Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeo-Tech Report for BLD2006-02094 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 1/3/2007 MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER Shelton, Washington 98584 DATE: JpuM 3 2007 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: Chuck McCoy-Planning PARCEL 12331-51-00068 FROM: Patricia C. —PW BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: BLD2006-02094 SUBJECT: Geo-Technical Report NAME: Steve Gadouas Two Pages Hi Chuck; The Geo-Technical Report prepared for the proposed Single Family residence 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE; Belfair has been received and reviewed by Public Works. The engineers conclude the site is currently stable under the existing conditions. Also this is their opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed residential structure provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the site development plans. The foundations should extend through the fill to bear on the undisturbed native soils or on new structural fill placed above the native soils. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. It is recommended a minimum width of 18 inches for isolated spread footings and 16 inches for continuous footings designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot(psf). If retaining walls are placed Public Works does not review retaining walls. The building department will have to review the retain wall for design. To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious matter including any existing structures, foundations or abandoned utility lines should be stripped and removed from the site. It is recommended that the existing denuded areas be re-vegetated as soon as practical with native type vegetation or other slope stabilizing landscaping. Yard landscaping around the home and on the slopes should be encouraged as much as possible as a deterrent to erosion. A 50- foot buffer of vegetation is required around landslide hazard areas. The building setback distance of at least 15 feet from the crest of the slope located south of the building area. Compaction of all structural fills should be placed horizontal lifts and compacted to 95% according to ASTM D-1557. The engineer states that the hazards of the landslide area can be overcome in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety, and the project will cause no significant environmental impact for the life of the project During wet weather conditions, erosion control measures may include but should not be limited to berms and swales to channel surface water runoff, and ground cover/protection in exposed or disturbed Steve Gadouas-BLD2006-02094 1 areas. Temporary ground cover/protection such as jute matting; excelsior matting,wood chips or clear plastic sheeting should be used during wet weather conditions until permanent erosion protection is established. Silt fences should be utilized where appropriate. Graded or disturbed areas should be shaped to avoid concentrations of runoff onto the site slopes or other erosion-sensitive areas. Collected stormwater from the site should be dispersed away from the slope,beyond the toe. Adequate Erosion and Sediment(E&S) control features need to be implemented during land disturbing activities to protect neighboring properties and State waters from adverse stormwater runoff impacts. The migration or release of silty water or mud from the applicant's property will be considered a violation of County and State water quality protection regulations. All requirement/recommendations contained in the assessment should be incorporated into the site's development and made conditions for permit issuance. Our agency cannot be responsible for unforeseen and widespread geologic events(such as earthquakes, large-scale faulting, and mass wasting). Please feel free to contact me at 619 or John Sliva ext. 724 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any features need further discussion or attention. Sincerely, Patricia Carroll Steve Gadouas-BLD2006-02094 2 MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS WORK ORDER Permit#: —0 Date: (� ��c 2r �E, T DEC 1 9 2006 Requested by: Authorized by: 1 fA�S���noUNT%,r pliP,LlC KF,4s Type of Work: -7t1 '�pL Public Works employee in charge: CHARGE TO: Name: � £N ���-C)oUf4,S Billing Address: Phone: WORK PERFORMED: Employee: c f 1 � , Date: ( �' •? Hours: I Hourly Rate: � Total: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE INFO: Billed Date: Invoice #: Amount Billed: Receipt # Date,- Amount Paid: s r GeoResources, LLC Fx. 253-896-1011 5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste. 20 Fx. 253-896-2633 Fife, Washington 98424-2462 August 29, 2006 Steve Gadouas 8170 Knute Lane NE Silverdale, WA 98383 (360) 692-7342 Geotechnical Report Single-Family Residence 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE Mason County, WA JobNo: Gadouas,S.JollyRogerLN INTRODUCTION This geotechnical report summarizes the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed single-family dwelling to be constructed at 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE in Mason County, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity map provided in Figure 1. Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with you, our review of the parcel map and site sketch provided to us, our recent site visit, and our experience in the area. The subject site consists of a rectangular-shaped 0.2-acre lot. We understand that a one-story residence will be constructed in the approximate center of the site. We expect the main floor will be constructed over a crawl space with a slab-on- grade floor for the garage. Access to the residence will be from Jolly Roger Lane NE located along the northern side of the lot. We understand that because of the height and inclination of the slopes on the site, a Geotechnical Report is required by Mason County to address geologic hazards and slope stability at the site. We were provided with a preliminary site sketch showing the site topography, property boundary and planned location of the residence. A copy of that site plan is attached in Figure 2. We understand that grading at the site will be minimal, and will consist primarily of excavating the footings and floors for the proposed residence, as well as the driveway, and other site utilities. SCOPE The purpose of our services was to evaluate site conditions as a basis for addressing the slope stability, seismic, landslide and erosion hazard issues at the site according to the Mason County environmental policies provided in the Mason County Code, and to provide geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for design and construction the proposed residential structure. Specifically, the scope of services for this project included the following: 1. Conducting a geologic reconnaissance of the site area. 2. Exploring the subsurface conditions at the site by monitoring the excavation two back-hoe excavated test pits at selected locations across the site. 3. Addressing the appropriate geotechnical regulatory requirements for the proposed site development, including erosion, landslide and seismic hazards. Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 2 4. Providing geotechnical recommendations for site grading including site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria, suitability of on-site soils for use as structural fill, excavations, and drainage and erosion control measures. 5. Providing recommendations and design criteria for foundation and floor slab support, including allowable bearing capacity, lateral soil pressures and estimates of settlement. 6. Perform a slope stability analysis in accordance with Mason County Code on slopes that exceed 40 percent with a vertical height of at least 10 feet. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located south of Larsen Lake and west of the town of Belfair within a developed residential community. The site is located at 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE. The site is bounded by existing residential structures to the south, east and west, and by Jolly Roger Lane NE to the north. The lot is currently vacant and has been graded flat. A Site Vicinity Map is attached as Figure 1. The site lies within a residential development with the majority of the lots having single-family dwellings. The areas surrounding the subject site were previously mined for sand and gravel. Sand Road, which provides access to Jolly Roger Lane NE was originally created to transport the mined material. The surrounding residential neighborhood and Jolly Roger Lane NE generally slope down to the south to south west at ranging grades from 15 to 30 percent. The subject site is rectangular-shaped, 9 9 9 extending south from Jolly Roger Lane NE. The house footprint area was previously graded flat. The south end of the lot slopes down to the south at inclinations ranging from 50 to 60 percent. The upper 2 to 3 feet of the slope consists of artificial fill placed during the past grading activity at the site. The slope is approximately 50 feet tall. Vegetation along the central, flat portion of the site generally consists of field grass with remnants of an old garden and short concrete landscape walls. The south slope and the front property boundary are vegetated with various medium-sized evergreen and deciduous trees with thick underbrush. Several trails traverse the site as a result of septic and our explorations. Geology The Geologic Map of Washington State, by Eric Schuster, dated 2005, shows soils in the vicinity of the site consisting of Pleistocene Continental Glacial Drift (Qgd). These soils are described as undifferentiated Till and Outwash sand and gravel. The medium dense sands and gravels observed in the test pits and open "perc" holes are consistent with the classification of outwash. The pre-grading topography, as well as the surficial and shallow subsurface soils in the area, is the result of the most recent Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation that occurred between about 12,000 and 15,000 years ago, and natural weathering and erosion processes that have occurred since. A textural description of the surficial soils is included in the "Soils" section of this report. Soils A review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey for Mason County indicates the surface soils at the site consist of Everett gravelly loamy sand (Eg) that form on 0 to 5 percent slopes. The site slopes are steeper than those mapped by the SCS. This is likely due to the historical mining activity that took place in the area. Therefore, based on the site slopes Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 3 being inclined at approximately 30 percent, for erosion hazard evaluation purposes, the sites surface soils would be better described as Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ek), 15 to 30 percent slopes. The Everett soils are generally derived from Outwash and are described as well drained. The Everett soils are listed as having a slight to moderate potential for erosion when exposed according to the SCS. A copy of the USDA SCS map for the site is included as Figure 3. As previously discussed, we observed no evidence of surficial erosion at the time of our site visit. Subsurface Explorations On August 9, 2006 we explored subsurface conditions at the site by monitoring the excavation of 2 test pits to a maximum depth of 11 feet below existing surface grades. The test pits were approximately located in the field by our representative by pacing from existing site features such as property corners and adjacent roadways. The approximate location of the test pits are indicated on the attached Exploration Location Plan provided in Figure 2. A representative from our office continuously monitored the excavations, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure 4. The test pit logs are shown in Figure 5. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed containers and taken to a laboratory for possible further examination and testing. Subsurface The soils observed in our test pits generally consisted of 4 inches of topsoil overlying loose to medium dense, dry fill to depths ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 feet below the ground surface. Underlying the fill we observed native, medium dense, moist gravel with sand consistent with glacial outwash. The outwash was silty with some natural cementation, evident by the lack of caving during our exploration. At the contact between the fill and native soils we observed 4 inches of black organic-laced sand that appears to be a portion of the original top soil layer. The subsurface conditions encountered in our test pits were generally uniform and confirmed the mapped geology of the site. No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits at the time of our site exploration. Based on our observations and experience in the local area, the groundwater table resides well below the sites surface. Landslide Hazard Indicators per Mason County Municipal Code According to the Mason County Code, Section 8.52.140, the purpose of the landslide hazard section is to identify areas that present potential dangers to public health and safety, to prevent the acceleration of natural geological hazards, to address off site environmental impacts, and to minimize the risk to the property owner or adjacent property owners from development activities. This code defines a landslide hazard area as: (A) Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps and rock falls (see figure F.100 attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter); (B) Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e. cuts or fills; (C) Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils; Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 4 (D) Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action; (E) Slopes greater than fifteen percent (eight and one-half degrees) and having the following: (i) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock (e.g. sand overlying clay); and (ii) Springs or groundwater seepage. (F) Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief." In addition, the following information may be used as a guide by the County to indicate areas that have a higher likelihood of meeting the above criterion. (2) The following information may be used as a guide by the county to indicate areas that have a higher likelihood of meeting the classification criteria above: (A) The areas identified on the Mason County soil survey map as having slopes greater than fifteen percent. (B) The areas identified on the Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 9, of Mason County, Washington as: (i) Unstable - "U" (ii) Unstable Old Slides - "UOS" (iii) Unstable Recent Slides - "URS" (iv) Intermediate Slopes - "I" (v) Modified Slopes - "M" (C) The areas identified as Class 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the maps: "Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington," by M. Smith and R.J. Carson, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Earth Resources, 1,977 and "The Geological Map of North Central Mason County, Washington," by R.J. Carson, 1,976, U.S. Geologic Survey OFR 76-2. A review of the Coastal Zone Atlas for Mason County indicates that the site is located in an area mapped as being Stable (S) for slope stability. According to Mason County, the site is classified as having landslide hazard areas due to the site having areas with slopes of forty percent or steeper with a vertical relief of ten or more feet. Slope Stability Methodology The computer program WinStabl was used to determine the overall stability of the site in its current configuration and for both static and seismic conditions in the post- development configuration. Slope failure surfaces were analyzed using the Janbu Method, which is a non-circular failure force equilibrium method. All calculations were performed by the computer model WinStabl, which requires user input of the topographic surface, soil strength properties, groundwater information, and other loads, including seismic and building loads. The surface data was provided by the topographic site plan and our observations in the field. The soil parameters used in the analysis are interpreted, estimated, and/or assumed based on the visual observations, field and laboratory testing, empirical correlations, and experience with similar soil and groundwater conditions. Once the parameters have been determined, the critical failure surfaces and associated factors of safety for the modeled slope and development conditions can be calculated. The critical surface is the surface or plane most likely along which the soil mass will slide. The factor of safety is the ratio of the sum of moments resisting movement Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 5 over the sum of moments driving movements. Accordingly, a slope with a factor of safety less than 1.0 has more driving forces than resisting forces, while a factor of safety greater than 1.0 has more resisting forces than driving forces. Industry standard requires that a site have a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 against failure for static and seismic conditions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS General Based on a review of the available geologic information, our site reconnaissance, and our test pits excavated at the site, it is our opinion that the site is currently stable under the existing conditions. It is also our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed residential structure provided the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated into the site development plans. The existing fill soils underlying the planned footing locations will not be suitable for support of the residential structure. The foundations should extend through the fill to bear on the undisturbed native soils or on new structural fill placed above the native soils. Proper surface drainage and erosion control measures will reduce the risk for future erosion and slope instability at the site. Foundations constructed at appropriate depths along the south side of the new residential structure will provide the necessary erosion protection and slope setback requirement for