The URL can be used to link to this page

Drainage Report 11-20-17 - Rev 2-19-18DRAINAGE REPORT Panera, LLC Chanhassen, MN November 30, 2017 Revised February 19, 2018 CEI Project No. 30072.0 Prepared By: CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. 2025 Centre Pointe Blvd., Suite 210 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Tel. 651.452.8960 CITY OF RECHAMH4SSEAI FEB 212018 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT ENGINEERS ■ SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 2025 Centre Pointe Blvd., Suite 210 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-452-8960 Fax 651-452-1149 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAINAGE REPORT Panera, LLC Chanhassen, MN CEI Project No. 30072.0 Text Pages ProjectDescription........................................................................................................1 ExistingConditions.......................................................................................................1 ProposedDevelopment................................................................................................1 Storm Water Management...........................................................................................2 WaterQuality ...............................................................................................................3 RateControl.................................................................................................................4 SWBio -Retention Basin..............................................................................................5 Appendix: Appendix A Project Site Aerial Appendix B FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Appendix C Existing Drainage Map Appendix D Existing (Pre -Development) HydroCAD Model Appendix E Proposed Drainage Map Appendix F Proposed (Post -Development) HydroCAD Model Appendix G MIDS Calculator Results for Stormwater Quality Appendix H Geotechnical Report Panera, LLC — Chanhassen, MN PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is approximately 1.425 acres, currently zoned BH (Highway Business District), and is located at 531 W. 79u' Street in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The proposed development, will consist of an approximately ±4,486 square foot Panera Bread Store, along with associated surface parking lot, concrete curb and gutter, driveways, sanitary sewer lateral, water connection to main, storm sewer, bio -retention basin, gas, electric and telephone utilities. Runoff from all proposed impervious surfaces will be collected by downspouts and/or curb cuts in the paved area, and outlet to a bio -retention basins with underdrain that will serve to promote on site abstraction of stormwater. The bio -retention basins with underdrain has a bee -hive outlet structure which will control the rate of runoff. Stormwater from the bio -retention basin will then outlet into an existing storm manhole at the SW corner of our site, where it leaves the project site through an existing culvert that runs into a network of pipes under Hwy 5 to the south. No disturbance is proposed in the Cities property to the West or DOT's property to the South. Existine Conditions: The current Chanhassen Inn site is fully developed, with a ±15,881 square foot building footprint and large, parking lot with shared access drive with Chick-Fil-A to the East. The site is bound by West 79s' Street to the north, Chick-Fil-A to the east, Truck Hwy No. 5 to the south and an existing city stornwater pond to the West. Much of the site drains to the SE corner of the site and into an open FES. The rest of the site drains to the west or north. The property is mapped on FEMA FIRM Panel No. 270051 0005 B, for the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, dated July 2, 1979, and is in Zone "C", areas of minimal flooding. Soils on the site are primarily sandy lean clay (CL), in Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) "D". Proposed Development: The development will consist of an approximately ±4,486 square foot square foot Panera Bread, including parking lots and drives on site. All the parking lot and drives will be graded to drain to curb cuts and then into the proposed bio - retention basins with underdrain. The roof runoff will be collected and conveyed underground to the proposed bio -retention basin. The bio -retention basins have an underdrain system, and will be planted with vegetation to promote on site abstraction. Abstraction will also be achieved through infiltration into the existing soils. Because of the