HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeoTech Report for GRD2007-00025 - GRD Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 9/24/2007 t o r
11"E N 6 1 N E E R 1 N 6`._ 1 N C
309 WASHINGTON STREET NE • OLYMPIA WA 98501• TEL:360 352-2477• FAX: 360 352-0179
www.vectorengineeringinc.com
September 24,2007
Mr.Robert D.Fink,AICP
Mason County—Department of Community Development
Mason County Bldg 1
P.O.Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
Subject: Geotechnical Report,Additional Information Requested
Permit#: GRD 2007-00025
Parcel No. 12321-75-00020
Applicant:Bret Schwarz
Planner: Chuck McCoy
VEI#: 7054-017
Dear Mr.Fink,
The geotechnical report dated August 29, 2007 prepared by Envirotech Engineering, 74 NE
Hurd Road, Belfair, WA 98528 for a proposed multiple office/industrial buildings along Log
Yard Road, Belfair WA 98528 in the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 21, Township 23 North,
Range 1 West, Mason County was received on September 21, 2007 and reviewed by Vector
Engineering,Inc.
As the report is incomplete,we regret to say that we cannot recommend approval of the report.
Additional comment regarding the followings items are needed:
1. It is recommended the report be retitled as a Geotechnical Report instead of a
Geotechnical Assessment. The special reports are either geological assessments or
geotechnical reports.
2. It is recommended that more complete explanation be given why a geotechnical report
was done instead of a geological assessment.
3. A 50-foot buffer of undisturbed natural vegetation is required around the Landslide
Hazard Area or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.MCRO 17.01.100 D.6.a.
• The landslide hazard area was not identified on the site plan. On the Washington
Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Resource Map, an area of high
slope instability was identified on the parcel
4. The report includes a discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity, including
soil types, groundwater conditions, upslope geomorphology, location of upland
waterbodies and wetlands, and a history of the landslide activity. MCRO 17.01.100 E.5.
(1).
Page 1 of 3
X:\7000 Files\7054 Mason County Geotech Reviews\7054-017 Mason_Co(Schwarz)Wdmin\Transmittal Letters\Gcotechnical Report
GRD 2007-00025 Review 1 st request Letter.doc
• The report states the site is situated within moderately sloping terrain up to 35%with a
vertical relief of about 20 feet. The project is located in the Puget Lowland with
sedimentary rocks dominated by glacial drift.No water bodies or wetlands are located
upslope. The soil types are a moist,brown silty sand or sand with silt. The NRCS soil
type is Indianola loamy sand. No mention was made of any history of landslide
activity.
5. The report is to include the locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. MCRO
17.01.100 E.S.(3).
• The locations of the 5 exploratory holes are shown on the site plans. One log of Test
Pit Number 3 was provided in the report. The other test pit logs need to be included. i
6. The report is to include a geologic map of the site showing the area of the proposed
development with the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks
delineated on the map.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S. (4).
• A geologic map of the site showing the area of the proposed development with the
boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks delineated on the map
was found in the report. The landslide hazard area,buffer,site-or project-specific soil
and rock units were not shown on the site plan.
7. The report is to include a cross-section at a scale adequately depicting the subsurface
profile.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S.(5).
• The cross-section in the report is at a scale adequately depicting the subsurface profile.
A building was shown. The retention facility was not shown. The location of the
cross-section was not identified on the site plan.
8. The report is to include a description and results of the slope stability analysis. The
analysis used the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static factor of
safety is 1.5. The minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1. The quasi-static analysis
coefficient should be 0.15.MCRO 17.01.100E.5.(6).
• The report states slope stability was modeled using the Simplified Bishop's Method of
Circles and ASCE stability charts. The summary did not state the minimum factors of
safety. The analysis appears to have been done without the proposed retention pond.
The cohesion values of the soil types SPM of 600 psf and SM of 200 psf appear to be
high. The unit weight of 140 pcf appears to be also high. Justification is needed for
the soil parameters. The summary needs to state the minimum factors of safety.
• It is recommended the slope stability analysis be revised to include calculations using
the 2003 International Building Code criteria.
9. The report is to include recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and
grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for
vegetation and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. MCRO 17.01.100 E.S.
(8)•
• The report does include a reference to an erosion/sediment control plan.
Recommendations are needed in the report.
Page 2 of 3
XA7000 Files\7054 Mason County Geotech Reviews\7054-017 Mason_Co(Schwarz)\Admin\Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report
GRD 2007-00025 Review 1st request Letter.doc
10. The report is to include recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary
erosion control plan,which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented.
MCRO 17.01.100 E.S.(9).
• The report does not directly include recommendations for the preparation of a
temporary erosion plan. The only recommendations found in the report were that the
removal of natural vegetation is minimized,temporary and permanent erosion control
measures should be implemented and maintained, conventional construction
equipment may be utilized and that earthwork is undertaken during favorable weather
conditions. No general erosion control notes were included in the site plan.
11. The report is to include specifications of final development conditions,such as,vegetative
management,drainage control,and buffer widths.MCRO 17.01.100 E.S. (10).
• The report includes recommendations for vegetation management and drainage
control. No mention was made of buffer widths.
We have enjoyed working with you on this geotechnical review to support the goals of the
Department of Community Development of Mason County, Washington. We look forward to
completing this review when the requested items are provided.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you
feel any features need further discussion or attention.
Sincerely,
Russell W. La Force, P.E.
Design Engineer
Page 3 of 3
XA7000 Files\7054 Mason County Geotech Reviews\7054-017 Mason_Co(Schwarz)\Admin\Transmittal Letters\Geotechnical Report
GRD 2007-00025 Review 1st request Letter.doc
TO at KEPT IN
THE
PARCEL
FILE
Geotechnical Report
Bret Schwarz Multiple Office/Industrial Buildings
Parcel No. 12321-75-00020
Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
Project#0726
Prepared For:
Bret Schwarz
P.O. Box 2305
�,C LYIj�
Poulsbo, Washington 98370 G�e�tio� wAS s9
Prepared By: c�
Envirotech Engineering
74 NE Hurd R �';' 045
R Belfair, Washington 98528 SIO�rA
Phone: 360-275-9374
Fax: 360-275-4789 °CP1HL-s`) (0 009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Purpose of Investigation 1
1.3 Scope of Work 2
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3
2.1 General Observations 3
2.2 Topography 3
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology 3
2.3 Drainage 4
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 5
3.1 Field Methods 5
3.2 Field Sampling 5
3.3 Field Testing 5
3.4 General Geologic Conditions 5
3.5 Subsurface Conditions 6
3.6 Soils Testing 7
3.6.1 Visual Classification 7
3.7 Infiltration Rates 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS 8
5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations 9
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity 9
5.1.2 Settlement 10
5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 10
5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures 10
5.3 Earthwork Construction Recommendations 11
5.3.1 Excavations 11
5.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill 11
5.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill 12
5.3.4 Building Pads 13
5.4 Slope Stability and Erosion Control 13
5.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts 14
5.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks 14
5.4.3 Erosion Control 14
5.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage 15
5.4.5 Vegetation Considerations 15
5.5 Pavement Analysis 15
5.6 Earthquakes and Liquefaction Potential 16
6.0 LIMITATIONS 17
APPENDIX
Appendix A- Site Plan
Appendix B - Soil Information
Soil Cross-Section
Soil Logs
Well Reports
Appendix C - Slope Stability
Appendix D- Geological Map
APpa-Jix E - cros;o-, c-,n4rvI
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for
multiple building sites on one parcel of land identified as parcel number 12321-75-00020
located in Belfair, Mason County, Washington (Project). As presented herein, this report
includes information pertaining to the Project in this Introduction Section; observations of
the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section; field methods and
soils descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; a brief summary of findings in
the Conclusions Section; and, geotechnical recommendations in the Engineering Analysis
and Recommendations Section.
An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech with the
owner, Bret Schwarz, on December 6, 2007 with subsequent site visits thereafter. The
latest site visit was accomplished on August 20, 2007. It was determined that the southern
portion of the parcel have slopes between 15% and 40%, and subsequently will require a
geological assessment pursuant to landslide hazard areas of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance. Due to the scope of work, and to a lesser extent, proposed features and soil
characteristics for this Project, a geotechnical report was deemed necessary in order to
provide geotechnical recommendations. These geotechnical recommendations include
provisions for the extensive earthwork that is required for this Project, anticipated building
loads that exceed typical bearing pressures, and significant stormwater mitigation due to
future impervious surfaces. During the evaluation and site visits by Envirotech, surface
and subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and
applicable Project research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report.
