The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEO Geological Review - 7/12/2024 Geotechnical Report Watt Residence 241 NE Capstan Rock Road,Tahuya Parcel No. 32315-75-00100 Mason County, Washington July 12, 2024 Project#24202 prepared For: Susan Watt 7520 N Mohawk Avenue, Apt. B Portland,Oregon 97203 prepared By: Envirotech Engineering, PLLC PO Box 984 Belfair,Washington 98528 Phone: 360-275-9374 CLYDE WAS(/i CT��ry r ,e6, G1514R �A2 SSr0.,At 7/12/24 MASON COUNTY Submittal Checklist COMMUNITYSfiRVICES Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a GeOlAchnical Reoon and completed,signed,and stamped by the li County Resourrce Ordinance.who ante. It ans m ithes found not applicable,eotechnical ort he report should explain he bas Mason County is forant rthe conclusion on County mpliance to the International Note: Uniess specifically documented, this report does of provide be save Residential soi Code Sections R403.1.7 for foundations on or adjacent to slopes, Section R403.1.8 for expansive soils or section 1808.7.1 of the International Building Code Section for Foundations on oradjacent to slopes. Applicant/Owner Susan Watt Parcel R 32315-75-00100 Site Address 241 NE Capstan Rock Road,Tahuya (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on pages) 5 (b) A discussion of specific soil types, Located on page(s) (c) A discussion of ground water conditions, Located on bagels) 7 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology, Located on pages) (a) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, Located on pages) (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity,as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on pages) ll (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map($) G - -- -"- A cend' A (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Maps) Geotech 'al Ste PI and So'1 Loa fAooe d' �__ (4) The area of the proposed development,the boundaries of he hazard,and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top,both sides,and toe)on a geologic map of the site. Located on Maps) "-- " "' `I °Ian - (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile,and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Soil Profile IAoce dix B) (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.Malysis should examine worst base failures.The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles.The minimum static safety factor is 1.5,the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1,and the quasi-static analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) 10 Page 1 of 40 (7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, Located on pages) 19 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields, Located on page(s) (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings, Located on page($) 1< 1 (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) 1 (a) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) 18 Ong (e) vegetation Recommendations for the removed,preparation sedule for detailed le.emovaaand replant planting,and the met which hod lloy identifies veegne bon removal. Located on page($) 19 (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identities the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion,landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on pages) 10 (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 1 if 1) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management,drainage,erosion control,and buffer widths. Located on pagels) 14 - 0 (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) 20 (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries,scale,north arrow,and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map ' s) Geotech ('s °''^ Plan I,Michael Staten,hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify,that the Geotechnical rb�cuvoe sT Report,dated July 12,2024 ,and entitled Watt �* OF w'a&tiy qT Residence meets all the requirements of the Mason h County Resource Ordinance,Geologically Hazardous Areas 4 4 Section,is complete and true,that the assessment po�Ss'�4� demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide 7/12/24 hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical Disclaimer.,Mason County does not design recommendations,and that all hazards are mitigated in certify the quality of the work done in such a manner as to prevent harts to property and public this Geotechnical Report. health and safety.Page 2 of TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................._............................................................1 1.1 PROJECTINFORMATION.................................................................................................................... 1 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION AND SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................ 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS.............._.........................._.._....................................._.._........................ 3 ........3 2.1 TOPOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................. ..................................3 2SuACED GeomoTho/agy............................................................................................................3 2.2 .2.1 Upland Water ..dies..................................................................................................................3 '. 2.2.7 Uplond water Bodies..........................._.......................................... ................3 23 SLOPEAND EROSION OBSERVATIONS............................................................. Dd .................. 3.0 SUBSURFACE VESTT . ... GATTON.............. ......................._.._.._..........—..-.............................. 5 3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING...........................................................................5 ........... 3.2 GEOLOGIC COMMONS......................................................................................................... $ 33 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE COMMONS.................................................................................................$ 3.3.1 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................7 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS....._...............................4........ .........