existing silty loam soils on site, abstraction onsite of 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surface of the parcel is not feasible and the site is to be considered a restricted site. According to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, the existing soils on site only allow for an infiltration rate of 0.06 inches per hour. The existing site is composed primarily of Type D soils, therefore, according to the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) calculator, a maximum bio -retention basin depth of 0.24 feet below the 1 underdrain is required to allow for a drawdown time of 48 hours. The bio -retention basin and associated beehive structure will serve to provide both the required water quality and quantity management to meet the regulations set forth by the City of Chanhassen and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Stormwater Management: Development standards set forth by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District requires the following as listed in the official District Rules, Rule J, Section 3, Criteria: a. Limit peak runoff flow rates to that from existing conditions for the two-, 10-, and 100 - year frequency storms events using a nested 24-hour rainfall distribution, and a 100 - year, 10 -day snowmelt event, for all points where stormwater discharge leaves the site; b. Provide for the abstraction onsite of 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surface of the parcel; c. Provide for at least sixty percent (60%) annual removal efficiency for total phosphorous, and at least ninety percent (90%) annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids from site runoff. The total existing drainage area is approximately 1.425 Acres. Please refer to the Drainage Area Maps for drainage sub catchments (see appendix). The tables below show the pre -development and post -development impervious inventory: EXISTING CONDITIONS Impervious Pervious Sub catchment S SF A 34,560 6,650 B 3,790 6,888 C 5,460 4,727 TOTAL 43,810 18,265 70.57% Impervious TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA 62,075 SF PROPOSED CONDITIONS Water Ouality: The Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) calculator was used for water quality calculations. Abstraction will also be achieved through infiltration into the existing soils. Because of the existing silty loam soils on site, abstraction onsite of 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surface of the parcel is not feasible and the site is to be considered a restricted site, allowing the abstraction of 0.55 inches. Soils present on site are sandy lean clay (CL), HSG "D", with an allowable infiltration rate of 0.06 in/hr according to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Water quality requirements are met using (2) bio -retention basins with underdrains and saffle baffle/with snout at the outlet structure providing abstraction and treatment of the stormwater. The bio -retention basins together provide for 74% TSS and 66% phosphorous removal. The TSS removal is below the required 90% because the 0.55" volume is being retained fully onsite. As seen from the IT' once released, we meet both the TSS and TP requirements. All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be routed to the bio -retention basins to serve as pretreatment of the stormwater prior leaving the site. Proposed Site impervious Area from Parking Roofs, Sidewalks, etc... = 40,651 sf Water abstraction volume required (non -restricted site) = Area of impervious x 1.1 inches = 40,651 SF x 1.1 in /1.0 / 12 in/ft = 3,713 CF Water abstraction volume required (restricted site) = Area of impervious x 0.55inches = 40,651 SF x 0.55 in /1.0 / 12 in/ft = 1,857 CF Impervious Pervious Sub catchment 5 S A 32,471 20 151 B 6,175 1,205 C 1,730 0 D 275 70 TOTAL 40,651 21,426 65.4% Impervious TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA 62,075 SF Water Ouality: The Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) calculator was used for water quality calculations. Abstraction will also be achieved through infiltration into the existing soils. Because of the existing silty loam soils on site, abstraction onsite of 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surface of the parcel is not feasible and the site is to be considered a restricted site, allowing the abstraction of 0.55 inches. Soils present on site are sandy lean clay (CL), HSG "D", with an allowable infiltration rate of 0.06 in/hr according to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Water quality requirements are met