1.1 Project Information
Information pertaining to the Project was provided by the owner. The Project consists of
approximately 5.3 acres of land, and will minimally consist of developing five industrial/
office buildings. Anticipated industrial usage includes storage of supplies used in light
construction activities. The buildings are planned to be 1- or 2-story, 5000 square feet in
size, and some may have daylight basements. Additionally, the development will include
septic systems, asphalt paved parking lots, fenced enclosures and areas for storm water
mitigation. Potable water access shall be installed from existing water lines located within
the utility easement adjacent to the property. Currently, the land is vacant with paved
access to the site from Log Yard Road. Log Yard Road is accessed by turning west on
Belfair Log Road from State Highway 3, north of Belfair, Washington.
1.2 Purpose of Investigation
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the Project in order to
provide geotechnical recommendations relating to the construction of the planned
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 1 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
industrial/ office buildings. The investigation included characterizing the general Project
surface and subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the
planned site development.
1.3 Scope of Work
In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program completed for the
proposed improvements of the Project include:
• Review project information provided by the Project owner/developer;
• Conduct a site visit to document and photograph the site conditions that may
influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements;
• Define the general subsurface conditions of the site by observing five test pit
excavations to depths of up to 10 feet below the ground surface within the Project,
reviewing well logs of neighboring properties, and shallow probing below the
surface;u ace;
• Collect bulk samples at various depths and locations,
• Perform soils testing to determine selected index properties of the soils that
includes 10 visual classifications;
• Complete an engineering analysis supported by planned improvements, and the
surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation and
soil testing; and,
• Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for
foundations, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements,
and other considerations.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph, 360-275-9374 Page 2 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on
May 5, 2007 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. During the site
visit, the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed, photographs were taken of the
surface and surrounding areas, site features were documented that may influence
construction, soil samples were collected from selected locations, and near-surface soils
were visually classified. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general
observations, topography, vegetation, and drainage for the Project and surrounding areas
that may impact the Project.
2.1 General Observations
The Project is currently undeveloped land, with the presence of underground utilities near
the northern border of the property and within the utility easement along the northwest
property line. The Project consisted of moderate to highly dense vegetation, including firs,
madronas, scotch broom, grasses, and other trees and shrubbery common to this area of
the Pacific Northwest. Log Yard Road borders the east property line with developed and
undeveloped land beyond. Developed land exists to the north of the Project, and
undeveloped land exists immediately to the west and south of the property. Observations
of surface conditions relating to slope conditions can be found in the Slope Stability and
Erosion Control Section of this report.
2.2 Topography
The parcel of land is situated within moderate sloping terrain of up to 35% on the
southern portion of the property with a vertical relief of about 20 feet. These slopes
descend in a southeast direction from inside the west property line to Log Yard Road. Site
grades range from slightly sloping to relatively flat within the remaining property limits.
Off-site ascending and descending slopes within 300 feet of the property appear to have
lesser gradients than those exhibited on-site. See the Site Map in Appendix A for an
illustration of the general topography with respect to the planned development.
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology
Ascending grades located to the west of the Project are generally 15% or less.
There are no local water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the proposed
development.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Im-estigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 3 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4. 2007
2.3 Drainage
Stormwater runoff originating upslope from anticipated building locations are expected to
be very minimal or none at all due to the existing topography. Stormwater drainage within
the project will be accounted for in the stormwater grading and drainage plan. Currently,
stormwater primarily sheet flows in a southeast direction, and along Log Yard Road.
Water is directed to Log Yard Road before crossing onto the adjacent vacant land near the
southeast portion of the property. During the site visit, running water was not present
within 300 feet of the Project. Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past
drainage problems were not observed at or near the Project. Overall, the earth near the
Project surface consists of high permeable soils that is an engineering property conducive
of fast groundwater drainage.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 4 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered on May 5,
2007 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. Specific information on
field methods, sampling, field testing, subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing
are presented in this section of the report.
3.1 Field Methods
Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by observing five
excavations extending to depths of up to 10 feet below the existing ground surface.
Additional information on subsurface conditions was collected by field testing, shallow
probing near expected building pad areas, and reviewing well reports originating from near
the subject property. General slope stability maps for the Project and surrounding areas
were not available. Appendix B has pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the
Project, including a test pit log that is representative of the near-surface soils within the
Project and one water well report.
3.2 Field Sampling
One bulk sample was collected at the Project site at approximately 2.0 feet below the
existing ground surface. The soil sample collected was secured and transported for
possible laboratory testing.
3.3 Field Testing
Relative density of the in-situ soils were acquired by recording the resistance from driving
a '/2" steel bar into the site soils at several locations, and observing the resistance of the
excavator during the subsurface exploration. These results generally indicated medium to
dense soils to depths of up to 7 feet below the ground surface, and dense soils at depths
beginning at 7 feet to 8 feet below the existing ground surface.
3.4 General Geologic Conditions
In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The
geologic conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J.
li -P 1 o n IT . Lower tertiary
Eric Schuster, 2002 indicates Lower Tertiary (O gocene a e ce e),
are generally sedimentary rocks, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 5 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Countv, Washington
October 4, 2007
alluvium deposits. This project is located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower
tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation." as revealed in
the Geologic Map. Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales, sandstones and coal
deposits from rivers. During the Quaternary period, the Puget Lowland was covered by
numerous ice sheets, with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of
approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by
glacial erosion glacial drift deposits.
3.5 Subsurface Conditions
The Project subgrade within the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling and observed
locations were composed of native soils (no indications of borrowed fill). For engineering
purposes, these native soils consist of distinguishable layers, as presented below.
Soils below the upper 4 inch to 10 inch organic/ soil mixture to depths ranging from
approximately 3 feet to 5 feet below the existing ground surface consists primarily of a
moist, brown silty sand or sand with silt (SM / SP-SM) with only traces of gravel. Sands
are primarily fine with some medium grain size. The fines content is primarily a silt with
none to very low plasticity. These soils were observed and tested to be medium dense to
dense.
generally consisted of a dense moist
aforementioned silty sand ,
The soils below the of ty g Y
brownish/gray poorly-graded sand (SP)with gravel, few silts and few cobbles. These soils
extended to depths ranging from 7 feet to 10 feet below the existing ground surface.
Gravels were primarily coarse and subrounded, sands were mostly fine and medium, and
the silts exhibited none to very low plasticity.
In 2 of the 5 test pits, denser soils were encountered at 7 feet and 8 feet below the ground
surface. These soils were classified as a sand with silt and gravel (SP) and some cobbles.
mostly due to the amount of cobbles at this depth.
The denser soils appeared to be y P
Subsurface explorations in the field did not extend beyond 10 feet in depth.
Below the dense silty sand with gravel soils is expected to consist of dense sand and gravel
soils to depths extending beyond 90 feet below the ground surface.
Neither permanent groundwater nor bedrock was encountered during the field
exploration. Permanent groundwater is expected to be approximately 60 to 90 feet below
the existing ground surface beneath proposed building locations. According to well water
reports near the project, saturated conditions existed at least 60 feet below the ground
surface.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Textural Classification System, the
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 6 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
upper 10 feet of soils for this Project consisted basically loamy fine/ medium sand, and
fine/medium sand.
3.6 Soils Testing
The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved
and transported for specific laboratory testing. Visual classification of soils was performed
in the field. The following soil tests were performed in accordance to the American
Standards for Testing and Materials(ASTM):
• 14 Visual Classifications(ASTM D2488).
3.6.1 Visual Classification
The general results from the visual classification are presented in the
aforementioned Subsurface Conditions Section extending to depths of 10 feet
below the existing ground surface. Minor variations observed during the visual
classification of particle size content (i.e. gravel, sand, fines), or isolated pockets
within the soil stratification were insignificant in relation to the engineering
properties of the soil.