-••-•0 4.1 SLOPESTABILTTV...............................................................................................................................0 4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis.............................................................................................................. I 4.2 EROSION.............................................................................................................................................3 4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION...............................................................................3 ....................................................................................................4......4............4....3 4.3.1 Liquef"liOn.. 4A LANDSLIDES EROSION AND SEISMIC HAZARDS CONCLUSIONS........................................................3 4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES......................................................................................................4...............45 4.6 ONSITE AND OFF.SITE IMPACTS.............................................................................. .. ..... 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS...._........._.r..._....... .....4............................--------- 6 5.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... ......................... ..6 ..............6 S.I./ Bearing Capacuy........................................................................................................................ 7 5.1.2 Settlement.............................................................................................................. 7 5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ... n-Grade............................ ............................................................................ 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................7 5.2.1 Excavation................ ....... ............................................................... 8 ............................ 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill............................................ 5.2.3 Retoining Wail BRckril.............................................................................................................. 9 5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerotions...............................................................................-.................... 9 5.3 BUILDING AND FOOTING SETBACKS.................................................................................................10 5A SURFACE AND SUBSURFACEDRAINAGE...........................................................................................10 5.5 VEGETATION BUFFER ANDCONSIDEBATIONS.................................................................................11 5.6 TEMPORARYANDPER LA ENTEROSIONCONTROL.......................................................................11 5.7 SEPTIC DRAINFIELDS........................................................................................................................ ll 5.8 STRUCTURAL MITIGATION...............................................................................................................12 6.0 CLOSURE....................................................................................................................4........................13 Appendu A-OeotecW Cal Site Plan Appendix B-Soil mfotmation Ap maC-Slope Swmhty Appendix D-& lion Cm"I Append'u E-Dseinage Details 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering, PLLC. (Envirolech) has completed identifiedhis c as parcecal l number t for a property located at 241 NE Capstan Rock Road, Ya. 32315-75-00100 in Mason County,Washington. 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 soil descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; supporting documentation with relation to slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and lateral earth pressures in the Engineering Analyses and Conclusions Section; and, recommendations for foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, retaining walls, erosion control, drainage, and vegetation in the Engineering Recommendations Section. An initial geotechnical evaluation of the project was conducted by Envirotech on June 26, 2024. It was determined that slopes in excess of 40% with a vertical relief of at least 10 feet were present within 300 feet of the planned development. Based on this site characteristic, the proposed development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO) 8.52.140. During the site visit by Envirotech, surface and subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable project research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report which, at a minimum,conforms to the applicable MCRO. 1.1 Project Information Information pertaining to the project was provided by the proponent of the property, and observations from a field visit by Envirotech. The proposed development is expected to consist of a single family residence, on-site septic system, and other ancillary features typical of this type of development . Approximate site development footprint with relation to existing geological site features are illustrated in the Geological Site Plan in Appendix A of this report. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope of Work The purpose of this geotmhnical investigation is to assess geological hazards, and evaluate the project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations that should be implemented during development. The investigation included characterizing the general project surface and subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site activities. In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program complete for the proposed improvements of the project include: Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page I Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12, 2024 • Review project information provided by the project owner and/ or owner's representative; • Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements of the project; • 1)efrne general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils within test pits and/ or cut banks, review geological maps for the general area, research published references concerning slope stability, and review water well reports from existing wells near the project; • Collect bulk samples, as applicable, at various depths and locations; • Perform soils testing to determine selected index and/or engineering properties of the site soils; • Complete an engineering analysis supported by the planned site alterations, and the surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation, soil testing, and applicable project research; and, • Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for foundations, drainage, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements, and other considerations. tatol Li6«attF' Project Vicinity Map from Mason County Website Envnotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Po Box 984 page 2 Parcel 32315-75-00100 _ Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the project was gathered on June 26,2024 by a representative with Envirotech. During the site visit, site features were documented that may reveal potential geological hazards. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on topography, drainage and slope/ erosion conditions for the project and surrounding areas. An aerial photo of the project and immediate vicinity is provided on the following page. 2.1 Topography The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from a public lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements. Where necessary, slope verification included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Geological Site Plan in Appendix A for an illustration of the general slope indicators with respect to the planned development. Maximum sloping grades within 300 feet of the proposed development area with a vertical relief in excess of at least 10 feet were observed to be 77%. 2.1.1 Upslope Geomorphology The landform that is upland from property is considered a hillside and crest of glacial origin with centuries of weathering overburden. Additional geomorphology that is pertinent to both upslope and downslope areas are provided in the Subsurface Investigation Section of this report. 2.2 Surface Drainage The majority of the stormwater runoff originating upslope from the anticipated development is expected to be minimal . Significant scour, erosion and sediment transport was not apparent new the project. 2.2.1 Upland Water Bodies There are no apparent water bodies or wetlands located upslope from the planned development that would significantly influence the project. 23 Slope and Erosion Observations The existing moderate slopes near the project signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Some indicators that may suggest past slope movements include: Envirotech engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 3 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfah,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 • 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. These slope instability indicators or other significant mass wasting on the property or within the general vicinity of the project were not observed. Indications of past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems, or surficial slope failures were not observed during the site visit. Aerial Photo from Mason County Website Envimwh Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 4 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 99528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12, 2024 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the project was gathered during research and a site reconnaissance.The site visit was accomplished on June 26,2024 by a representative 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. See Appendix B for a soil profile cross-sections, soil logs, and other appropriate information as necessary. 3.1 Field Methods, Sampling and Field Testing Information on subsurface conditions for the project was accomplished by probing anticipated foundation areas with hand tools, and observing soils within test pit excavations and/ or earth cuts. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing geological maps within the project vicinity, and water well reports originating from nearby properties. No soil samples were collected for this project. Envirotech measured the relative density of the in-situ soils by gauging the resistance of hand tools. 3.2 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. Eric Schuster, 2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qs. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated deposits, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including 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. More specifically for the project location, a caption from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources is as follows: Map Unit: Qgt Age: Quaternary GeoMaterial: Glacial till Description: Unsorted, unstratified, highly compacted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glacial ice; may contain interbedded stratified sand, silt, and gravel. 3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the project subgrade utilizing information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 5 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 investigated locations. Soils for this project were described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Using the USCS in conjunction with estimated relative densities and other anticipated engineering properties of the soil, susceptibility for potential landslides, erosion and seismic hazards may be assessed. The project is primarily composed of undisturbed, native soils, without indications of substantial fill. Within native, undisturbed areas, competent bearing soils were encountered at 12 inches below the existing ground surface in locations where the ground was probed. For engineering purposes, these native soils consist of distinguishable layers, as presented below. Soils within the upper 4 feet of natural ground were observed to be primarily moist, reddish brown silty sand with gravel and some cobbles (SM) . Soils below this upper soil strata were observed to be strongly cemented glacial till, locally known as hardpan. The hardpan is believed to extend to depths of at least 50 feet. This is based on nearby well reports, site geology, and/or knowledge of the general area. Not withstanding the potential for any old fill, the relative densities are suitable for foundations as provided above. Expanded and specific subsurface descriptions, other than what is provided in this section, are provided within additional soil information located in Appendix B of this report. According to the "Soil Survey of Mason County," by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the site soils are described as Rough broken land. See the soil map below. Envirotech Engineering Cieotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 6 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfalr,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 Soil Survey From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 3.3.1 Groundwater From the water well report(s) and knowledge of the general area, permanent groundwater is at least 5o feet below the current ground surface. Surface seepage or perched groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on-site, nor indicated on the well reports. Emirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 7 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS The following section includes slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and impacts to both on-site and off-site properties. 