using (2) bio -retention basins with underdrains and saffle baffle/with snout at the outlet structure providing abstraction and treatment of the stormwater. The bio -retention basins together provide for 74% TSS and 66% phosphorous removal. The TSS removal is below the required 90% because the 0.55" volume is being retained fully onsite. As seen from the IT' once released, we meet both the TSS and TP requirements. All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be routed to the bio -retention basins to serve as pretreatment of the stormwater prior leaving the site. Proposed Site impervious Area from Parking Roofs, Sidewalks, etc... = 40,651 sf Water abstraction volume required (non -restricted site) = Area of impervious x 1.1 inches = 40,651 SF x 1.1 in /1.0 / 12 in/ft = 3,713 CF Water abstraction volume required (restricted site) = Area of impervious x 0.55inches = 40,651 SF x 0.55 in /1.0 / 12 in/ft = 1,857 CF Results (see appendix for additional MIDS calculation results): Annual Volume and Pollutant Load Reductions Post development annual runoff volume 2.256 acre -ft Annual runoff volume removed by BMPs 0.6793 acre -ft Percent annual runoff volume removed 30% Post development annual particulate P load 1.012 lbs Annual particulate P removed by BMPs 0.88 lbs Post development annual dissolved P load 0.828 lbs Annual dissolved P removed by BMPs 0.326 lbs Percent annual total phosphorus removed 66% Post development annual TSS load 334.4 lbs Annual TSS removed by BMPs 246.5 lbs Percent annual TSS removed 74% Rate Control Rate control is achieved using the bio -retention areas and a beehive outlet structure. Rainfall data was gathered from NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates and a nested 24-hour rainfall distribution was utilized (provided by RPBCWD) for the 2, 10, 100 and 10 -day snow melt storm events. All existing proposed curve numbers are based on soil type "D", silty loam, obtained from the geotechnical report (see appendix). See appendix for the existing and proposed drainage maps, and existing and proposed HydroCAD modeling. El PEAK DISCHARGE RATES STORMWATER EVENT EXISTING CFS PROPOSED CFS 2 -YEAR 5.56 0.33 10 -YEAR 9.03 0.57 100 -YEAR 15.30 4.34 10 -DAY 100 YEAR SNOWMELT 0.26 0.23 SW Bio -Retention Basin: Basin Bottom Elevation = 945.35' Beehive outlet Elevation = 946.50' Groundwater Elevation at BMP location =:L929.00' (see appendix for geotechnical report) Basin High Water Level = 947.21' Basin Draw -Down Time = 48.00 hours Emergency Overflow Elevation = 947.78' (SE Corner of site) 2 -Year Storm High Water Elevation = 945.59' (SW Basin) 10 -Year Storm High Water Elevation = 946.53' (SW Basin) 100 -Year Storm High Water Elevation = 947.21 * (SW Basin) 100 -Year, 10 Day Snowmelt High Water Elevation = 945.26 (SW Basin) *Critical water elevation Sincerely, CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Alan Catchpool, PE MN Branch Mgr. ENGINEERS ■ SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 2025 Centre Pointe Blvd., Suite 210 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-452-8960 Fax 651452-1149 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAINAGE REPORT Panera, LLC Chanhassen, MN CEI Project No. 30072.0 Text Pages ProjectDescription........................................................................................................1 ExistingConditions.......................................................................................................1 Proposed Development................................................................................................1 Storm Water Management...........................................................................................2 WaterQuality...............................................................................................................3 RateControl.................................................................................................................4 SWBio -Retention Basin..............................................................................................5 Appendix: Appendix A Project Site Aerial Appendix B FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Appendix C Existing Drainage Map Appendix D Existing (Pre -Development) HydroCAD Model Appendix E Proposed Drainage Map Appendix F Proposed (Post -Development) HydroCAD Model Appendix G MIDS Calculator Results for Stormwater Quality Appendix H Geotechnical Report APPENDIX W !A It' 0 APPENDIX B !; f� h § //| ° . § |�||■ d\$ f§/ =r.f� Ro� la,:= . ;� !� !�.|■ q. . .° L) .