3.7 Infiltration Rates
According to the 1992 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program,
infiltration rates of the soils encountered for this Project are the following:
• Sand: 4.1 inches/hour
• Loamy Sand: 1.2 inches/hour
The above infiltration rates take into account a reduction of'/2, as recommended by the
stormwater manual.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 7 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of
Michael Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate
education and experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess
landslide hazards, earthquake hazards, and general soil mechanics.
The Coastal Zone Atlas is not applicable to this Project. However, a detailed analysis of
slope stability is presented in the Engineering Analysis and Recommendations Section of
this report. There are no apparent indications of landslide activity, modified slopes or
concerns from the slope stability analysis. This is based on observations during the surface
investigation, and an engineering analysis of the slopes using expected subsurface
conditions and anticipated site development as presented in this report.
The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12 inches below the ground
surface for this Project under normal circumstances and anticipated design features. The
soils on-site have low to moderate frost susceptible characteristics and may be used to the
extents provided in this report.
The planned site development will be on moderate sloping terrain. Proper drainage
provisions should be implemented where practical, including the recommendations herein
in order to reduce the potential for damaging erosion or scow.
Off-site impacts due to the expected development of this Project are not anticipated to be
of significance. It is our opinion that slopes on and near the Project are sufficiently stable
for the development if the recommendations presented in this report are adhered to. In
addition, sedimentation control should be adequate when utilizing the erosion control
recommendations as presented herein together with implementing appropriate erosion
controls with the degree of care as expected from a licensed contractor.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 8 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present engineering analysis and recommendations for the
proposed improvements of the Project. These recommendations have been made available
based on the planned improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report;
general observations of drainage and topography as summarized in the Surface Conditions
Section; and, soil conditions that were identified by the field investigation and soils testing
in the Subsurface Investigation Section. Engineering analysis and recommendations for the
Project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for foundations, settlement,
slope stability, earthwork construction, concrete slabs-on-grade, lateral earth pressures,
pavements, footing setbacks, surface and subsurface drainage, and erosion control.
5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations
Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of at least 5
two-story commercial buildings. Below the upper 12 inches of native soil within the
Project, there is apparently two distinguishable layers of soil that will influence the bearing
capacity and settlement of the residential structure. The recommended allowable bearing
capacities and settlements as presented below, consider the probable type of construction
as well as the field investigation results by implementing practical engineering judgment
within published engineering standards. Evaluations include classifying site soils, and
deriving probable relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the in-
situ soils based on observed field conditions and soil testing for this Project.
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity
For the existing site conditions, bearing values should increase with depth. Existing
in-situ soils at the Project site indicates that the structures can be established on
shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on
relatively undisturbed native soil. Alternatively, foundations may be constructed on
selective re-compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as described in the
Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. Footing width
and depth recommendations shall be adhered to, and are based on a 2500 pounds
per square feet(psf)maximum structural bearing pressure.
For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 2500 psf, a minimum of 24-
inch wide footings shall be placed at a minimum of 12 inches below the final
ground surface. These recommendations are made available based on adherence to
the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. If structural
bearing pressures less than 2500 psf are expected, Envirotech may be contacted to
revise these recommendations.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 9 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
5.1.2 Settlement
Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on
the subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure
exerted by the structure, reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances,
the infiltration of free moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, and
construction abides by the recommendations in this report, the assumed foundation
system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum
differential settlement of 0.75 inch.
5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Interior slabs should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of compacted
granular material that is placed over undisturbed native subgrade or engineered fill.
Native soils found at the Project site is suitable material for supporting concrete
slabs in heated structures. Although not required for the structural integrity of the
concrete slab-on-grade, a vapor barrier may be utilized for damp-proofing. If
vapor barriers are used, it is recommended to utilize a barrier that is sufficiently
thick to resist puncturing during construction, or place a 2 inch layer of sand above
the barrier prior to placing the concrete slab.
5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures
Stem walls may be planned for structural lower levels, which in some degree, will function
as retaining walls. The lateral earth pressures exerted through the backfill of a retaining
wall are dependent upon several factors including height of retained soil behind the wall,
type of soil that is retained, degree of backfill compaction, slope of backfill, surcharges,
hydrostatic pressures, earthquake pressures, and the direction and distance that the top of
the wall moves.
Lateral earth pressures are anticipated to be at-rest for this particular rigid concrete wall
construction. Retaining walls should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on
an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pounds per cubic foot(pcf) for structural backfill, and
70 pcf for re-compacted native soils used as backfill. These values shall be increased by
one pcf for each degree of backslope inclination behind the retaining structure. See the
Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section for details concerning engineered fill
and placement of backfill.
Lateral earth pressure recommendations are based on the foundation depth not exceeding
4 feet below the final ground surface, and the backfill conforming to the compaction
requirements provided in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations of this report.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 10 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
5.3 Earthwork Construction Recommendations
Founding material for building foundations may consist of undisturbed native soils,
compacted engineered fill, or selective re-compacted native soils. The following earthwork
construction recommendations include excavations, subgrade preparation, type of fill, and
placement of fill. The earthwork construction recommendations as presented herein,
pertain to construction over the entire 5.3 acres of this Project.
5.3.1 Excavation
Excavation is recommended to achieve appropriate foundation depth, and to
remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious material, if present,
beneath foundations. All soils below the bottom of the excavation shall be
relatively undisturbed. If these soils are disturbed, re-compaction is necessary.
Excavations shall be completely dewatered before placement of additional native
soil, engineered fill or concrete.
5.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill for
Foundations
For engineered fill or disturbed native silty sand and sandy soils that will be utilized
as fill material directly beneath foundations, the following placement and
compaction requirements are necessary.
Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots
and other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter.
Engineered fill should consist of at least 65%-100% gravel-sized material, and less
than 5%fines(particles passing#200 sieve)by weight.
Compaction of these materials shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 8
inches and 12 inches for native soils and engineered fill, respectively. Each lift
should be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum
dry density (ASTM D 1557). Each lift surface should be adequately maintained
during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift
bonding. If clean, coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, compaction
may be achieved by an experienced contractor through reasonably densifying
granular soils with water and heavy construction equipment.
For compacted or re-compacted fill beneath foundations, the limits of compacted
fill should extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of two
feet for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill beneath the foundation. See
the illustration below.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 11 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County,Washington
October 4, 2007
A
FOOTING
C❑MPACTED
ENGINEERED
FILL I
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
5.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill should consist of engineered fill, native soils or borrow materials approved
by a geotechnical engineer. Compaction of these materials shall be achieved in
compacted lifts of about 12 to 24 inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted
to no more than 85% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D
1557). Over-compaction should be prevented since this will cause lateral earth
pressures to increase, which may be detrimental to the retaining structure. If clean,
coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, compaction may be achieved from
a sufficiently experienced earthwork contractor by reasonably densifying granular
soils with construction equipment.
Backfill for the retaining wall should extend vertically from the top of the footing
to the proposed ground surface. At the ground surface, backfill should extend
horizontally from the face of the retaining wall to at least 2 feet in back of the wall.
Perforated foundation drains for retaining walls should have a 4- inch minimum
diameter and direct water as recommended in the Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Section of this report. Coarse, clean gravel is recommended to be placed at least
12 inches around the drain pipe in order to provide increased drainage capabilities.
Non-woven geotextile filter fabric should be wrapped around the aforementioned
coarse gravel for reducing the potential of silt migration and clogging of the drain
pipe. See the illustration below.
P FT MIN
WATER PROOFING
BACKFILL
4 FT MAX YNON-WOVEN GE❑TEXTILE
IN R❑CK
G IN MIN N DIA. PERFORATED PIPE
6 IN MIN
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 12 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Countv, Washington
October 4, 2007
5.3.4 Building Pads
Building pads, if utilized for this Project, shall be constructed per the fill placement
and compaction recommendations as presented above. Both engineered fill and
native soils may be used for building pads. Building pad slopes shall be no steeper
than 1:1 for compacted engineered fill, or 1:2 for re-compacted native soils used as
fill. Building pad fill in excess of 5 feet, benching will be required at increments of
every 5 feet of fill depth. A setback of 5 feet shall be maintained between the
building face and the top of the building pad slope.
5.4 Slope Stability and Erosion Control
Landslides and erosion are natural processes, and structures near slopes possess an
inherent risk of adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes.
These risks cannot be eliminated for any site with moderate to steep sloping grades.