4.1 Slope Stability Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. Geotechnical engineering cannot eliminate these risks for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly inducing strain on the sloping soil mass. Excessive wet weather and/ or earthquakes will exacerbate these strains. Geotechnical engineering considers excessive wet weather and `design' earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping terrain with relation to current engineering protocol.These factors of safeties are based on engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil, topography, water conditions, seismic acceleration and surcharges. Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep-seated structural capability of the slope. a threat to the However, repeated surficial slope movements, if not repaired, may present structural integrity of the slope. If any slope movement arises, the slope should be inspected by an engineer. Subsequently, maintenance may be required in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated slope movements that may be damaging to life and property. According to the Coastal Zone Atlas of Mason County, Washington, the project is within and near terrain labeled 'Stable' and 'Intermediate' regarding potential landslide activity. Descriptions of these mapping units may he found in the aforesaid Atlas. A Stability Map from the Coastal Zone Atlas for the general area of this project is provided below: 4 Project Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Websi[e According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the project is not within terrain labeled 'highly unstable' relating to soils. DNR labeled portions of this project as medium and high slope instability with relation to slopes. A Resource Map from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System is provided below: I II I Proiec[ Resource Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website wAasR PUSUC FP Soils Soils-Highly EmtllDle MONR PUBLIC FP SOIIS soils-Highly Unstable vl R PINUO FP$ails sots- "Oe 4.1.1 Slope Stability Analysis The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing 'STABLE' software, was used to analyze the static stability of the site slopes. Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case scenario values from the static analysis,a quasi-static analysis coefficient of at least 0.15, and applying the applicable values to STABLE software. Various radii's and center points of the circle were automatically Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 1 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Betfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 selected, and produced factor of safeties in a graphical and tabular format. Worst case scenario values were used in the slope stability analysis in regards to topography, surcharges, water content, internal friction and cohesion of the site soils. STABLE software has been repeatedly checked with manual calculations, and consistently proved to be a very conservative program. The following soil properties were used in the analysis, and are based on observed conditions,known geology, and/or published parameters: Upper 4 feet soil depth Soil unit weight: 132 pcf Angle of internal friction: 30 degrees Cohesion: 200 psf Soils below 4 feet in depth Soil unit weight: 140 pcf Angle of internal friction: 40 degrees Cohesion: 400 psf Based on the slope stability analysis, unacceptable factors of safety could be present on and near the critical slope, but do not reflect conditions where development is expected to occur. For this project, at the location of the proposed development, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic conditions were estimated to be at least 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. See the slope stability information in Appendix C for a depiction of minimum factors of safety away from the project. 4.2 Erosion Based on the USCS description of the project soils, the surface soils are considered moderately erodible. According to the Resource Map from the Washington State DNR, as provided above, the project is not within terrain labeled `highly erodible.' This project is not within an erosion hazard area as defined by the MCRO. Erosion hazard areas are those with USDA SCS designations of River Wash (Ra), Coastal Beaches (Cg), Alderwoud Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater(Ac and Ad), Cloquallum Silt Loam on slopes 15% or greater (Cd), Harstine Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater(Hb), and Kitsap Silt Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Kc). It is our opinion that minor erosion control recommendations provided in this report is sufficient for the development of this project, and additional engineered erosion control plans are not required. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures are required for site development. Extents of temporary erosion control will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction, moisture content of the soil, and amount of rainfall during Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 2 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12, 2024 construction. Soil erosion typical to the existing site conditions and planned disturbance of the project include wind-borne silts during dry weather, and sediment transport during prolonged wet weather. Sediment transport could be from stormwater runoff or tracking off-site with construction equipment. The Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Section (Section 5.6) of this report consist of specific erosion controls to be implemented. Additional erosion control information and specifications may be found in the latest addition of the "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 4.3 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction There are no known faults beneath this project. The nearest Class `A' or 'B' fault to this property is the Hood Canal Fault Zone , which is not located on the property or adjacent properties. This information is supported by the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Potential landslides due to seismic hazards have been considered, and me addressed in the Slope Stability Analysis Section provided earlier in this report. Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this project are generally Type D, corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. According to the IBC, the regional seismic zone is 3 for this project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from o.5Og to 0.6Og. This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard project in which there is an estimated 2%probability of exceedance within the next 50 years. 