long term support of the structure. If the primary drainfield is constructed along the south side of the house as shown on the site plan provided to us, it should extend vertically to hydraulically connect to the native soils underlying the fill. The organic-laced sand and topsoil observed at the contact between native soils and the fill will impede the downward migration of the infiltrated water, resulting in a lateral migration that could decrease the stability of the slope located south of the house. Landslide Hazard Classification According to Mason County criteria, the slope along the south side of the lot is classified as a landslide hazard area due to its inclination and overall height. Based on our observations of the site and review of published information, no evidence of past or ongoing earth movement, or landslide activity was observed. No significant areas of fill constructed or over steepened slopes were observed, nor were slopes with areas containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils observed. We did not observe areas of active or past stream erosion, nor were there any areas steepened due to undercutting by wave action. While we did observe areas of 15 percent slopes, we did not observe intersecting contacts or seeps on the slope below the building site. We did observe areas of greater than 40 percent slopes with more than 10 feet of vertical relief. Although portions of the site meet the technical criteria of a Landslide Hazard area, it is our opinion that the site soils are in a stable condition. The construction of the residence at the site will not have any adverse impact on the stability of the slopes. The foundations will be constructed at depths that provide adequate protection for the residence. With the drainfield constructed at appropriate depths, stability of the slope will be maintained. Control of the surface drainage at the top of the site slope will likely improve the overall stability on the site. Slope Stability Analysis To analyze the stability of the site, we performed our analysis on the 50 to 60 percent slope observed on the south side of the building. The slope crest is a minimum of Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 6 21 feet from the southern building wall in this location. We encountered the medium dense silty outwash underlying the shallow loose fill in this area. The following table summarized our assigned soil strength properties. ESTIMATED PROPERTIES OF ON-SITE SOILS FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS Dry Unit Sat. Unit Isotropic Internal Soil Type Weight Weight Strength Strength (pcf) (pcf) Intercept Angle (psf) (degrees) FILL: silty sand with gravel 125 130 75 35 Native Gravel with sand 130 135 75 36 The site seismic stability conditions were analyzed by applying a horizontal acceleration equal to one-half of the appropriate peak ground acceleration. Based on current standard of practice, we used a design peak ground acceleration of 0.17g for the site. Using the Janbu method, we generated several failure surfaces for the pre- and post-development conditions using both the static and seismic loading conditions. Our analyses yielded the following safety factors: Development Condition Factor Of Safety Pre Development 1.6 Post Development 1.6 Post Development with 1.1 Seismic Graphical output of the WinStabl analysis, indicating the ten most critical failure planes and corresponding factors of safety for the two post development models are included as Appendix A. In our opinion, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction, the proposed development will not decrease slope stability at the site or on adjacent properties and the risk for such occurrence would be minimal. Seismic Hazards Mason County and the state of Washington have recently adopted the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). Based on the soil conditions observed on site and the mapped local geology, site class "D" should be used in structural design per chapter 16 of the 2003 (IBC). This correlates to Soil Profile Type Sp in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This is based on the inferred range of SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts relative to trackhoe excavation progress and probing with a '/2-inch diameter steel probe rod. Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 7 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure. The increase in pore water pressure is induced by seismic vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the density and coarse-grained nature of the glacially derived soils observed on the site, and the lack of a groundwater table, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur at this site during an earthquake is negligible. Erosion Hazards A review of the SCS soil survey for Mason County indicates the sites' surface soils consist of Everett gravelly loamy sand (Eg) that form on 0 to 5 percent slopes. Past grading activity on the site has resulted in slopes steeper than those mapped by the SCS. Regardless, the Everett soils are listed as having a slight to moderate potential for erosion when exposed according to the SCS. The removal of vegetation and grading activity will result in an increased risk for erosion. We recommend that temporary and permanent erosion control measures be installed and maintained during and following construction, until permanent erosion control measures or landscaping is in place. We recommend that the existing denuded areas be re-vegetated as soon as practical with native type vegetation or other slope stabilizing landscaping. During wet weather conditions, erosion control measures may include but should not be limited to berms and swales to channel surface water runoff, and ground cover/protection in exposed or disturbed areas. Temporary ground cover/protection such as jute matting, excelsior matting, wood chips or clear plastic sheeting should be used during wet weather conditions until permanent erosion protection is established. Silt fences should be utilized where appropriate. Graded or disturbed areas should be