Geotechnical engineering provides an acceptable factor of safety for building near sloping
site conditions. These factor of safeties are based on engineering judgment, and
engineering standards accumulated from years of academic and professional research by
individuals in the field of geotechnical engineering.
Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the
deep-seated structural capability of the slope. However, excessive and/or repeated surficial
slope movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural integrity of the
slope. With appropriate drainage and erosion control provisions for this Project during and
after construction, it is unlikely that this Project will experience excessive surficial
movements. However, maintenance of the slope must be completed if the situation does
arise in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated slope movements
that may be damaging to life and property.
The buildings for this Project are expected to be situated on a relatively flat grade and
moderately sloping grades. During the site visit, there were no indications of deep-seated
slope or surficial slope failures. Although the slope grades that exist on-site signal a
potential landslide or erosion hazard area, indications of past landslide or current slope
failures were not observed. Landslide indicators (none observed on-site) include:
• Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope,
• Fissures, tension cracks or naturally stepped land masses on the face or top of
the slope, and parallel to the slope,
• Fine, saturated subsurface soils,
• Old landslide debris,
• Significant bowing or leaning trees, or,
• Slope sloughing or calving.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 13 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
The Simplified Bishop Method was used to analyze the stability of the Project's slopes
utilizing expected site soils, topography, surcharges from expected site improvements, and
various slip surfaces. Anticipated building loads, building pad loads, building pad cuts, or
impacts from the planned septic drainfield and retention areas are not expected to have any
significant influence on the global stability of the slopes, provided that the setback
requirements and recommendations in this report are adhered to. Based on the
aforementioned Project criteria, observations, slope stability analysis, and the
recommendations in this report, the Project has an acceptable factor of safety of over 1.5
relative to deep-seated slope failures for the worst-case-scenerio of this Project. Seismic
conditions were estimated utilizing worst case scenario values from the static analysis, a
horizontal acceleration coefficient of 0.15, and applying the applicable values to slope
stability charts. These stability charts were presented by the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) in the "Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,"
April 2002. See the slope stability information in Appendix C for input parameters and
example of outputs. For this project, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic
conditions were estimated to be 1.8 and 2.4, respectively.
5.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts
The approximate locations of the planned septic drainfields are presented on the
Site Plan in Appendix A of this report. The drainfields are not expected to
adversely influence slope stability for the planned building structure or critical
slopes. This determination is based on partial saturation inputs for the slope
stability analysis, the soil types and minor elevation difference between the
structures and drainfields, in addition to the location of the drainfileds with relation
to the significant slopes on the Project.
5.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks
There are no minimum setbacks for this Project provided that the earthwork and
other recommendations in this report are adhered to.
5.4.3 Erosion Control
Erosion control measures may be required during construction due to disturbing
the topography. This will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction, and
amount of rainfall during construction. For this project, a complete storm water
and erosion/ sediment control plan completed by Enviortech Engineering has
addressed erosion control concerns. General erosion control information for both
temporary and permanent erosion control is provided in appendix E.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 14 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Countv, Washington
October 4, 2007
5.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all buildings. Surface
and subsurface drains should be adequately maintained during the life of the
structure. Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface, driveways, parking
lots and sidewalks away from the Project structures.
Foundation perimeter drains should be utilized for this Project if stem walls will be
retaining more than 2 feet of soil. This will help mitigate the excess moisture away
from the structure. If used, outlets for perimeter drains should be located
downslope, and established at least 5 feet away from structures. It is also
recommended to established foundation drains in a rock quarry or very gravelly,
clean soils.
If roof drains are utilized, water should be transported from the roof directly into a
permeable medium that is downslope and at least 5 feet away from building
foundations. This permeable medium should also not be located directly
downslope from the building unless approved by the geotechnical engineer.
If drainage problems occur during or after construction, additional water
mitigation may be required. This may include a combination of swales, berms,
drain pipes or outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structure
and/or reduce erosion.
5.4.5 Vegetation Considerations
Vegetation is recommended to remain in place as much as possible. However,
vegetation may be removed as any means chosen from anywhere on this Project.
For vegetation that is completely removed on slopes greater than 20%, it is
recommended to level and lightly re-compact the native soils to the depth of soil
disturbance. These additional requirements may be neglected if the stumps remain
in place, and ground disturbance is minimal.
5.5 Pavement Analysis
The pavement section design analysis was completed using AASHTO's Guide for Design
of Pavement Structures. The AASHTO procedure utilizes the CBR value of the subgrade
soil, traffic count reliability, serviceability or ability of the pavement to serve the type of
traffic the facility will use, and the material properties of the asphalt concrete (AC) and
base course (BC). The traffic data was assumed by Envirotech based on number of
buildings and anticipated use. Data on reliability, serviceability, and standard deviation
values were assumed based on AASHTO's procedures. The soil modulus was calculated
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 15 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
based on correlation of soil properties with R-values. A nomograph presented in the
AASHTO Guide, was used to calculate the structural number.
The thickness of AC and BC were then calculated from the equation relating the structural
number and the layer coefficients by assuming a standard AC thickness of 2 inches. Based
on the result of the analysis, Envirotech recommends that the following pavement
elements be utilized for parking areas:
Flexible Pavement Risid Pavement
• Asphalt concrete : 2.0 inches 6.0 inches
• Base coarse : 8.0 inches
The pavement design provided above assumes that the upper 8 inches of sub-base soil
(pavement subgrade) is recompacted to its 95 percent compaction. Concrete in rigid
pavements should have a 28-day compressive strength of 3000 psi. Appropriate concrete
joints at 20 feet apart with transfer mechanisms should be included.
Base coarse for parking lot construction should meet the requirements of Class B
foundation material from the Washington State Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction.
5.6 Earthquakes and Liquefaction Potential
The immediate founding soils for this Project are primarily Type D, corresponding to the
International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. For this region, the seismic zone is 3,
which yields an estimated maximum ground acceleration of 0.33g.
The potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading is believed to be moderate for this
Project. The sandy soils for this Project contributes to the liquefaction potential. However,
the rapid stormwater infiltration that is widely distributed over the Project, and the lack of
a permanent shallow water table are positive attributes regarding the potential for
liquefaction. Biofiltration swales are proposed for the base of the site slopes in order to
mitigate storm water. Other than preceding filter strips that will infiltrate much of the
storm water, the swale is estimated to have only 4 inches of depth over a 1-foot width,
and will transport water very quickly. Liquefaction potential is also decreased by removing
at least 6 feet of soils on the top of the slope, and buildings situated at least 100 feet away
from bio-filtration swales.
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 16 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
6.0 LIMITATIONS
Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the
geotechnical subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions
encountered during construction are different than those described in this report.
Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified engineer observes and documents the
construction, or Envirotech is promptly notified if project and subsurface conditions found
on-site are not as presented in this report so that we can re-evaluate our
recommendations.
This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner, or
owners' representative, and project described herein. This report should not be used to
dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility.
Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid on compliance with all
recommendations provided in this report. The recommendations provided in this report
are valid for the proposed development at the issuance date of this report. Changes to the
site other than the expected development, changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or
broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the conclusions and
recommendations of this report.
Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275 9374 if you have any questions comments, or
require additional information.
Sincerely,
Envirotech Engineering
Michael Staten, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 17 of 17 Parcel 12321-75-00020
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County, Washington
October 4, 2007
APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN
A
SCALE. I DCH-17o FEET
ca)w K er NRsrse—v MWGARBAGE
w
°EEE"ACLE AREAS
�J IXKTK.M'
Gmvm SUtrocco Tn
S \ `. uTARTr
FVICEP YARD OR 1LDG A
ar.tEE'> Rw FENCE
_ O _s<oavFt
TIC
owLTRATOR I / YARD P6l1
CTM
/ SLAG■
PAfblf✓ACCESS
n BEiiiEE
`0• YR5RRESV EGRESS
V. ;
RECE"AC E AREAS /
goDEGREE
botav EGRESS
S � /
i
>Lo
SORDFIELD
✓ /
CTYP>
/ / _
tr-Er CMMGE
RE11PIACLE ASEAs /
/ VKL.2G /\-EXt%TM GV ACCESS.