4.3.1 Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction is believed to be low for this project. This is based, in part, on the subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems caused from liquefaction include submerged, confined, poorly-graded granular soils (i.e. gravel, sand, silt). Although gravel- and silt- sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoil for this project. 4.4 Landslide,Erosion and Seismic Hazards Conclusions DNR did not indicate historic landslide activity near the project. Mapped slope conditions, as delineated by the Departments of Ecology and/or Natural Resources, were Envirolech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 3 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 considered in our slope stability assessment. Based on the proximity and severity of mapped delineations with respect to the proposed development, results of the aforesaid slope stability analysis, observed surface conditions, and other pertinent information, it is our opinion that the proposed development may occur in accordance with the recommendations in this geotechnical report. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining walls may be utilized for this project. 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. An equivalent fluid unit weight used for structural design may be estimated as the product of the backfill soil unit weight and the earth pressure coefficient for at-rest pressures. Retaining walls should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of the following: At-Rest Active Native Soils 49 pcf 32 pcf Engineered Fill Soils 45 pcf 28 pcf The values provided above shall be increased by 1 pcf for every I degree of backfill/ natural slope angle. These equivalent fluid unit weight values do not include lateral earth pressures induced by earthquakes, groundwater, or surcharges from live loads. Earthquake pressures should be added to the wall analysis, and treated as an inverted pressure triangle where the resultant pressure is located at 2/3 of the wall height, or other method approved by a structural engineer. The following resultant earthquake pressures j as a function of the wall height(H)may be utilized: At-Rest Active Native Soils 15.411 psf 9.811 psf Engineered Fill Soils 13.61-1 psf 8.211 psf See the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section for details concerning the use of native soils,engineered fill and placement of backfill. Envirotwh Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 4 parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98529 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12, 2024 4.6 On-Site and Off-Site Impacts From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the subject property and adjacent properties to the proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all recommendations in this report are followed. This opinion is based on the expected site development, existing topography, existing nearby development, land cover, and adhering to the recommendations presented in this report. Future development or land disturbing activities on neighboring properties or properties beyond adjacent parcels that are upslope and/or downslope from the subject property could cause problems to the subject property. For this reason, future development or land disturbance new the subject property should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. Enviralmh Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 5 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12, 2024 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements of the project. These recommendations have been made available based oon the planned improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations including drainage and topography as recapitulated in the Surface Conditions Section; soil/ geologic conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in the Subsurface Investigation Section; and, project research, analyses and conclusions as determined in the Engineering Analysis and Conclusions Section. Recommendations for the project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for building foundations, earthwork construction, building and/ or footing setbacks, drainage,vegetation considerations, and erosion control. 5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations 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 based on observed field conditions and soil testing for this project. After deriving conservative relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils, the Terzhagi ultimate bearing capacity equation was utilized for determining foundation width and depth. Foundation parameters provided herein account for typical structural pressures due to the planned type of development. A structural analysis is beyond the scope of a geotechnical report, and a structural engineer may be required to design specific foundations and other structural elements based on the soil investigation. Stepped foundations are acceptable,if warranted for this project. Continuous, isolated, or stepped foundations shall be horizontally level between the bottom of the foundation and the top of the bearing strata. 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. 5.1.1 Bearing Capacity Existing in-situ soils for this project indicates that the structure can be established on shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively undisturbed native soil that is competent and unyielding. 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. For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 1500 psf, a minimum continuous footing width of 12 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 12 inches below the existing ground surface atop unyielding soils and away from any potential old fill or disturbed soils. Foundation recommendations are made Eavirotech Engineering Cieotechnlcal Report PO Box 984 page 6 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12, 2024 available based on adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. Alterations to the aforementioned foundation recommendations may be completed upon a site inspection by a geotechnical engineer after the foundation excavation is completed. 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, anticipated development, 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, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of compacted coarse, granular material (Retained on U.S. Sieve #10 or greater) that is placed over undisturbed, competent native subgrade or engineered fill per the Earthwork Recommendations Section below. The recommendations for interior concrete slabs-on-grade as presented herein are only relevant for the geotechnical application of this project. Although beyond the scope of this report, concrete slabs should also he designed for structural integrity and environmental reliability. This includes vapor barriers or moisture control for mitigating excessive moisture in the building. 