shaped to avoid concentrations of runoff onto the site slopes or other erosion-sensitive areas. Collected stormwater from the site should be dispersed away from the slope, beyond the toe. Buffers According to Section 8.52.140 in the Mason County Code, a 50 foot buffer of vegetation is required around landslide hazard areas. As previously discussed, based on our evaluation, it is our opinion the slope along the south side of the planned residence location does not constitute a landslide hazard. Therefore, no buffer should be required. Recommended Setback The Mason County building department may require a building setback in accordance with IBC standard requirements. The IBC does require a building setback from slopes that are greater than 30 percent unless evaluated and reduced, and/or a structural setback is provided, by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The setback distance is calculated based on the vertical height of the slope. Vegetation in the setback area may be enhanced, if approved/required by Mason County. Clearing, grading and filling within the setback area is allowed if it can be demonstrated that the existing vegetation will not be adversely impacted or that it can be mitigated (enhanced). Based on our site observations, in accordance with UBC/IBC guidelines, we recommend a setback distance of at least 15 feet from the crest of the slope located south of the building area. Where this setback distance cannot be met, the foundation elements of the structure can be extended vertically to meet the horizontal setback distance. Where the foundation is extended vertically, we recommend that the setback be measured horizontally from the lower outside edge of the foundation element to the Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 8 face of the slope. This structural setback is based on the foundation elements extending to and being founded in the medium dense to dense native soils. As previously discussed, weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow land sliding are natural processes that affect steep slope areas. As noted, no evidence of surficial raveling or sloughing was observed at the site. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural processes, we recommend the following: • No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto or near the steep slope area. • No additional fill should be placed within the setback area. Grading should be limited to providing surface grades that promote surface flows away from the slope crest to an approved point of collection for dispersal beyond the toe of the slope in the existing roadside drainage ditch. Site Preparation Based on our review of the site plan and our discussions with you, additional grading at the site will be minimal and generally be limited to the excavation of the residential foundations and utilities. We expect that grading at the site can be accomplished with conventional earth moving equipment. To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials including any existing structures, foundations or abandoned utility lines should be stripped and removed from the site. In its current condition, the existing fill at the site will not be suitable for support of the structures foundations or slabs, but may be used as structural fill provided the organic content remains minimal. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in non-structural areas. Stripping depths ranging from 3 to 6 inches should be expected to remove the topsoil. The fill and organic soils are expected to extend between 1.7 and 3.7 feet below the ground surface. Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill Our study indicates the fill soils in the upper 1.5 to 3.5 feet of the site are currently in a dry to moist condition and contain a varying percentage of fines (silt and clay-size particles), which will make them difficult to compact as structural fill in wet weather conditions. The native soils at the site have a low percentage of fines and should be suitable for use as structural fill in most weather conditions. Accordingly, the ability to use existing fill and native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. If structural fill will be imported to the site and grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner should be prepared to import a wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a wet weather structural fill as described in the "Structural Fill" Section of this report. Structural Fill All fill placed to establish finish grades and utility trench backfill should be placed as structural fill. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and compaction equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field representative during construction. For planning purposes, we Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 9 recommend a maximum loose-lift thickness of 12 inches. We recommend that our representative be present during site grading activities to observe the work and perform field density tests. Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soils laboratory maximum dry density (MDD) as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this same ASTM standard. The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend using a well-graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve. If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, a slightly higher (up to 10 to 12 percent) fines content will be acceptable. Material placed for structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter, trash and cobbles greater than 6 inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington State Safety and Health Administration (WSHA) regulations, the native, near-surface loose to medium dense fill and the native, medium dense sands and gravels observed on the site would be classified as Type C soils. Accordingly, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter from the toe to the crest of the slope. All exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled along the slope crest. Where site constraints prevent safe excavation side slopes, shoring may be necessary. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that GeoResources, LLC assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Permanent Slopes and Embankments All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination of no greater than 2:1. Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slope face. If surface runoff must be directed towards the slope, the runoff should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a closed conduit installed on the slope face, and taken to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 10 All fill placed for embankment construction should meet the requirements provided in "Structural Fill" section of this report. Foundations Residential structures may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils or on new structural fills placed above these native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in the "Site Preparation" section of this report. As previously discussed, the existing fill soils underlying the planned footing locations will not be suitable for foundation support. The foundations should extend through the old fill to bear on the underlying native soils, or the existing fill and organic soil should be removed and grade restored with new structural fill. If grade is restored with new structural fill, it should extend beyond the inner and outer edges of the footing a distance equal to the depth of new fill under the footing. This will maintain the 1:1 bearing prism under the foundation. The foundation on the south side of the house should be constructed at a depth that provides at least 15 feet of horizontal clearance between the outside edge of the footing and the slope face. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches for isolated spread footings and 16 inches for continuous footings. With footings founded as recommended, we recommend they be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and long-term live loads. The weight of the footing and any overlying backfill should be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for short-term loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. With the anticipated loads and this bearing stress applied, building settlements should be less than one-half inch total and one-quarter inch differential. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.40 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundations will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill, as described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. Lower-level Building and Retaining Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on below-grade walls, such as lower-level building or retaining walls, will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Wall backfill below structurally loaded areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, should be compacted according to the specifications provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, drainage must be installed behind the wall. We recommend that wall drainage consist of a minimum 12 inches of clean sand and/or gravel with less than 3 percent fines placed against the back of the wall. Alternatively, the 12 inches of drainage material can be replaced with a Mirafi G100N drainage board (or an approved equivalent). In addition, a drainage collector Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 11 system consisting of 4-inch perforated PVC pipe should be installed behind the wall to provide an outlet for any accumulated water. The wall drainage material should be capped at the ground surface with 1-foot of relatively impermeable soil to prevent surface intrusion into the drainage zone. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, unrestrained walls can be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. For undrained conditions, unrestrained walls can be designed for an active pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 55 pcf. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of the wall foundation and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the "Foundations" section of this report. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in the "Site Preparation" section of this report. The existing fill underlying the house location will not be suitable for support of the garage slab in its current condition. These soils should be removed and replaced with new structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slabs. The drainage material should be placed in one lift and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it will not assist in uniform curing of the slab, and may serve as a water supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our opinion, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction occurs during the wet winter months and the layer cannot be effectively drained. Drainage Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building area. Surface water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the crest of the site slopes and embankments. Surface water should be directed away from the slope crests to a point of collection and controlled discharge. If site grades do not allow for directing surface water away from the slopes, then water should be collected and tightlined down the slope face in a controlled manner. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Steve Gadouas and members of his design team, for use in the design of a portion of this project. The data and Steve Gadouas August 29, 2006 Page 12 recommendations included in this report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes only. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions that exist at the site. Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the available explorations and may also occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifi- cally described in our report for consideration in design. If there are any changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as appropriate. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranties or conditions, express or implied, should be construed. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC V Q. KIN o Was m �� 17 �4 �k► �a gineeringGeologis EXPIRES //-06-Zc0(,, G AL�L:EY I'. 1IGGERISTAFF Bernard P. Knoll II, PE Bradley P. Biggerstaff, LEG Senior Engineer Principal BPK:bpWBPB DoclD:Gadouas,S.JollyRogerLN.GR Attachments: Figure 1 —Site Vicinity Map Figure 2—Exploration Location Plan Figure 3—USDA SCS Soils Map Figure 4—Soil Classification System Figure 5—Test Pit Logs Appendix A—Slope Stability Analysis Road :.._ 9�• K NE Fem ^`s• a C w I-W, GI a 2 ? A NE'.4'a41u' a9eMelf l�03 3001 n: • re �9�Y z �3 i W IT r� 2 �sn aoa ®a W A S H I N G T O N N 510¢ yR~ Setfa;, NE Beck Rd ode 4� 106 E l� 6 • f � �t)r7siM Ln d 27J6 i-0c Jm f! i:j 2WiG rlsi R[:J iO Approximate Site Location GeoResources, LLC Site Vicinity Map 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 20 Fife,Washington 98424 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 JOB# Gadouas,S.JoIIyRogerLnNE August 2006 Figure 1 Y FD I TP-1 k Z y % I r � 4 � 1 Y �i I 9 r t �► sanb�„�� ' S Y r I I i TP-2 , '� North APPROXIMATE SCALE Site plan provided by Client. 1" = 16' GeoResources, LLC Site Plan 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 20 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Mason County, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 JOB# Gadouas,S.JoIIyRogerLnNE August 2006 Figure 2 F q F or W' s hi on s s r _ d5 . T. Approximate Site Location GeoResources, LLC USDA SCS Map 5007 Pacific Highway East, suite 20 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE Fife,Washington 98424 Mason County, Washington Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 JOB# Gadouas,S.JoIIyRogerLnNE August 2006 Figure 3 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL COARSE GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED More than 50% SOILS Of Coarse Fraction GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL Retained on WITH FINES No.4 Sieve GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND More than 50% Retained on SP POORLY-GRADED SAND No.200 Sieve More than 50% Of Coarse Fraction SAND SM SILTY SAND Passes WITH FINES No.4 Sieve SC CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT FINE CL CLAY GRAINED SOILS Liquid Limit Less than 50 ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT,ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY,ELASTIC SILT More than 50% Passes CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAY No.200 Sieve Liquid Limit 50 or more ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY,ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry- Absence of moisture,dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist- Damp,but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. Wet- Visible free water or saturated,usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data,visual appearance of soils,and or test data. GeoResources, LLC USCS 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Ste 20 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE Fife, Washington 98424-2648 Mason County, Washington Ph. 253-896-1011 Fx. 253-896-2633 JOB# Gadouas,S.JoIIyRogerLnNE August 2006 Figure 4 Test Pit TP-1 (SEE PLAN). Depth (ft.) Soil Type Description (4 inches TOPSOIL) 0.2 - 1.5 SM FILL: Light brown silty sand with gravel, medium dense, dry 1.5 - 1.7 - FILL: Black organic-laced sand and topsoil with sod, loose, dry 1.5 - 11.0 GP Gray GRAVEL with sand, trace silt, medium dense, dry Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below the ground surface. Roots to 6 feet. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Test Pit TP-2 (SEE PLAN). Depth (ft.) Soil Type Description 0.0 - 3.5 SM FILL: Dark brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles, loose, dry 3.5 - 3.7 SM FILL: Black organic-laced sand and topsoil with sod, loose, dry 3.7 - 10.0 GP Gray GRAVEL with sand, trace silt, medium dense, dry Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below the ground surface. Roots to 6 feet. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Excavated on: 8/9/2006 Logged By: MSM GeoResources, LLC Test Pit Logs 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 20 221 Jolly Roger Lane NE Fife,Washington 98424 Mason County Washington Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 JOB# Gadouas,S.JollyRogerLnNE August 2006 Figure 5 Steve Gadouas August 30, 2006 APPENDIX A Slope Stability Analysis: Gadouas Residence Mason County, Washington Job #: Gadouas,S.JollyRogerLN Pre-Development-Static Safety Factors 206.25 1.58 1.63 1.72 165.00 1.77 1.78 1.81 123.75 1.88 1.92 1.99 82.50 1.99 41.25 0 41.25 82.50 123.75 165.00 206.25 247.50 288.75 330.00 Post-Development- Static Safety Factors 206.25 1.58 1.61 1.72 165.00 1.76 1.78 1.81 123.75 1.85 1.88 1.97 82.50 1.98 41.25 % 41.25 82.50 123.75 165.00 206.25 247.50 288.75 330.00 Post-Development- Seismic Safety Factors 206.25 - � 1.11 1.13 1.20 165.00 1.23 1.26 1.28 123.75 1.29 1.33 1.35 82.50 1.37 41.25 0 41.25 82.50 123.75 165.00 206.25 247.50 288.75 330.00 Profile.out PCSTABL6 by Purdue university modified by Peter 3 . Bosscher University of Wisconsin-Madison --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified 7anbu, simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Post-Development- Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 4 Top Boundaries 5 Total Boundaries Boundary x-Left Y-Left x-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) BeloW Bnd 1 10.00 30.00 125.00 30.00 2 2 125.00 30.00 202.50 76. 50 2 3 202. 50 76. 50 208.50 80.00 1 4 208. 50 80.00 330.00 80.00 1 5 202.50 76. 50 330.00 78. 50 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 130.0 75.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 130.0 135.0 75.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) Page 1 Profile.out 1 Load(s) specified Load x-Left x-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (lb/sqft) (deg) 1 223. 50 225.00 1667.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A uniformly Distributed Force Acting on A Horizontally Projected surface. A critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular surfaces, Has Been specified. 