/ UTRM EFS04M
� � T
OF EKMTeRG
i
PM1EE ROWAr
of /
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIUM
BRET SCHWARZ
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
NOTES- BRET SCHWARZ
00020
LEGEND L EROSION KWAT CLAM E IS PROVIDED D+ THELAN PARCEL NM MASON CIMMTIY. WASHINGTON
sraaMvaTNxN AM EROSION CO�ITRII. PLAN
COMPLETED BY ENVIRTJTECH EHG mt-t-K G. ENNGD'EER1
TEST PIT I�. CO�ouRs ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY ENGINEERING
em DEPICT GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
3. THERE ARE NO NINDW BUFFERS 74 NE H-RD ROAD
STORMWATER BE BETWEEN B DwGs Arm SLOPES FOR BrLF 7M5 9a74 TUN 98528
IS RUNOFF 4. ALL BUILDINGS ARE PLANNED TO BE
75 EXISTING CONTOUR WT x MWT IN SIZE SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
SOH
,INFORMATION
SCALE, 1 NCH 30 FEET
30
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
OR SIDEWALK
PROPOSED ASPHALT
PROPOSED BIO-INFILTRATION SWALE PAVED PARKING
2.5 FT DEEP, 311 SIDE ORIGINAL GRADE
SLOPES, 1 FT BOTTOM
1-2% 50FT
25%t CLh
�� SILTY SAND OR SAND
<SP/SM) DENSITY
5FT -� 44� INCREASES WITH DEPTH
C. 5FT
PROPOSED GRADE
C2�1)
SECTION A-A
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION,
BRET SCHWARZ
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
BRET SCHWARZ
PARCEL NO. 12321 75 00020
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NOTES: ENGINEER,
ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
1) LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTION IS SHOWN ON THE GEOLOGIC MAP B NE HURD ROAD
BE NE
WASHINGTON 98528
360-275-9374
S❑IL PR❑FILE
TEST MT LOG
TESL' PIT NUMBER TP-1
PROJECT: Schwarz Geotec:hnkaI Assessment DATE OF BORING: 05/05/07
PROJECT NO: 0726 LOGGED BY: MACS
CLIENT: Brett Schwarz EXCAVATOR: Bret Schwartz
LOCATION: Parcel 12321-75-00020 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County,Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
STANDAM p8&-mTm TEST
SOIL STRATA,
DEPTH FRS U3C3 DESCRIPTION LL Pt DEPTH � CURVE
AND TEST DATA 10 50
SM Brown,motet SILTY SAND,ffw& n
donee.Send is mostly fine and medium.
Stlt is non- tic
T•'+
2
S -
.0 :S
�i
4
5 .f .... ........................ ..............
SP Brown,motet.medun donee lo dense
POORLY GRADED SAND wlh trace of
;' •:: stlta and gravels.Sand is mostly fine and
6 „�;••: medim.Slb are very low to none
plasticity.
7
8 Brown,moist,dense POORLY GRADED
;;i a•;�: SAND with GRAVEL and trace of seta.
',•' : i. Sand is mostly med1m.Gravel content is
d �-�� about 25%,and well graded.
.t•:
—10
E=avabon terminated at approximately
10 feet
—x±—
No Grotindweler F_noountmed ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
rnr.InA�rrn.00r+p+.ar>a ony ro rrs noAr�Q end aewdd roe to
Geolodwks!ErgkwmdrV
1�br{xebd a wrp haicr��d�.nw a�w.
TEST RT LOG
TEST [SOT NUMBER TPm2
PROJECT: Schwarz Geotechnic al Assessment DATE OF BORING: 05�105/07
PROJECT NO: 0726 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT: Brett Schwarz EXCAVATOR: Bret Schwartz
LOCATION: Parcel 12321-75-00020 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County,Washington ELEVATION: NIA
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: NIA FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
STAFAMM PB&-MTM TEST
SOIL STRATA,
DEPTH SOIL
U3C3 DESCRIPTION LL PI DEPTH N CURVE
AND TEST DATA 10 30 50
0
SM Brown,moist SALTY SAND,medium
donee.Sand is mostly rime and mediuum.
Sit is rwn-piasfic
1
2
8
4
. . . .... . . ..................... .. ..... . .. . .. .. ..... .
5 SP Brown,moist.dense POORLY GRADED
SAND with GRAVEL and trace of sdt L
Sand b moody medkm-Gravel co ANd Is
8 about 2596,and wed graded.
Brown,moist,melt n derm to dense
:.; POORLY GRADED SAND with trace of
T silts and graveis.Sand is moony line and
medium.
8 E=avarion lemrinaled at appwdn d*8
feet
9
10
No Ground a;ler Enoou>tsrod ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
Tft o Lt @ft p GeoWmical Engineering
TEST MT LOG
TEST Pff NUMBER TP-4
PROJECT: Schwarz Geotec hnkal Assessment DATE OF BORING: 05/05/07
PROJECT NO: 0726 LOGGED BY: INKS
CLIENT: Brett Schwarz EXCAVATOR: Bret Schwartz
LOCATION: Parcel 12321-75-00020 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County,Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
srAAlAm pecrm7 orr TEST
SOIL STRATA,
DEPTH SAMPLERS USC3 DESCRIPTION LL PI DEPTH N CURVE
AND TEST DATA 10 30 50
0
Sp-SM Brown,rrwist POORLY GRADED SAND
with SILT and few gravels,medluM
dense.Sand is mosty title and medtunn.
1 Sot is non-plastic
,;.
2
S - Sp Brown,moist,medium dense 10 dense
POORLY GRADED SAND with few
gravels and a trace of sit Sand Is mostly
4 ~:,; fie and medlurn.
y•9i
Y
Brown,moist,dense POORLY GRADED
SAND with GRAVEL and trace of silts.
Sand Is mostly med u n.Gravel conlard is
about 15%,and well graded.
7
E=avation brrrrin ded at app ukutely 7
feet
8
9
10
No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
Tft k*m ftn pwbkw o*r0 era Dorkp Mod&WW ace es GeOMc Mktel Engineering
k�lwprabdas beft ft*09&OW�nrtir iNe
TEST RT LOG
TEST Pff NUMBER TP-1
PROJECT: Schwarz Geotechnicai Assessment DATE OF BORING: 06/05//07
PROJECT NO: 0726 LOGGED BY: MACS
CLIENT: Brett Schwarz EXCAVATOR: Bret Schwartz
LOCATION: Parcel 12321-75-00020 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County,Washington ELEVATION: N/A
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: NIA FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A
STRATA,
sTANDMW PE ETMTM IEsr
DEPTH SOIL STR T I�CS DESCRIPTION LL PI DEPTH N CURVE
AND TEST DATA 10 30 50
. . .. ...................
IsP-SM Brown,maid POORLY GRADED SAND
wNh SILT and tract of gravels,medium
dense.Sand Is mostly fide and medcnn.
1 Silt is low plastic.
2
3
4 . ............... . ..
Sp Brawn.moist,dense POORLY GRADED
SAND wllh GRAVEL and trace of silts.
Sand Is mostly medium.Gravel content is
5 about 15%,and well graded.
8
T
E=avaeon to aftrted at gVro*nately 7
fast
8
9
[10
No G ounctwater Erxounoerod ENVIROT ECH ENGINEERING
Tilt a*v,,mft poftin any a srs comp and&*wW not be Geoledmk;al Engineering
C"pi as b p hdcx.offt wi rs aft
The Department of Ecology does NOT Warranty the Data and/or the Information on this Well Kepon.