5.2 Earthwork Construction Recommendations Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed native soils to the specified foundation depths. Compacted engineered fill, or selective re-compacted native soils may be used to the extents provided in this Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section. The following recommendations include excavations, subgrade preparation,type of fill,and placement of fill for building foundations. 5.2.1 Excavation Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content, old fills/ disturbed soils or other deleterious material, if present,beneath foundations and to achieve appropriate foundation depth. Additional sub-excavation will be required for this project if the soils below the required foundation depth are loose, saturated, not as described in this report, or otherwise incompetent due to inappropriate land disturbing, or excessive water trapped within foundation Envirolech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 7 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 excavations prior to foundation construction. All soils below bottom Of the excavation shall be competent, and relatively undisturbed or properlycompacted fill. If these soils are disturbed or deemed incompetent, re-compaction of these soils below the anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered, compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or structural concrete. 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is required prior to foundation construction. The following placement and compaction requirements are necessary. For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath foundations, limits of compacted or re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of one horizontal foot for each foot of compacted or re- compacted fill depth beneath the foundation. See the illustration below. FOOTING FACTED NATIVE SOULS t OR ENGINEERED FILL IIII IIII t T~l1NDISTUIRBED SUBGRA)E 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. Because of moisture sensitivity, importing and compacting engineered fill may be more economical than compacting disturbed native soils. Engineered fill shall include having the soils retained on the No. 4 sieve crashed (angular), and should consist of the following gradation: U.S.U. Standard Sieve % Finer wei h[ 100 3" 60— 100 No.4 20—60 No. 200 0- g Table 1 Particle Size Distribution of Engineered Fill Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6 inches for both native soils and engineered fill, respectively. Each lift should be uniformly Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 8 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair.Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 compacted to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and within 3% of optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding. Temporary and permanent earth cuts and fill slopes exceeding 4 feet in height should be limited to a slope of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Utility trenches or other confined excavations exceeding 4 feet should conform to OSHA safety regulations. permanent cut and fill slopes shall be limited to a slope of 2:1, unless otherwise approved by an engineer. 5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backfdl Native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this project if the total wall height is 4 feet or less and the recommendations below are followed. Native soils for retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height must be approved by the local authority or evaluated by an engineer. Backfrll may consist of engineered fill, as presented in this report, or borrow material approved by a geotechnical engineer. Compaction of these materials shall be achieved in compacted lifts of about 12 inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 85%, and no more than 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If pavement or building loads are planned to be located within retaining wall backfill, then 90% compaction is required. In addition, heavy construction equipment should be at a distance of at least '/2 the wall height. Over-compaction and limiting heavy construction equipment should be prevented to minimize the risk of excess lateral earth pressure on the retaining structure. EnvirOtech recommends that retaining wall backfill is compacted with light equipment such as a hand-held power tamper. If clean, coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, and surcharges will not influence the retaining wall, compaction may he achieved by reasonably densifying granular soils with construction equipment. 5.2A Wet Weather Considerations Due to the types of subsurface soils, additional provisions may be required during prolonged wet weather. Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free moisture from saturating the soils within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used for footing placement changes from a moist and dense/hard characteristic as presented in this report to muck or soft, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for foundation hearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be notified, and these soils should be completely removed and replaced with compacted engineered fill or suitable native material as presented in this section. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 Page 9 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12, 2024 5.3 Building and Footing Setbacks Provided that assumptions relating to construction occur and recommendations are followed as presented in this report, the factor of safety for slope stability is sufficient for a 30 feet footing setback from the face of the nearby descending slopes exceeding 40%. See the figure below and the Site Plan in Appendix A for an illustration of the setbacks. STRUCTURE TOP OF SLOPE SLOPE PACE SETBACK FOOTING From the illustration above, structures may be located closer to the top of slope by extending the foundation deep enough to maintain the recommended setback.In addition, the required setback may be reduced by mitigation, and subsequently would require additional geotechnical studies. 5.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential buildings. Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface, driveways and sidewalks away from the project structures. All constructed surface and subsurface.drains should be adequately maintained during the life of the structure. If drainage problems occur during or after construction, additional engineered water mitigation will be required immediately. This may include a combination of swales, berms, drain pipes, infiltration facilities, or outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structures to an appropriate protected discharge area. Leakage of water pipes, both drainage and supply lines, shall be prevented at all times. If impervious thresholds are exceeded per the prevailing agency code, then engineered stormwater management plans are required for this project. The drainage engineer must coordinate with a geotechnical engineer for input with relation to slope stability prior to submitting drainage plans. If stormwater management plans are not required for this project,then the following recommendations should be followed. For this project, we recommend that infiltration is avoided in order to maintain slope stability, and that roof downspout dispersion on splash blocks are employed or roof water is tightlined to a protected outlet whereas the flow is directed opposite of the critical slopes located to the north and west. Enviratech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page IB Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 5.5 Vegetation Buffer and Considerations For this project, we believe that a detailed clearing and grading plan is not warranted unless the prevailing agency thresholds are exceeded, and basic vegetation management practices should be adhered to. Vegetation Buffer—Vegetation shall not be removed from the face of the critical slope or within a distance of zero feet beyond the top of the slope. Existing trees cut within the buffer are acceptable. However, any tree deemed hazardous to life or property shall be removed. If tree removal is necessary, then stumps and roots shall remain in place, and the underbrush and soil shall remain undisturbed as much as possible. Any disturbed soil shall be graded and re-compacted in order to restore the terrain similar to preexisting conditions and drainage patterns. See the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report for a depiction of the vegetation buffer. 5.6 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the least extent possible. Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls. Although other controls may be used, if adequate, silt fencing is presented in this report as the first choice for temporary erosion control. Any erosion control should be located down-slope and beyond the limits of construction and clearing of vegetation where surface water is expected to flow. If the loss of sediments appears to be greater than expected, or erosion control measures are not functioning as needed, additional measures must be implemented immediately. See Appendix D for sketches and general notes regarding selected erosion control measures. The Site Plan in Appendix A depicts the recommended locations for erosion control facilities to be installed as necessary. Permanent erosion control is necessary if substantial vegetation has not been established within disturbed areas upon completion of the project. Temporary erosion control should remain in place until permanent erosion control has been established. Permanent erosion control may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching, seeding or an equivalent measure. Selected recommendations for permanent erosion control me provided in Appendix D. Additional erosion control measures that should be performed include routine maintenance and replacement, when necessary, of permanent erosion control, vegetation, drainage structures and/or features. 5.7 Septic Drainfields Septic drainfrelds were considered in our geotechnical evaluation. This includes septic drainftelds with relation to the observed soil conditions, expected vegetation removal, and existing and proposed topography. Based on the aforesaid parameters, the septic Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 1 i Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 drain£ields are not expected to adversely influence critical slopes. This is also based on compliance with all recommendations in this report including maintaining drainfields behind the geotechnical setback without further geotechnical considerations. 5.8 Structural Mitigation With respect to landslide alleviation or slope improvements, structural mitigation is not necessary for this project. This determination is based on the anticipated improvements of the project, engineering conclusions, and compliance with all recommendations provided in this report. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 12 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 6.0 CLOSURE Based on the project information provided by the owner, the proposed development, and site conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's opinion that additional geotechnical studies are not required to further evaluate this project. 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. It is not recommended that a qualified engineer performs a site inspection during earthwork construction unless fill soils will influence the impending foundation. However, if native, undisturbed subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report, then a geotechnical engineer should be consulted. This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner, or owners' representative, and location of 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 in conjunction with the compliance of all recommendations provided in this report. Semantics throughout this report such as `shall,' 'should and `recommended' imply that the correlating design and/or specifications must be adhered to in order to potentially protect life and/ or property. Semantics such as suggested' or `optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed,but is provided for optimal performance. 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 neighboring properties, changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the long-term conclusions and recommendations of this report. 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. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech ®Enginyeeriin-g E Michael Staten,P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report PO Box 984 page 13 Parcel 32315-75-00100 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 July 12,2024 APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL SrFE PLAN �\ ! . ! R q , G� f # \ § , � u % L \ ] � .:, y ��- §! \�� / � % !