« _ . . � . - . - � ! .,. :..» � /» � k§§ cc \ � �\�.6. as CEI \� w §61) ^^ &� § . / ¥1 �Iuu! - / } / \ 4 \ LU 1 \ - . § \\y< / ~ »: » 6 2 t �§.B \ ° k §�E - � � _ ■ ■ �§ e - � �� /)§ \ � .94 § § )�\ ��l= APPENDIX C NORTH / 0 20 40 / / ro ; / e PA m 10,E s AREA C 10,1873f a 108/ PJ rox n a xmu�> IF, -� �Ra 6 asy�Y x92axV'- xrw •- £[ G`x�iF n4P6� qY LEGEND: / \/ • m r / o NO.,— g aw. �cxa \ um a car D co „ sa- \\ a \ ® wWea —'rc C PJ sant ,s•c sot pvxmsww.L \ A wrm,.aon,.a \\ ® — emaww,.n of \\ �mxwl g r—1arme.n.�an,w,a,n 09 \ laweuov,w�,w L----.] con, xwtx :gym, \ to to a \ \l \ to \ rax\\ \ \ w xex51' \ s \ \ T yr14,•` y+b\ ± 4i pxc/�\ 93°9 / / \rt,,, sup _.•6 �� %y,y5% WN= k_ / `moi 8 do f I �J P,'._� fin. `a - • V 5 NNGNVJ P P UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILMES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EKISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEETHATTHE UNDERGROUND UfILDIES 5HOWN COMPRLSE ALL SUCH UfILMES IN THE AREA, EWER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. !b FD. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DUES NOT WARRANTH T AT THE UNDERGROUND D L SHOWN ARE IN THE ENACT LOCATORINDICATEAVE DALTHOUGH HER DOLS AS l MOM TH)kTWEY INFORMATION AREROUTED V ACCURATELY SURVEYOR POSSIRIE HAS NOT PHN CMATIONAtPED IE. NDEGOUND HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) ER UnLI574. SO MEMAPSWERE RECEIVED, WHILEOTHERUTILITIESDID NOT RESPOND F WE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDPIONAL S UTI E OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EKIST. OTTER ED UP. MAY EMST ON THIS WETHAT WERE NOT MARKED UP. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: —I ._A IA \\\ ireassaBasseassessest cc � The fed cashat Legal Casson"..I$ as shorn On Old Republic National TRIS Room" Comparm ry TRle ComhmerA No. ORU743796 dated a Ao � January 12, 2017. . Lot 3, Black 1, ZAMOR ADDRWN, according to the recorded plat eterof, and situate In Carver County, Minnesota. y \\ UCEPIING therefrom Parcel 208A condemned by the State of Minnesota N v 4 A.w\,;;,,,,, y�l TAANSPORTATON RIGHT OF WAY MT N0. 10-3 filed March 14, 1991 m CONTACT: Document No. 122284. fAbstraCU i 11. Terms and conditions of comma far Priate Redevelopment per Doc. No. CD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES MOT SHORAN AFFECTS ENTIRE PARCEL)12. Alan Catchpool, BE 2025 Centre Pointe Blvd [ry d+ ~•.�a,a t�HV ,, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 s0�R6 a� s- P:651-452-8960 � aa. m wbt aa6A 4 TO EAM � x�a (14i Document No. 633291. V\FFf Daumnnd No. 63329 IREPAaMAN ANDADJ s AREA C 10,1873f a 108/ PJ rox n a xmu�> IF, -� �Ra 6 asy�Y x92axV'- xrw •- £[ G`x�iF n4P6� qY LEGEND: / \/ • m r / o NO.,— g aw. �cxa \ um a car D co „ sa- \\ a \ ® wWea —'rc C PJ sant ,s•c sot pvxmsww.L \ A wrm,.aon,.a \\ ® — emaww,.n of \\ �mxwl g r—1arme.n.�an,w,a,n 09 \ laweuov,w�,w L----.] con, xwtx :gym, \ to to a \ \l \ to \ rax\\ \ \ w xex51' \ s \ \ T yr14,•` y+b\ ± 4i pxc/�\ 93°9 / / \rt,,, sup _.•6 �� %y,y5% WN= k_ / `moi 8 do f I �J P,'._� fin. `a - • V 5 NNGNVJ P P UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: THE UNDERGROUND UTILMES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EKISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEETHATTHE UNDERGROUND UfILDIES 5HOWN COMPRLSE ALL SUCH UfILMES IN THE AREA, EWER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. !b FD. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DUES NOT WARRANTH T AT THE UNDERGROUND D L SHOWN ARE IN THE ENACT LOCATORINDICATEAVE DALTHOUGH HER DOLS AS l MOM TH)kTWEY INFORMATION AREROUTED V ACCURATELY SURVEYOR POSSIRIE HAS NOT PHN CMATIONAtPED IE. NDEGOUND HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) ER UnLI574. SO MEMAPSWERE RECEIVED, WHILEOTHERUTILITIESDID NOT RESPOND F WE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDPIONAL S UTI E OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EKIST. OTTER ED UP. MAY EMST ON THIS WETHAT WERE NOT MARKED UP. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COUNTY/CITY: ireassaBasseassessest The fed cashat Legal Casson"..I$ as shorn On Old Republic National TRIS Room" Comparm ry TRle ComhmerA No. ORU743796 dated 5 31 W 79TH STREET January 12, 2017. C O U N TY Lot 3, Black 1, ZAMOR ADDRWN, according to the recorded plat eterof, and situate In Carver County, Minnesota. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA UCEPIING therefrom Parcel 208A condemned by the State of Minnesota a-- ekSSEN As eNdenmd by Final Certificate fled October 27, 1993 as Document No. 157032 and as depicted on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TAANSPORTATON RIGHT OF WAY MT N0. 