. $ ° g IF I lit
GL &L
• • t 1=I o
R Ln
oo
o00
oar
" g y $I
® N *+ $$ }
a r r r r► a
a4 IL
LO r x1
w
.:ti
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY
Simplified Bishop Method
Input major slope minor slope
36 1
Vertical Relief(ft) 116 100
Slope horizontal distance (ft)
Soil Type Depth to top Unit weight friction angle, cohesion,
of soil layer(ft) of soil(pcf) phi, (deg) c(p O
M.Dense SM 0 140 28 200
Soil1 128 34 0
Soil 2 M.Dense SP 5 140 82 600
So113 V.Dense SPM 10 0 0
Soll 4 0 0 0 0
Soils 140 28 600
Minor Slope
Surcharge(psf) 1800
Of slope must be beyond top of major slope
to
Surcharge distance from p 0 Surch
Factor of Safety, FS Trial 1
2.5 assumed value
Trial Radii ft) 60
Center of circle at top of slope
Output
Slope Inclination, beta (deg) 16.80
90- beta(deg) 73.20(73.20)
(90)+beta+theta
Horizontal Length of all slices(ft) 117.43
Horizontal length from center(ft) 57.43 horizontal distance from center of circle to left end of 1 st slice
Radius of slip plane 1 (ft) 121.17 for a slip circle at toe of slope
Factor of Safety, FS Trial 2 1.95
Factor of safety,FS Trial 3 1.89
Factor of Safety, FS Trial 4 1.88
aotnmtivv, tnoOto
C7CV CD �., C� toonrNM �1
�
dmO rO/ f- 1"wN rtpO mtODd
+ c O to N m
-y u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `y
ciciclNNNNNNN
b M M M M M M M co M co
C
rC. O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M I`� M O m O m
C O ACDtol� rr-- 00 N
O CDCD § � mfD � �� Om 3ZA C CO "iC44
V N pCV rtoCV� Or �p P:
mC sr Cl
r r r r
8 h
ti N N n to �- m to CO N co O O O—co rN 0 O
co ae- mM O N �rco O
O O O r O N /O r N ti Co- O
rM Mr N -ttoMO g C
(� md1� ONto 'Q tnto OOOO v- v- v-
r r r r r
� MdstrOr04 Wr- CO O mmmmCOCD
I� r MNr rNMtn E m f- r.- r- - r-- r-
C r- rrrrrr (A NN � QI
t p LL N .r r
CL :. O
t4 C m-§
U O O
m c
CD � � OONOrt� `Q NmmtAq -W r- d/
OONtnM � �`'
MN Cptliti A rCOM � � �iOtOpM W O coco � � P- �Q ttltpMO tV� � M f� CD et Q
OrCptotof� MMt� CD �- deq d Nr 3 od c* mO
.+ W Nrto Nl� tiCO rtiMONh- r O
Crtof� CO � , co mN tt
� c' tptlfmm OD 0
(A �i Z
wwcomCD �- ^ � � M rOran .�t rtOtA
CD c� O g 0 0 0 0
t- t� CDCD O pp rrt- e-� re- OO
.-.co
Q N L tL
CL z
H E
mNrtoc lmco � CDCD C► Nd rOf� l� Or M
rrh- 1%k -: (hrrONCO CD
N N CV CO O Ly cal ob w co) Celt
� ¢'' rM tnttf to W qtr OO NtnMOt-
v Cl
lam ft
M trptj ^ � nmCD co
tp
> = O
rNOW OCDCDmf� G! ZOOv--3 an �
mcoOO
to0i0itpOCD �} titp0 Opr r- ra- rrOO
N CO '� to m to to d M to CO
c� u � 0O0
m ttL U r r r
o.4m
cA 'A
o E N
O r N C7 (RI Co CD CD CD N C7 to m O N- CD M
st01d> MMQOr �
pui66w6 nto r ,r otriaor` c+iui co _
NM tPOmto rtM SNP- co m.r ONetr OMO OU� tOA �
t � .. CONt� C �
m m QtMotwAfd+ titim� O h Nr r
m � z
-1 o
tip. tiN l� tl: r1l: t-fi M � I� NMOCOrtoO
to CD O O O Cl O O
O CD
(p
rrrrr �-
- rrrr pOO rrrrrrrrrr r- re- rrOO
Ci
.a C Q LL
cc
� eNC9 � W CDtiCOM � EtICCD �d �DCDtiaO W
� � usz
EM-HUdV/OMEEMON3 WlN3yWODUVaO3O OW 1"NH031039 d0-NNii"/tom
PEoq,ojW aaos cn da(dcmH)Lp JID) ONJO `..�.,.... s71�aql'� st (S) -ba - Paq�P minssaad
ae s! 11 umId so �a � m `d �CP'PS aWd q� �JO a�Q 218 ongtA "� MO$ MMPW
Id,
` .o 43S OW�T� 84�P as PWWU sa[�►3Q 1 3o asri�aa9�ImB
so3 tool ap.u&Wm u8"Pinoas+mP qwS'cxkW3o m3 :W aq PPm-wmp w Mpm 2Wjo uogsgawsajd amaa
,tp;ss aau aqf 30 Dowaq you Am'*�/os a!`m'9o4 am ( so)raqmna��q
-t qsT amssasd im m»d aqs aW=p a$Cj)3 P -qs ;o ! BOO az Sppdxo P°P°T'�Pas patsl°aI-aq
3r>m"Ill %wtp Pas `p ads 3o ao.wm.o wok =a uo.qwWvW axmajd arod 9 att►`aesosot s!acTots
0
apaa a u 91 aqL'ate *am= o!oW amb a su yaa AWO 911 "adols a a.I a>n .1 I . awd
e Ep!As saooPRWM aT PamP!U'sees a7 =*A. WW ON asg so3 Sugunoom jo arw=w 8 Sc �1aT$aOJ
18661 !a1 oiB4 Vo ommM d'bxm aB uT sM� 15661 1a[ of
[m09wp as so srs,Steae acp P t�1 seat a 'P�b -ggXW ram mmgwd °o 8 *qsa Pang= sem
3o laalp OU 'mom �P 8 sa £'k3 m 6 aB a1 arLi.'£ a1 a�0S0 Pm
-Ta=ppwnwqjo Apsumm asp etas ev 3 IkA `S"10 w 1nbo a1*!&sxbp x#qmp&WqinS a&is
a!nvnp aw=Mpojd at Pmn app asg w am oy amq P=n seas VW em M a3qaw avW%aB so Pqd o%jo gKbp—q PUR WPb
sredras mn 3o a! [au �P to Pala ylan POs_� "aasssa�d x�aes aJod rill }o apsglst8gm�,n aLagb
s!31` mpn4o OW JO JWAMpq asp am g4sw Am aei�g you MOP
Pm (kws al �) aeooid o�as asp sawn* s (8) ��°m"'a
w!tans oikm'w9w1om apsm as mP mwi m *R n
-pnla[a,(q a8!sap a!V=P!saoo aogo am sadots uO WuN a!m PS su(0961)um"Wd
-M Pm doTslS Al Pm" °a WwOWN0 A P XF=P s<am
PRAO OIUMVS nb -sand ra}sm asod at{i;o ao.mgws!P aip`ate 30&q ao
.saes awd as$ao aauangR a[p 8unaoswd to asodmd asp sod
sadoTs 30 rul!gy48 aq;ao==kid sagses awd amssard sale b awd alg 3o ap ca8esu asp at a8twga asasa tou
,To aoamgm asp 3o..sson8 pMuanpa„uo 07m a4 2lglsod u a4m gwp aa"Tps asp jo aomI1P alb Pas1aP 4io3 aq of P P1s
mwj 1 4 ap-!seu'of pwo.fqm wdos jq m9mg 43PS 'V'S ' >('o
a
5i3 ti0ti0 £D 20 1�D 5D DO 6'O Vo 0. 3o Y1! co
s 1 i t
,Z£
Of
8
(P) tq)
S'I 2 S'L L IID 0a
S1 t 40 00 4L Z fft L SO �O
E � 1-0�Vx L
g , L ZOO z
Sil y o
' iuq
0egr
a
s
W
9
8 �� $
� �► 8
m(®, tot oats}
OZ o4
APPENDIX D
GEOLOGICAL MAP
ScAu. t PCH •04 FEET
Now-. -4 sw.ssr o
/ s
/ 1LBG A
R-ev
/O GATE
TE
9 SOILS THFDJGH13UT SITE WERE IDENTIFIED
AS USCS SH, SP-SN AND SP) USDA LOAMY
FI]NUMEDIUM SAND AND FINE/1£DIIM SAM
/ A
TOP 13F$LaP[
/
TM W=0a Sl?E
AT ON ff mo /
W /
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION•
BRET SCHWARZ
GE❑TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
BRET SCHWARZ
LEGEND NOTES, PARCEL NO. IM1 75 00020
1. CONTOURS EXTAPOLATED FRDI PUBLIC MASON COUNTY, VASHINGTON
LIDAR SOURCE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL ENGINEER.