\ �=� � \ � � � \ ��) { \ � q K �R & ¥ �/ qg �. \ � � \ �� \ �\ x . & ( �; � �� \ � �{ , � ��^ � � ! | �\ �� / \ / \ . \ . . /�� : �§\ y ��{�� APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION J F J s u J W' O w Ku u qqq d Z. qd uN ZN g ND XK W6 i it6� !oil ,Ea 64G�p �4�J E OCiY]5 TEST PIT LOG (TP-1) Date of Log: June 26, 2024 Location: 241 NE Capstan Rock Road,Tahuya Logged By: MCS Depth USCS Description 0—4ft SM Silty Sand with Gravel and cobbles. Medium brown and moist medium dense. Gravel is primarily coarse and subrounded Sand is mostly medium and coarse No plasticity Density increases with depth Very dense,cemented @ 4 feet(glacial till) APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY .40 10 20 3 . 30 1 . 96 ISO 1.60 ) _ alt 1 .04 O. 62 Slope Stability: Dynamic 1 .00 1 .26 ..0 90 x_co J y .vo 1. NO � .00 II .......... Slope Stability: Static APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL F,XTENTS EOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAP AROUND TRENCH TO AT LEAST ENTIRE BOTTOM OF TRENCH BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL EQUIVALENTT M BETTER 12' DEEP, 8' WIDE TRENCH FILLEB WITH 3/A' TD 1 1/2' WASHED GRAVEL OR VEGETAT N u DIRECTION OF EXISTING WATER FLOW GROUND SURFACE SIT T FENCE - CROSS SECTION N.T.S. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OOD POST (TTPo AND WIRE MESH IVALENT OR BETTER MAX, OC. � ert _I� �rt G SURFACE P, 8' VIBE )rt FILLED WITH u rt O 1 1/2' GRAVEL OR VEG T EXTENTS OF SII T F NEE - DETAIL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC N.T.S. PROVIDE FULL WIDTH 314 IN TO 1 I/ rt DRESS/EGRESS CRUSHED GRAVEL PLACED AT 6 IN MINIMUMPLACED DEPTH .ELL-WIN-D SOILS DNA)cclx 0.02 IN/MIN R=25 FT MIN Q asp [ON TRL[TIDN ENTRAN[F[pR TRL[TION ENTRAN[E N.T.S. PWJwR CwSpN Cpi1a MYTC4 (]EI(K Npr6• sCEp➢L ilF MV sl6ES S1pLp M ldelPGRr rApSBN 9xp XNNJR CO.TIA KPSUIEZ 9QVx 6V W11 MsiMl Ppp11mIK M PNp LSm51EM CMR1 FM 1lES KM K� SUCXd Tt LOPPpEn�WK[S.L{ICttF➢la pWS' KL WRRI Wp Sm11EMi CO(1 JL rK61TSS Wp XV' H1•Yl X s un. Itvm sPREALLRZ ANp smvo+T usws &LSpEC M MLLY Wp ED p CLv xNxlPD[D.IFIMC ., , M S® Xp SXNL C iIRH VRX rPIPLY f4£SWKG U¢Ux1LL M IRSCIRE WCPwMWE Kd RRMI y SiS A K L6T IX w FdpSCLLY mwi.Y➢PC.KarpRN ML W W1m6 SSFDINL XECdxCXMT®XS,xS SI4Vx IEtLV.WO SICYp pE woaPar omsml conga wTW A'P.LEv AT M Mrz uv wwvs PEa KK .sELo KF PVRMo Krv¢x Mr 5 Wo¢TOO( x v4i srLcmG AcnviiRS. IRIEmSpM41R @rI�TiRTd 6 nr.R E.rn ENC VRYNPRL[ISCMMP.A(&{lpiL. m KMa' nnE IIS rVRS rEA Lwv mMW u ,WVIPMW�C!M MOR S NKTw. W LR L 'aoTIIUU36RG.s3z[ N ES FYKW pffi Qma�]rI. ro LFp1Ex(ILLz. IIIC mT.6FIR PSASn< @ICRIKI. v41 W.r xL ACLTPlNS4L puRlxc M {MMS R YaR 1XNLIfi1 6.r[ae(uzdi Ald m C Vsv KCIIiodL m SUEl pVKRAC4x5ppC5W, BUT Nhi PLLLXp �K Cp vITX x1LlF:C.KTLIX66 KCiPCLNTpiO vPTEa tlOffSZWD [1UNpdQm.ESiCCIMWI LY pil[R PWwVm TXA1NdT. YX M fAL4Vlw RELMNLNXv XCp MIvrIML M IT. XAyN(WY 1 nMl SEPTPBW ]OS-- M 6E4RMG Or LPNp MWpINL M CWIRR. d H CIIIXiv WRM60 KTEWPIE S®KxiLH. ALV dIS1P'6 VEXTALRJ W pMR U NB CpvFR' MISL X LdITEp m pglPpalldS TRlry GERNdP MYSI LANp PS CW PCCC[vE WPPWa1PTC PIpICCnvE WVCR W !E Br yEI6NT{CY y( u) Y y1X SlPB6Jgp,YTW Vpv WL EEH [LCYdp OR prKVVISE pAMKB . 'V'K Y w UTW iWx SCPIFMFF 3U R P LSVEN KY. UNLESS INKY4lE o 92 T4m1ZI•T01 A SfEIP®w M dBiO( Wp X%KNi[6nF4 PIM'.PLL PEpTib LY..f6Sl1S NI KBAY ¢L.Kp W pll[StVLSE pLSMBm NJSi K P'fPWR{ATELr 32AL6J1Cp ANN.Ml RK hIIIUN IWFIMI y0 l5E uX or xLLomn,xETrwc, PusTc sl¢rdc SmsvF BMKEn. MVR14 R .,c SwA➢vdc xPTWIK.ETo.Xr sWTdeW]p 1«KovKi IiR lxE Y Svm ��ilY"IG'y.rym Ip % � 6 Attvt WLus RIIGVIX YPvovm ar cmHTr. ffipod, l4lp MW C11E`y�ypF.PLAlmsx L�T[IdrypnxBSV WAH I•z9WInT u RI Ta�iLLIMPSRl1 r5 FP L ffipwp YlW BCTI®W L V4L E SOS VKN PXYLCOL L[MCS4RI M PWSCr II vNOfIR ANv M MJODWTIL LWpIl4Ms £0r0.'dvC NYCIO(L YT15PLlORY GWVTN d 1K EVFM nMT PWMOIT STACN3PTRI A wf W 9ECnx4.EASVG Y.nNiIS. GwICO JNX STICw11KLEp BA 1 TE FItR a^ ULXp rBR SIQLp KYAPPLYE �rz 6 10.V XER N. MNBS %T II u.ol mlN.v K YRLEp w ALL YEAS vlw LYvsm L➢PEs M Evdr l4 S fMS wm KnVIT6S W B11Q( sllC Xv9IPISXr WdTLR rWN EU OY(1]plr/GrTATICK{. Ir65 AFE CpnTlx TY F01 PT LL•ZT A [d3ECNNE MYS.M A wLflBxc C BL u4B IWL .r Y'!ER SCLGG W M I.,�NTACMl S� fKe1Ln63 4KdRl6r 10EaXSR1 FVENIS. A.Z K IRIw' XIL�SXML BCffiCPTREp BMNOVdBrll L'L AST ML EV CRv VEd M=' A'iFACl1R SWIl BE KSPa4MS id' rpp�3xc K XVNIEIMKC ANI PWPK 6 PLL[%IS01 W SCpolNT[011PK rK61TCS RCS vN[a[WdfMYlm L IiPNR sxdhY BE USm NS rxR GwJECI dS nl XIrKV T UCmI ^^T1vIM1 IS w PRZKSS.M 0.L•SRINL Of IAnp.L(RK L M Kx3E EMPBSCp SDdS. wV/l O CMISmG VCRTPI@V ANp UTKR BRP. CP/E4. Sµµl II LpllEp mPS01L SIOAU R RPRB d SIyES w!CxC6pOp cV. AlmAN ISNp APd K CW BE CQVEKD d STPB41Sm VSIw( N IO.CIS M ] SIRIPPpG Wp Sl11CRtLLlw OtZSX SCaS LIFC RM1Y K EVEM A xAJW SMN 6 Pxm61Cp AHB/ II([Fd@{WC SmIVLR R.MI .PAMSZ CUv IyWI ♦{mW. SWpv 1DW. RWSPRI WF-SIR R OXSW VFA A SIRIPPpE 314LL CC CMMY 14 M M[RPTE C STRIY'lLl LTF,AISp w MSIWKp M£.B SSMLL PE[dVE PPVXmRI<R P(mICCrIVL PIX PMFOR YB SprPdvwL O M MRLICIAYA SIO.AIIAILCW KR d E OLMCRv32E SlAB11IIm.SLCII PS IRLCMO<.KTT4C. R/RiIC Sl4AR M CRIA1 SlRItMCt 51MLL C d PULL KrII2 Tw6.WBS p.{KETS.mWJ SE nrsp MTCRItI.Ett. VnICX 5 pPrS KTER rdC5N4,SEBBdT TT�S.XpdCXi R[NKOZ.ET V41C T IF.S 4 SIRIPPR4 K�KTI�W VrFNLp IAMw3 VPPOIECrzp WCW iwi iFM A�RIPIM� ♦ W5 MYS fP1FA XPVU16 BED1 LIFM(m. ILL mNC111uCTIDl K1N[tt O( rod S UN�V211CMm�WBY9TJpD1(Epp Px41N2 KEn INr PRm 'U W ITP06[EEp, 6 ! Ix'v c AAM]So�VIYx P45nc C.W p11P YA®v6 Fv1C4 pArtv G'KN xavTXG(vM xMM ssF SMa.FmGT LrMJOx RP a!p}sBII xllii t aKVdTM ]!Vffi 9454�W C v♦OiExvli K 6laIIpYNdI( vP9tl1 UA�px•�OS6NY�i mY HT.W NM xP!"OV,gYRpGWywp Ra,V4i p M MAS N F NY4L SXW F WP'lApte AcmPR 1p M wgvEp n.M. ST .45CEp j CSTR•6TIM dMWCF ly-Kd¢pW VTI IKax m IBOKM max.lsT:1CPSlYmFRBnSP[c61L15 (20 TI MS rMO.Y C➢In Wp Mr i 2 M RBCN vAD SX41 K AT CCPST (2 IxCKs 1NIIX Wp 5p r£CC LWL (Co rIIl!W SACS vIM KSS My pISMK➢ SOU.vdSX SWl1 K i1LL VIpn1 6 M V9U6E IXCASS Axp ECA[33 AKM1 SNALIIM PAp3 MY CF YPwVb LIIKaErWnr vc3maT5K Axv xwu raKcclAL xA1Nl rnEs W ypM RLL} LULL NE Ap6v Ke1pF[W.. m PRBPRI f1NCT5w T M vRn M VEIVLLF dMRSIA P�STOET M VPSIN! SKIT TOE 61 PX RFE.ZLRVE VSiX WUM�wCN PI(pFVAGLIM ER lytl CRAG ro KRNTd(rKLIT.O( rW4JJ1 A s4T LdLE 4T 4u pmmnl<r4TR rxwrc TYK aSUL K ry sPEcsKo n TK nmdvPlW MNAroEx*xW+K PBKT sdxv Msw W YPucAFE C4wTY srwp.Rvs KN[NnIL rLLlfA rABRIE SNNL X PIRIMXn a P Cb11p.I RLLy cur m M SUGIX p1 X @EY�i A IWPWr wS MEP WOIIN 6-IICII SBVW.Y MR SmW6r MT[xdSRl2B CNpS m M PI ST Yp i61FR FART[ ZXAIl K fASICK4 VRw 1' STPPIES W ilC VOLS<w4 RIIGU! A w Vd SRWLL IMO M C.R6MP.Y2p PT KPRR ppSGRp d M pEI4L OI TR 116T.ANp vWE x@1 SIWl K YVYYSA 4WX OR ERWV4LM. 111L VOE KO M•Y K MMPR9 4' 1RA-C111dLM r41W rPNiC<w(Q4MU111.WB T..PEST SPACINB TI 1ISE4 rad01 SWIl K-CWT ' KCDipMp m M KTALLS F n11S SIFF!MINL M LM R M R MO UI9YE FP SRT r .Sp.T rENCCs 9K1.K wLAMp mVxSLWE Fe M C IN5 LMTS O M PRLL6i.