10-3 filed March 14, 1991 m CONTACT: Document No. 122284. fAbstraCU i 11. Terms and conditions of comma far Priate Redevelopment per Doc. No. CD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES MOT SHORAN AFFECTS ENTIRE PARCEL)12. Alan Catchpool, BE 2025 Centre Pointe Blvd AREA: Suite 210 P Mendota Heights, MN 55120 TOTAL AREA - 62,077 SQ.FT. P:651-452-8960 EASEMENT NOTES:i COUNTY/CITY: . The follmdrg e.-Pdonre as shown ashown on Did Republic National Tire CARVE R Insurance COMPOW IDM Commitment No. 0117E743786 dated January, 12, C O U N TY 2017. S. Some Saver and drainage easement per Book 126 of Deeds page 3-4. [8,a GRAPHICALLY)' C B T V O F (SHOWN a-- ekSSEN Mage and utility easements Mnti Ass 9. DMas ents as shown an e recorded plat of Froer Development which underlies Zamor Addition. (SHOWN GRAPHICALLY). to. Drmrage and utility easements as shown on the recorded plat of Zamor VICINITY MAP aA Addition.(SHOWN GRAPHICAULY). 9 11. Terms and conditions of comma far Priate Redevelopment per Doc. No. M1 MOT SHORAN AFFECTS ENTIRE PARCEL)12. No right of access to State Highway No. 5. Right per Final Confro tijZi Doc No. 157032 AndasMinnesotaDeparmentofTransportationMght of Wry Plat No. 10-3 Per Doc. No. 122284. ISHOMN GRAPHICALLY) t51ITE123421. 13. Terms and conditions of Cross Easement for Parking per Doc. No.198692.INOTSHORTI-AFFEMEN MPARCUMD PARCELADJACENT TO EAM PamTa 14. Terms OFReciprocal Agreement per (14i Document No. 633291. V\FFf Daumnnd No. 63329 IREPAaMAN ANDADJ �. x A!G 73au, THE FAST. LOCATION LOCATOR OF THE PROTECTED URNS ARTA DRIVE MMN6aTA SH RALLY PER SK SHOWN GRAPHICALLY PER SKETCH IN DOCUMENT) SURVEY NOTES: REVISIONS: * i ANTE REVHION 1. $SUPPLIED BY THE 04 -OS -17 INTMLI55UE CAVAGSAREBASEDONCOO FIRCE CARVER COUNTY SURVEYORS 2. MIN M SHORAN PER GOPHER STATE ONE CALLUNDERGROUND AND AS -5 CALL LOCATES AND AS-BUILT3 PIANS P10WDED BY THE CITY OF BES ME UN ERE MAY ERGRSDEPARTMENT. Y UNDERGROUND Mlf11Ei; GAS, ELECITUC, 3. TC. NOT ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. DARN OR FLOOD INFORMATION: P THIS PROPERTY LIES WTMIN THE UNSHADED ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AS SHOWN ON FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 270051 00058 HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OFJULV 2,1979. EXISTING PARKING: PROJECT LOCATION: + P THERE ARE 63 Ni.. PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED ON THIS PARCEL C INCLUDING 1 HANDICAP STALL. W. 79TH STREET BENCHMARKS: PID#258900030 ELEVATIONS BASED ON INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON THE MNDOT GEODETIC WEBSITE SURVEY DISK 1002 W wW AN ELEVATION OF 954.9 WAS USED TO ESTAMI5HVERTICALCONTROLFORT ESURVEY(NAVD88) CERTIFICATION: To: Chanhassen Inn.Inc., Old Republic Natlunal Thle Insurance compray,5 their successors and assigns: This Is to ceNify that this map or pelt and the survey on which It Is based were made In Accordance with the 2015 Museum Standard Deeall Restatements for ALTAIACSM Land Tee Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and Includes hems 1, 2, 3, 4, 7(a), 7ld 6, 9,11,16,17,18, arW 19 of Table Athem&.. The fieM ark was complMM coMarch 13, 2017. CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. Dated. 4-05-17 Revised BY: Dan el L Thurmes Minnesota Ucerase No. 25718 Old Republic National Thin Insurance Company Tele Commitment No. ORT1743786 chisel January 12, 2017 as listed on this survey was.[led u far matters of record. Other easements may exist that were nm shown In this commitment and ate year shown on this survey. ®uu aeuxmu aG, Gopher State One Call fax vsrweu asysaaeu tpumra 1-eao-xs:-nu Wheel 67SO Sllllwater Mynd. N. SHINatel, MN 55082 Prone 651.275.8969 Fax 6SI.27S.8976 daIIP Ou n y et CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. P FILE NAME S6 CE1708 PRO)ER NO. CEI7086 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY APPENDIX D OB NORTH rTj WEST TOTAL A SOUTHEAST SubCat Reach on Lifl{C I Routing Diagram for Existing Model _, Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc, Printed 2/19/2018 HydreCAD®10.00-20 s/n 02540 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Existing Model Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.417 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (A, B, C) 0.780 98 Paved parking, HSG D (A) 0.087 98 Roofs, HSG A (B) 0.125 98 Roofs, HSG C (C) 1.409 93 TOTAL AREA Existing Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 1501 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: SOUTHEAST Runoff Area=40,510 sf 83.