Past due accounts subject to 1 1/2% per month interest. Customer agrees to pay all costs of collection including reasonable
attorney's fees and all other costs of collection regardless of whether suit is filed in Pierce Co., WA venue. Spectra Laboratories, LLC
Spectra Laboratories
RE: General Analyses (306206)
Tacoma, WA 98421
2221 Ross Way
Randa Ross
Please find enclosed sample receipt documentation and analytical results for samples from the project referenced
above.
Sample analyses were performed according to ARI's Quality Assurance Plan and any provided project specific
Quality Assurance Plan. Each analytical section of this report has been approved and reviewed by an analytical
peer, the appropriate Laboratory Supervisor or qualified substitute, and a technical reviewer.
Should you have any questions or problems, please feel free to contact us at your convenience.
02 June 2023
Associated Work Order(s) Associated SDG ID(s)
23D0627 N/A
-----
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, both technically
and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed in the enclose Narrative. ARI, an accredited
laboratory, certifies that the report results for which ARI is accredited meets all the requirements of the
accrediting body. A list of certified analyses, accreditations, and expiration dates is included in this report.
Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or
his/her designee, as verified by the following signature.
Analytical Resources, LLC The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the
chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its
entirety.
Phillip Bates, Project Manager
Cert# 100006-012
Page 1 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Page 2 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received
306206-01 23D0627-01 Solid 21-Apr-2023 11:00 26-Apr-2023 12:45
Page 3 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
Client: Spectra Laboratories
Project: General Analyses
Project Number: 306206
Work Order: 23D0627
Sample receipt
Samples as listed on the preceding page were received 26-Apr-2023 12:45 under ARI work order 23D0627. For details
regarding sample receipt, please refer to the Cooler Receipt Form.
Wet Chemistry
The sample(s) were prepared and analyzed within the recommended holding times.
Initial and continuing calibrations were within method requirements.
The method blank(s) were clean at the reporting limits.
The blank spike (BS) percent recoveries were within control limits.
The matrix spike (MS) percent recoveries and the duplicate (DUP) relative percent difference (RPD) were within advisory
control limits except for the CEC duplicate RPD which was above the advisory control limits, data reported as-is.
Work Order Case Narrative
Page 4 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Page 5 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
306206-01
23D0627-01 (Solid)
Sampled: 04/21/2023 11:00Method: EPA 9080
Wet Chemistry
Instrument: Accumet XL60 Analyst: BF Analyzed: 05/25/2023 15:15
Analysis by: Analytical Resources, LLC
Dry Weight:14.00 g
% Solids: 88.95
Preparation Batch: BLE0015
Prepared: 05/01/2023 Final Volume: 250 mL
Preparation Method: EPA 9080Sample Preparation:
Sample Size: 15.74 g (wet)
Extract ID: 23D0627-01 A
Limit
Reporting
Result Notes UnitsDilutionAnalyte
Detection
LimitCAS Number
5 meq/100 g0.270.27 DCation Exchange Capacity 1.70
Page 6 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
306206-01
23D0627-01 (Solid)
Sampled: 04/21/2023 11:00Method: SM 2540 G-97
Wet Chemistry
Instrument: BAL2 Analyst: UW Analyzed: 04/27/2023 12:00
Analysis by: Analytical Resources, LLC
Dry Weight:4.45 g
% Solids: 88.95
Preparation Batch: BLD0773
Prepared: 04/27/2023 Final Volume: 5 g
Preparation Method: No Prep Wet ChemSample Preparation:
Sample Size: 5 g (wet)
Extract ID: 23D0627-01
Limit
Reporting
Result Notes UnitsDilutionAnalyte
Detection
LimitCAS Number
1 %0.040.04Total Solids 88.95
Page 7 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
Analysis by: Analytical Resources, LLC
Batch BLD0773 - SM 2540 G-97
Wet Chemistry - Quality Control
Instrument: BAL2 Analyst: UW
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes QC Sample/Analyte
Detection
Limit
Prepared: 27-Apr-2023 Analyzed: 27-Apr-2023 12:00Blank (BLD0773-BLK1)
0.04ND %U0.04Total Solids
Page 8 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
Analysis by: Analytical Resources, LLC
Batch BLE0015 - EPA 9080
Wet Chemistry - Quality Control
Instrument: Accumet XL60 Analyst: BF
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes QC Sample/Analyte
Detection
Limit
Prepared: 01-May-2023 Analyzed: 25-May-2023 15:15Blank (BLE0015-BLK1)
0.25ND meq/100 g U0.25Cation Exchange Capacity