*TPI TEST PIT TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
3. THERE ARE NO NPOKIN BUFFERS OR 74 NE HURD ROAD
SETBACKS IN RELATION TO BUILDINGS,
STORMWATER VEGETATION AND SLOPES FOR THIS BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528
—� RUNOFF PROJECT, 360-275-9374
75 EXISTING CONTOUR GE❑L❑GIC MAP
APPENDIX E
EROSION CONTROL
'a3Zn18VIS MD (131MIMW A13IVIMdOMddV
-10diN❑3 N❑IS083 N339 svH V3MV awn a3miN3N3M03V SV 3NI1 V HOns lI1Nn 3sv33
AT31VIQ31NI INNS 'AlIAI13V -miwO Iwia 3S aNV NOISOM3 a3A0MddV M03
*LE6-9L2-09E 1d33X3 '31IS 3i1 NO AIIAUOV N0113ndISN03 11V 'a dum N339 9NIAVi
82586 NOONIHSVA WVT13a S313V Siva S Q3ZrUgvlS AT31visAMddV N339 ION SVH MO 01331lddNn
aVOd a2I11H 3N 4L SNIVN3M a3)ROA Al3AI13V 9NI39 ION V3MV aNVI ).NV 1VHl LN3A3
9NI833JI9N3 H331021IAN3 3HI NI 'S3A13SN3Hl 30 QNV NI 83A0O 31VnC3aY SV Q3A31A 38 ION TIIA
1Ol3 'S'aNad 1N3WQ3S 'SdVMI 1N3NIa3S 'ONION33 ITS 113MxIA Al3AI13V
Rl33Nl9N3 9NI3fl IM !I QMdUSIa 3SIA83HIO Mil Q3MV313 NTW 9NIAVH a3I3V
SAVa S WHIM "313`1VI631VN 9NINIVMa 33M3 *S13)OftIS NOISOM3 '9N1133HS
N019MHSVA 1.kiwc13 NOSVN 3I1SVld '9NI113N '9NDi3YTN SV HOnS 'Q3ZI1I9V1S 3SIAM3lI0 38 aO M3AO3
02000 SL I2E21 'ON 1338Vd 3AII3310Md 31VI&CSddV 3AI3O3M I-rOM SV3MV a3SWUSIa W Q38V313 TIV
ZdVAH3S 13M8 13AM3SH0 SI 311S-J.0 IMOdSN"I IN3N1a3S
QNV NOISOM3 MI /QNV a313Ia38d SI NMOIS MOfVH V 1N3A3 3H1 NI SWM t2
1N3WSS3SSd 3VOINH❑31039 NIHIIA Q3ZI118V1S MD a3M3A07 38 WO SV V3MV (INV" H3nw Sv 01 MINIl
Z21dMH0S 13215 39 TTVHs 'M3A03 QHnoa9 zrma aw NouvI3a3A 9NIISIX3 30 IVADN311 3HI
9MQnl3NI 'QNV-1 !D 9NINV313 3H1 'SS3M9aMd NI SI KIIA113V NOIlOnMISNO3
WIJV301 /a3NAO /133r[Wd a3ldnM31NINn 3M3HA S311S ND -- (OE IIddV nM I I M390130) NOSV3S 13A
'S311IlIOV! 'DMIM3 IN3(Ia3S
Nv NOIS(W3 lltl 30 MIVd3M QNV 33NV131NIVW 3i1 W3 318ISNadS3M 38
TTtlHS 8cI3VMINOO /"4AO 3141 'X33A )183A3 33NO 1SV31 IV aW 'SIN3A3
'1 d39N3AON Nwis M313V A131VIQ3 wl S3IlIlI3tl! YRLLNa3 1N3NIa3S GW NOISOM3
A9 Q3M3A03 39 1lVHS H3-M 9MMVi03M SY3MV TIV ?OSV3S 3141 30 M 339 Q3a33S 39 T1V 30 HOI133dSN1 3H1 M03 319ISNOdS37! 39 T1MiS WI3V81NO3/83NAO
IOMl43 HODiA SV3MV NI W ONIa33S M3LiV kl3lVla3wwi a3Sn 39 QYCHS 9NM-M T 3H1 'SAV(l 3AIln33SNM t 1SV31 1V 2A3 Q3nMINaOSIa 3MV S3111AII3V
'(7VMIX3/VIVIF1IZIMO4) 1N3Hd013A3Q 311S M3i10 MO S3IIIAli3V N01131RiISNO3 1VHl IN3A3 3H1 NI
1-2 NVil M31V3M9 S3dMS Q3SDdX3 HIIA SV3MV llV NI a311ddV 38 a-VMiFHS HO-M 'Z
3M3V Mad SQW13d OOOI 30 31Vd V 1V a31'lddV 38 aYTOHS '0E M39N31d3S NVH1 831V1 ON
aNV '3sal7m X391! 000A 39 Ol a3aN3NH033M 3MV 9NIH31M M03 a3Sn S-N'Z(31VH 'I AH a3l-NISNi 39 1SnN "313 'SAANYl9 NOISOM3 '9rII1334S OliSVld '9NII13N
'9ND43YM( SV HOnS 'M3ADO aNrKM9 30 QO413N 3AIIVN831lV NV '3l9ISSDd
`-ND43'M ION SI NOIlVZIl79V1S 1N3NVM3d LVHI 1N3A3 3H1 NI 'HIADHO AM01OV3SUVS
01 3AI3MNOO 3MV SN(IIIIQNDO 1VLN3NOMIAN3 3F11 aNV 1N3NINNI SI 133f'Oifd
(SN3d38 MM103IM1) 341 X N0I131dNO3 lV3ISAHd N3HA 3NOQ 39 71IA T S390130 8313V 9NI(133S
06 96 Ol 83AO'l3 H31nd 3IIHA '1 M39D130 Ol SI 1Sngw QNV '91 AV( al 1 H3MVN •Sa0R13d 9NIAO1103 3H1
(13)CDI 'AMVHS 113NNV9 'NAO1S3 Vr) 9NIa M1 Q3NMOR13d 39 T HS SV371V Q39M911SIQ 3SIAXNIO MO Q3MV313 !0
(vivinwwm VM8flb V3n1S33) 9NMOYIN QNV 9NIZIlI183! '9NIa33S 'AIMIM 3HI A9 TIA0MddV 3SIAM3410
08 L6 at 3nS33 7NL%-*U SS3-W1 NOILOV 30 NVId a3A03ddV 3HI Mad M3N()EIS MI1 O£ d39N31d3S
06 86 Ot OVMIJILIM WHIC-D 3AM -W*SN A9 "313 '1VIM31VN 9NINIVaU 33M3 'S13)WVl9 NOISO83 '9NI133HS OIISVId
06 26 Ol (V9TI slis iuv) daia3M 19M113N '9MHOYTN 30 3Sn 3H1 H9nOMH1 a3Z1'II9VIS A131VI8404ddV 39 ISnW
Q39Mn1SIa 3SLm3H1D )!I Q3MV3-M SV3MV T?v 'NVld MAINU3 INWd3S QNV
CQ CC) ('.p 1H9I3A A9 3(VN NOISOM3 3H1 NI a313I33dS SI N1311VZrURViS 31VIa3N1 SS3'W 'MV3A N3AI9
NOIIVIINM39 AIIMnd SNOI12OdO8d V 30 OE 639N31d3S NVHI 831V1 ON A8 ' a3HMf11S1a 3sIAM3H10 MII a3MV310
N338 9NIAVH 8313V 'a3ZI'D$V1S 3SIAM3HID 38 MO M3AW 3/ iMllMd
'3M(i1XIN Q33S 31VNMIIV Q3AOMddV 31VIMdOMddV 3AI3O3M NV3 SV aNVI H3(W SV AY•O ai a311NI'1 39 Ism
A1Nfn3 V MO '10M1NO3 NOIS063 W-1 3dn1XIN Q33S a3aPC"C33M 9MAOTID3 ail 3Sn 'M3,^= awxm M3H10 Ma NOIIV1393A 9HllSIX3 3D 1VAON3M 3H1 9NIQnl3NI
'awl 30 9MMV3M 3H1 -- (OE M38N3ld3S nau I AVN) NOSV3S AM
'SQNVl13A QNV S31Q08 M31VA al 1N33Vratl A11tlI33dS3'a3Z1MN0i 39 G-IrMS
S1N(1OH11 's"N,vam3A0038 .sa3rkicm al 9NIQM000V a3Sn 39 al 3MV S4321-11i 33'9 '1N3Kjv3M1 Q3AOMddV 83HJD Ma 9NU13N '9NI431M H1IA
'(9NIS3AM 3I1SVld MV313 '1VN 3Irlr S3111X31039 ' 3 'AMVSS333N 38 731A a31113" 3a asiv 1snN ins 'wiws1NO3/M34AO 3Hl 30 IS383INI 3H1 NI
a38 Q33S 3H1 30 9NIMONMV '0E lladV aNV 1 M38N3ADN N33M138 (131NVld Sa39 (133S 'S SI 11 M3A3N3HA m33O1d AWN 9NIa33S 'M3A3ADH '83031d3S H%)DdH1 IIMdV
'3MI113nMIS 100M 3H1 133108d (INV H31S03 01 AWSS333N SV 33NVN31MVW N3i10 30 SHINON 3HI 9NISM 318V1d333V 39 AINO TIIA 3ND1V 9NIa33S SSVM9
QNV N0JIvol MI 3a=3M 111A IC 8390130 QNV 1 AVN N33A139 Q31NVld S(139 Q33S 't •MV3A 30 301 3H1 al 3YIV3IlddV 1N3H1V3MI 'IDMINOO NOISO83 03AOMddV
3M3V Mad SQNfUd 021 30 63HJD MO 9MIRVld SSVM9 '9M 4:)-M HIIA QMI119VIS Al3ivia3NNI 38 1SnN
31VM 3H1 1V Q3rlddv 39 QYOHS aW 'A0138 NA04S Sv 'wcIIVQN3iO338 9NIa33S '£ SV3MV a39Mn1Sla lltl 'AO138 VIS31133 a31SIl 31 94Q333X3 Q0IM3d V MII!