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.32" Flow Length=200' Slope=0.0110'/' Tc=2.8 min CN=95 Runoff=4.23 cfs 0.180 of SubcatchmentB: NORTH Runoff Area=10,678 sf 35.49% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.55" Flow Length=40' Slope=0.0100'P Tc=6.6 min CN=86 Runoff=0.66 cfs 0.032 of SubcatchmentC: WEST Runoff Area=10,187 sf 53.60% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.87" Flow Length=35' Slope=0.0100'P Tc=5.9 min CN=90 Runoff=0.78 cfs 0.036 of Reach T: TOTAL Inflow=5.48 cfs 0.248 of Outflow=5.48 cfs 0.248 of Total Runoff Area= 1.409 ac Runoff Volume= 0.248 of Average Runoff Depth= 2.11" 29.60% Pervious = 0.417 ac 70.40% Impervious = 0.992 ac Existing Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_At/as14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment A: SOUTHEAST Runoff = 4.23 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.180 af, Depth= 2.32" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Area (sf) CN Description 6,550 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 33,960 98 Paved parking, HSG D 40,510 95 Weighted Average 6,550 16.17% Pervious Area 33,960 83.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (fuft) 2.8 200 0.0110 Description 1.18 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n=0.011 P2=2.86" Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment B: NORTH Runoff = 0.66 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.032 af, Depth= 1.55' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 3,790 98 Roofs, HSG A 6,888 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 10,678 86 Weighted Average 6,888 64.51 % Pervious Area 3,790 35.49% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 6.6 40 0.0100 Description 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.86" Existing Model Prepared by CEI MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' ineering Associates, Inc Summary for Subcatchment C: WEST Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 0.78 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.036 af, Depth= 1.87' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Area (sf) CN Description 4,727 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 5,460 98 Roofs, HSG C 10,187 90 Weighted Average 4,727 46.40% Pervious Area 5,460 53.60% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 5.9 35 0.0100 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.86" Existing Model Prepared by CEI MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Associates, Inc Summary for Reach T: TOTAL Printed 2/19/2018 Inflow Area = 1.409 ac, 70.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.11" for 2y 24hr event Inflow = 5.48 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.248 of Outflow = 5.48 cis @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.248 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Existing Model MN-RPBCWD 0_Atlas14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 8 Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 1501 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: SOUTHEAST Runoff Area=40,510 sf 83.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.70" Flow Length=200' Slope=0.0110'P Tc=2.8 min CN=95 Runoff=6.69 cfs 0.287 of SubcatchmentB: NORTH Runoff Area=10,678 sf 35.49% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.79" Flow Length=40' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc --6.6 min CN=86 Runoff=1.20 cfs 0.057 of SubcatchmentC: WEST Runoff Area=10,187 sf 53.60% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.18" Flow Length=35' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=5.9 min CN=90 Runoff= 1.32 cfs 0.062 of Reach T: TOTAL Inflow=8.91 cfs 0.405 of Outflow=8.91 cfs 0.405 of Total Runoff Area = 1.409 ac Runoff Volume = 0.405 of Average Runoff Depth = 3.45" 29.60% Pervious = 0.417 ac 70.40% Impervious = 0.992 ac Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' :)y CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment A: SOUTHEAST Runoff = 6.69 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.287 af, Depth= 3.70" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_vi—Atlas 14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Area (sf) CN Description 6,550 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 33,960 98 Paved parking, HSG D 40,510 95 Weighted Average 6,550 16.17% Pervious Area 33,960 83.