100 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground surface Between x = 15.00 ft. and x = 130.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between x = 209.00 ft. and x = 270.00 ft. unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 6.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure surfaces Examined. They Are ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified 7anbu Method Failure surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 33.00 2 135.95 32.24 3 141.94 31.90 4 147.94 31.98 5 153.92 32.49 6 159.85 33.41 7 165.70 34.74 8 171.44 36.49 9 177.04 38.63 Page 2 Profile.out 10 182.48 41.16 11 187.73 44.07 12 192.76 47.34 13 197. 55 50.95 14 202.08 54.89 15 206.31 59.14 16 210.24 63.68 17 213.84 68.48 18 217.09 73. 53 19 219.98 78.78 20 220. 54 80.00 1. 576 Failure Surface specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 117.22 30.00 2 123.15 29.08 3 129.12 28.49 4 135.12 28.24 5 141.12 28.33 6 147.10 28.76 7 153.05 29.52 8 158.95 30.62 9 164.78 32.05 10 170. 52 33.80 11 176.15 35.87 12 181.65 38.26 13 187.02 40.95 14 192.22 43.94 15 197.24 47.22 16 202.08 50.78 17 206.70 54.60 18 211.10 58.67 19 215.27 62.99 20 219.18 67. 54 21 222.84 72.30 22 226.22 77.25 23 227.87 80.00 1.606 Coordinate Points Failure surface specified B 24 C a p y Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.44 30.00 2 109.74 27.17 3 115.25 24.80 4 120.94 22.91 5 126.78 21. 51 Page 3 I Profile.out 6 132.71 20.60 7 138.69 20.20 8 144.69 20.31 9 150.66 20.92 10 156. 56 22.04 11 162.34 23.65 12 167.96 25.75 13 173.38 28.31 14 178. 57 31.33 15 183.48 34.77 16 188.09 38.62 17 192.35 42.84 18 196.24 47.41 19 199.73 52.29 20 202.80 57.45 21 205.41 62.85 22 207.56 68.45 23 209.23 74.21 24 210.39 80.00 1.718 Failure surface specified By 22 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 33.00 2 135.91 34.03 3 141.80 35.20 4 147.65 36. 52 5 153.47 37.98 6 159.25 39. 59 7 164.99 41.33 8 170.69 43.22 9 176.33 45.25 10 181.93 47.41 11 187.47 49.71 12 192.95 52.15 13 198.37 54.72 14 203.73 57.43 15 209.02 60.26 16 214.23 63.23 17 219.38 66.32 18 224.44 69. 54 19 229.42 72.88 20 234.32 76.34 21 239.14 79.92 22 239.24 80.00 1.757 ** Failure surface specified By 21 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf Page 4 Profile.out No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 33.00 2 135.46 30. 51 3 141.14 28. 58 4 146.98 27.22 5 152.93 26.44 6 158.93 26.25 7 164.92 26.66 8 170.83 27.67 9 176.62 29.25 10 182.22 31.39 11 187. 59 34.09 12 192.66 37.29 13 197.38 40.99 14 201.72 45.13 15 205.63 49.69 16 209.06 54.61 17 212.00 59.84 18 214.40 65.34 19 216.24 71.05 20 217. 51 76.91 21 217.86 80.00 1.779 Failure surface specified By 27 coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 91.67 30.00 2 96.91 27.08 3 102.35 24. 54 4 107.95 22.41 5 113.70 20.68 6 119. 55 19.37 7 125.49 18.48 8 131.47 18.02 9 137.47 17.99 10 143.46 18.40 11 149.40 19.23 12 155.26 20.49 13 161.03 22.17 14 166.65 24.25 15 172.11 26.74 16 177.38 29.61 17 182.43 32.86 18 187.23 36.46 19 191.76 40.39 20 195.99 44.64 21 199.91 49.18 22 203.49 54.00 23 206.72 59.05 24 209. 58 64.33 25 212.05 69.80 26 214.11 75.43 27 215.43 80.00 Page 5 Profile.out 1.807 Failure surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 91.67 30.00 2 96.92 27.10 3 102.35 24.54 4 107.93 22. 34 5 113.64 20. 50 6 119.46 19.04 7 125.36 17.96 8 131.32 17.27 9 137.31 16.96 10 143.31 17.04 11 149.29 17. 52 12 155.23 18.37 13 161.10 19.61 14 166.88 21.23 15 172. 54 23.22 16 178.06 25.57 17 183.42 28.28 18 188. 59 31.33 19 193. 55 34.70 20 198.28 38.39 21 202.76 42.38 22 206.97 46.65 23 210.90 51.19 24 214. 53 55.97 25 217.84 60.97 26 220.82 66.18 27 223.45 71. 57 28 225.73 77.12 29 226.70 80.00 1.848 ** Failure surface specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.44 30.00 2 109.43 26.66 3 114.66 23.72 4 120.10 21.20 5 125.73 19.11 6 131. 50 17.47 7 137.38 16.29 8 143.34 15.57 9 149.33 15.31 10 155.33 15.53 11 161.29 16.22 Page 6 Profile.out 12 167.18 17.37 13 172.96 18.97 14 178.60 21.03 15 184.06 23. 52 16 189.31 26.43 17 194.31 29.74 18 199.04 33.43 19 203.47 37.48 20 207. 56 41.86 21 211.30 46. 55 22 214.66 51. 52 23 217.63 56.74 24 220.17 62.17 25 222.29 67.79 26 223.95 73. 55 27 225.16 79.43 28 225.24 80.00 1.879 Failure surface specified By 26 coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 117.22 30.00 2 122.41 26.99 3 127.82 24.39 4 133.41 22.21 5 139.15 20.48 6 145.02 19.19 7 150.96 18.36 8 156.95 18.00 9 162.95 18.10 10 168.92 18.66 11 174.83 19.68 12 180.65 21.16 13 186.33 23.08 14 191.85 25.44 15 197.17 28.21 16 202.25 31.39 17 207.08 34.96 18 211.62 38.89 19 215.84 43.15 20 219.71 47.73 21 223.22 52.60 22 226.35 57.72 23 229.06 63.07 24 231.36 68.62 25 233.22 74.32 26 234. 59 80.00 1.972 Failure Surface specified By 31 coordinate Points Page 7 Profile.out Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 91.67 30.00 2 96.97 27.20 3 102.43 24.70 4 108.02 22.52 5 113.72 20.67 6 119. 53 19.14 7 125.41 17.95 8 131.35 17.09 9 137.32 16.58 10 143.32 16.40 11 149.32 16.58 12 155.30 17.09 13 161.24 17.94 14 167.12 19.14 15 172.92 20.66 16 178.62 22.52 17 184.21 24.70 18 189.67 27.19 19 194.98 29.99 20 200.11 33.10 21 205.06 36.49 22 209.81 40.15 23 214.34 44.08 24 218.64 48.27 25 222.70 52.69 26 226.49 57.34 27 230.01 62.20 28 233.25 67.25 29 236.20 72.48 30 238.84 77.86 31 239.74 80.00 1.984 Y A X I S F T 0.00 41.25 82. 50 123.75 165.00 206.25 X 0.00 +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 41.25 + . . . . . A 82.50 . . . . . . . 6 6 Page 8 Profile.out . . . . . 63 . . . . .683 . . . . .632 x 123.75 . . . .633* . . . .63921 . . . .63.21 . . . .63.214 . . . .735214. .73521.4 I 165.00 . . . .873.1.4 . . . . .863214. . . . . .87531.4. . . . . . .8733114. -. . . . .887531.4. -. . . . . .98752113. . s 206.25 +. . . . . . .98875213633* - . . . . . . .9987.215163 - . . . . . . . . .99872.11 - . . . . . . . . . .99.4421/1 - . . . . . . . . . . .0994 - . . . . . . . . . . . .4 247. 50 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . F 288.75 + T 330.00 + Page 9