Prepared: 01-May-2023 Analyzed: 25-May-2023 15:15Source: 23D0627-01Duplicate (BLE0015-DUP1)
0.287.42 1.70 20125.00meq/100 g *, D0.28Cation Exchange Capacity
Page 9 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
Certified Analyses included in this Report
CertificationsAnalyte
EPA 9080 in Solid
NELAP,WADOECation Exchange Capacity
Code Description Number Expires
17-015Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation 03/28/2025ADEC
66169DoD-Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, PJLA Testing 02/28/2025DoD-ELAP
WA100006-012ORELAP - Oregon Laboratory Accreditation Program 05/12/2023NELAP
C558WA Dept of Ecology 06/30/2023WADOE
C558Ecology - Drinking Water 06/30/2023WA-DW
Page 10 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
Project:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Reported:
Spectra Laboratories
2221 Ross Way 306206
Randa Ross
General Analyses
02-Jun-2023 09:02Tacoma WA, 98421
Analytical Report
Notes and Definitions
Flagged value is not within established control limits.*
The reported value is from a dilutionD
This analyte is not detected above the reporting limit (RL) or if noted, not detected above the limit of detection (LOD).U
Sample results reported on a dry weight basis
Relative Percent DifferenceRPD
dry
Not ReportedNR
Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limitND
Analyte DETECTEDDET
[2C]Indicates this result was quantified on the second column on a dual column analysis.
Page 11 of 11 23D0627 ARISample FINAL 02 Jun 2023 0902
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Thurston County
Area, Washington
407 Yelm Ave. E
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
August 30, 2023
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
Soil Map..................................................................................................................5
Soil Map................................................................................................................6
Legend..................................................................................................................7
Map Unit Legend..................................................................................................8
Map Unit Descriptions..........................................................................................8
Thurston County Area, Washington................................................................10
74—Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes...............................10
4
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
5
6
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
51
9
8
3
4
0
51
9
8
3
6
0
51
9
8
3
8
0
51
9
8
4
0
0
51
9
8
4
2
0
51
9
8
4
4
0
51
9
8
4
6
0
51
9
8
4
8
0
51
9
8
5
0
0
51
9
8
5
2
0
51
9
8
3
4
0
51
9
8
3
6
0
51
9
8
3
8
0
51
9
8
4
0
0
51
9
8
4
2
0
51
9
8
4
4
0
51
9
8
4
6
0
51
9
8
4
8
0
51
9
8
5
0
0
51
9
8
5
2
0
530180 530200 530220 530240 530260 530280 530300 530320
530200 530220 530240 530260 530280 530300 530320
46° 56' 22'' N
12
2
°
3
6
'
1
2
'
'
W
46° 56' 22'' N
12
2
°
3
6
'
5
'
'
W
46° 56' 16'' N
12
2
°
3
6
'
1
2
'
'
W
46° 56' 16'' N
12
2
°
3
6
'
5
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 45 90 180 270Feet
0 10 20 40 60Meters
Map Scale: 1:947 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Thurston County Area, Washington
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 8, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 18, 2020—Jul 20,
2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
74 Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to
15 percent slopes
1.0 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.0 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
Custom Soil Resource Report
8
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9
Thurston County Area, Washington
74—Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ndc9
Elevation: 160 to 1,310 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Nisqually and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nisqually
Setting
Landform:Terraces
Parent material:Sandy glacial outwash
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 5 inches: loamy fine sand
H2 - 5 to 31 inches: loamy fine sand
H3 - 31 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:3 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R002XA006WA - Puget Lowlands Prairie
Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA)
Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Yelm
Percent of map unit:3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Norma
Percent of map unit:2 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
Landform:Depressions
Other vegetative classification:Wet Soils (G002XS101WA)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
11