'3d0•TS 3HI al MVYglaudM3d MO SSIIM33V SNOIIV83d0 Tw NM03M3d '9NIN3F&m Q31VdI3I1NV SI XMIIA 83H.LWJ ON 383NA QNV 'S3ILIA113V 9MHMf I= aNVI
33V-QM 9WAOTID3 '33VASM 3NI3 AWY-1 HIIA NM23 39 IIVHS Q39 Q33S 3H1 '2 a33N3IM3dX3 Mil NDILVI393A !a a3ddisis N339 3AVH HOIHA SV3MV -'IV MO!
'SHISV9
IN3NIQ3S QNV SM3([USdS 13A31 'STWAS 'S3XIa Wld3U31NI 'S33VMM31 1N3Iavdg S311IN YRUN03 NOISU3 AMVM3,M31
SV HOns S3WSV3N - M1NDO j-l"m 33V3MnS a3a33N IIVISNI 'DNIa33S 3WJ39 'i
'Q32I1I8V1S
S3dElS AVM M03 9NIa33S Al1N3~3d N339 3AVH SV" 3dOlSdn 3H1 111Nn 3OV-Id NI 1331
'SMfIDH 9£ 30 QOIM3d 3H -rrom S3om3Q aw S3ulll3V! -mIN03 LN3WI(13S QNV N(NSa83 llV T
V WHIM 03OVld aNV a3M3AYM 'a31S3AMVH 39 TIVHS STNAS SSVM9 M03 ails 1, 'AMVSS aW 9 'Q I3V-A IIiM A131VIQ3iFa aNtl AIIVQ a313 TV NI
'IVAIAHOS Sl1 1O333V AT3SM3AaV AVN 1N31NO3 3Mn1S1Oi 13A W AM kl3AI=X3 39 lIfM1HS S3OIA3Q QNV S3IlIlIOV! lOM1FOO 1H3HIQ3S QNV FO3VA - llV '2
N3HA Q3iw-idswm MO a31S3AMVH 39 ION INNS S31VAS SSVM9 M03 QOS 'f 'SS WI3V! 10M1FO3
T�OIJ33S 1003 E V 30 QN3 1N3NIQ3S aHtl NOISOM3 aVNI 90 l3AD8d IIVHS 2O13VM1N0.7 3H1
3H1 A9 a3QN3dSnS N3HA 3dViS QNV 3ZIS M13H1 NIVl3M QNV IRMA NAO MI3HI 1m"s N❑I SSfflS N0O 9MINO 3IN3WI(I3S 39 Ol 3AOMd SNVId 35311 NO WSNAO 'I
01 HTCN3 9NOHIS 38 TIVHS STWAS SSVM9 M03 (IDS 30 SN01133S 3ZIS QMVaNtl1S 2 S3Mf1Stl3N OMIHOO 1N3NIa3S aNtl NOISOM3 AMVMa W31 3H1 al1OHS '1
l4O1V41 rS310N T/M3N39
aNV H1AOM9 dal 3Qn1OX3 IIVHS SS3NAOIH1 2O3 S1N3H3aMV3N '9NIMn3 30 3NIl 3H1
IV SS3NX31HI NMD3IW1 H3NI-t/£ V IV 03 3MH3VN 39 TWS S3lVAS SMID MO! a>lS 'I
1N3N33V1d ails 'S'1'N
3R19V3 3TI1X31039
•S31M - MIN03 NOISOM3 1N3NVNM3d 30 SIN31X3 H01109
13AVZID 03HSVA
13 S2 Vok .2/1 1 01 .t/E
1 [ H1IA Q31113 HON361
3aIP( .8 'd33a .21
1 2
33tl3MfiS aNnOM9
9NI1SIX3
'133rDdd 3H1 M S11NIl 9NldV3-U 13 9
3H1 N083 3dalSNA0Q a31VO01 39 71VHS S33N3! 11IS 'L 13 50 *TO 'XtlN 13 9 a
'33N33 ITS 3H1 831139 80 1N31VA1n03 w
NOM! 3dO1Sdn QNV S1SDd 3H1 30 3NIl 3H1 9NalV 133M SIHI HS3N 38IM QNV WAD 1SOd QOOA .ZX.2
Nil S11V13(i 3H1 01 OlKld O3V Q31VAV3X3 38 IIVHS H3N3dI V '9 3189V3 3111)(31039
13W SI 9NI3VdS 1SOd 63SO13 (INV '(1N3iVllA:P N) 3IWV!
M311I3 H19H3M1S-vsD3 3I a3IVNIWM 39 AYM HS3N 3MIA
3H1 '1N3l1AIM3 W 3%M tIX.ZX.2 38 ITMS HS3N 3MIA 'S 'S'1'N
3H1 OiFa Al3MfY33S N3AIMQ aNtl '133HS SIHl NO S11V13Q 3HI
NI a31V3IaNI SH1d3Q 1V a33Vld aNV a33VdS 39 IIVHS S1S(3d 't
'%G3VdS NI t 2 (S9NW 9O1) S3MIA 311 i1I S31OVIS
.1 9NISn Q3N31Stl! 39 1-M4S 3I89V3 8311I3 aMVQNVIS '£
'ISad 3Hi 01 13 t'2
SQN3 H109 IV a3N3lSV! A1371n33S QNV dV'R13A0 H31NI-9 NnMININ
V H1IA 1SOd IWddflS V IV AW 63FU3901 TMIldS 39 11WHS 3OV3MnS QNnEM �1
3188V! S311I3 'AMVSS333N 3MV S1NIOr A 'S1MOr 30 3Sn amAV 9NI1SIX3
Ol d3IMMV9 HOV3 30 H1JFOl 3H1 a1 1f1O IYRI SfM1fWIUOO 13 Ml3 M31VA 30 N01133MIQ
TE
V NI Q3SV 3&W 3'H AVMs 31Mfltl3 M31-u3 31I1X31a39 '2 13AVM9 a3HSVA
SQMVINVLS ALNnU3 319VOI1ddH MO .'NISVR ,2/T T Ol t/E HlIA a311I3
aWlaS 139nd 3H1 M03 lV(MNN 1N3i3DVNVN SMVANWIS. 3H1
NI a3I3I33dS Mad 30 T1VHS 3dkI OI89V3 N311I3 3-UIX310M 1 831139 ao 1N31VA1nO3 H3N3& 3QIA .8 'd33a .21
33N33 ITS 80 1SOd a0CA .SX,2x.2 '13AV89 ONIOV'ld 380339
H3N3Ml JO HCUiO8
3WIN3 ISV31 1V 01
H3N381 aNnEM dVMA
3IM9Vj 311IX31039