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 2.8 200 0.0110 Velocity Capacity Description 1.18 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n=0.011 P2=2.86" Existing Model Prepared by CEI MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Associates, Inc Summary for Subcatchment B: NORTH Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Depth= 2.79" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Area (sf) CN Description 3,790 98 Roofs, HSG A 6,688 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 10,678 86 Weighted Average 6,888 64.51 % Pervious Area 3,790 35.49% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (ds) 6.6 40 0.0100 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.86" Existing Model Prepared by CEI MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27" ineering Associates, Inc Summary for Subcatchment C: WEST Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 1.32 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Depth= 3.18" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Area (sf) CN Descriotion 4,727 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 5,460 98 Roofs, HSG C 10,187 90 Weighted Average 4,727 46.40% Pervious Area 5,460 53.60% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.9 35 0.0100 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.86" Existing Model Prepared by CEI MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Associates, Inc Summary for Reach T: TOTAL Printed 2/19/2018 Inflow Area = 1.409 ac, 70.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.45" for 10y 24hr event Inflow = 8.91 ds @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.405 of Outflow = 8.91 ds @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.405 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Existing Model Prepared by CEI MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 1501 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: SOUTHEAST Runoff Area=40,510 sf 83.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.81" Flow Length=200' Slope=0.01107' Tc=2.8 min CN=95 Runoff= 11.06 cfs 0.528 of SubcatchmentB: NORTH Runoff Area= 10,678 sf 35.49% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.76" Flow Length=40' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=6.6 min CN=86 Runoff=2.23 cfs 0.118 of SubcatchmentC: WEST Runoff Area=10,187 sf 53.60% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.23" Flow Length=35' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=5.9 min CN=90 Runoff=2.32 cfs 0.121 of Reach T: TOTAL Inflow=15.11 cfs 0.767 of Outflow=15.11 cfs 0.767 of Total Runoff Area = 1.409 ac Runoff Volume = 0.767 of Average Runoff Depth = 6.53" 29.60% Pervious = 0.417 ac 70.40% Impervious = 0.992 ac Existing Model MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HvdroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Subcatchment A: SOUTHEAST Runoff = 11.06 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.528 af, Depth= 6.81" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 6,550 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 33,960 98 Paved parking, HSG D 40,510 95 Weighted Average 6,550 16.17% Pervious Area 33,960 83.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (f /ft) 2.8 200 0.0110 Description 1.18 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n=0.011 P2=2.86" Model by CEI Runoff = MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" I Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment B: NORTH 2.23 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.118 af, Depth= 5.76" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 3,790 98 Roofs, HSG A 6,888 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 10,678 86 Weighted Average 6,888 64.51 % Pervious Area 3,790 35.49% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 6.6 40 0.0100 Description 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.86" Existing Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as1424-hr100yS1100y24hr Rainfall=7.41" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Facie 16 Summary for Subcatchment C: WEST Runoff = 2.32 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.121 af, Depth= 6.23" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 4,727 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 5,460 98 Roofs, HSG C 10,187 90 Weighted Average 4,727 46.40% Pervious Area 5,460 53.60% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (fUft) 5.9 35 0.0100 Description 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.86" Existing Model Prepared by CEI MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41 " ineering Associates, Inc n 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Summary for Reach T: TOTAL Printed 2/19/2018 Inflow Area = 1.409 ac, 70.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.53" for 100y 24hr event Inflow = 15.11 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.767 of Outflow = 15.11 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.767 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs B rTj NORTH WEST TOTAL A SOUTHEAST Subcat Reach on rLnk Routing Diagram for Existing Model -10 Day Snowmelt , Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc, Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-20 s/n 02540 ® 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Existing Model - 10 Day Snowmelt Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.419 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (A, B, C) 0.793 98 Paved parking, HSG D (A) 0.087 98 Roofs, HSG A (B) 0.125 98 Roofs, HSG C (C) 1.425 93 TOTAL AREA M MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 Snowme/t 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 a 10.00-20 s/n 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 3 Time span=0.00-240.00 hrs, dt=0.04 hrs, 6001 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: SOUTHEAST Runoff Area=41,210 sf 83.86% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.60" Flow Length=200' Slope=0.01 10? Tc=2.8 min CN=95 Runoff=0.18 cfs 0.521 of SubcatchmentB: NORTH Runoff Area= 10,678 sf 35.49% Impervious Runoff Depth>5.56" Flow Length=40' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=6.6 min CN=86 Runoff=0.04 cfs 0.114 of SubcatchmentC: WEST Runoff Area=10,187 sf 53.60% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.02" Flow Length=35' Slope=0.0100'P Tc=5.9 min CN=90 Runoff=0.04 cfs 0.117 of Reach T: TOTAL Inflow=0.26 cfs 0.751 of Outflow=0.26 cfs 0.751 of Total Runoff Area = 1.425 ac Runoff Volume = 0.751 of Average Runoff Depth = 6.33" 29.42% Pervious = 0.419 ac 70.58% Impervious = 1.006 ac Existing M MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment A: SOUTHEAST Runoff = 0.18 cfs @ 121.21 hrs, Volume= 0.521 af, Depth> 6.60" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt_10d_100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Area (sf) CN Description 6,650 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 34,560 98 Paved parking, HSG D 41,210 95 Weighted Average 6,650 16.14% Pervious Area 34,560 83.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 2.8 200 0.0110 Description 1.18 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n=0.011 P2=2.86" M MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 ) 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment B: NORTH Runoff = 0.04 cfs @ 121.26 hrs, Volume= 0.114 af, Depth> 5.56" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 Snowmelt_10d_100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Area (sf) CN Description 3,790 98 Roofs, HSG A 6,888 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 10,678 86 Weighted Average 6,888 64.51 % Pervious Area 3,790 35.49% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity iin) (feet) (ft/ff) (ft/sec) 6.6 40 0.0100 0.10 Description Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.86" Existing M MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment C: WEST Runoff = 0.04 cfs @ 121.25 hrs, Volume= 0.117 af, Depth> 6.02" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 Snowmelt_10d_100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Area (sf) CN Description 4,727 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 5,460 98 Roofs, HSG C 10,187 90 Weighted Average 4,727 46.40% Pervious Area 5,460 53.60% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/ser.) (cfs) 5.9 35 0.0100 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" Existing M MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD®10 00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Reach T: TOTAL Inflow Area = 1.425 ac, 70.58% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.33" for 10 -Day Snowmelt event Inflow = 0.26 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.751 of Outflow = 0.26 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.751 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrs APPENDIX E �a rIPEN1V3IN STIN OINN YfF1F IXETRVaVRE STATE HIGHWAY 5 SUE BENCHMARK N., O STORMWATER SUMMARY TOTK PROPENTY .:I.LE MIEe ON O.N? BF ToiKg91VR 1.VE/.•il.y µn®> I TNN. A MX MI 1WXL PE IN 1.R PiEPFFMVBNEA.O.Y /.O MEIMhF1gI5AIFA• I.qd AO rMmom ANA•a.¢Ac msi NPemgwucA.o.W,4c PE«w»mFs..WIN NF,FILIBXimN,,NS OV(IEI.'N.-YIR XwI..-04131 • 3 Know whaFa b@IOW. Call before you dig X� Y£AROXRtTIW PWErw wmLaaTwNwogMFxmxsgF MINY s, Rwr. wmeulE, mrto MW xG. mun max wmmG EamRra uwnaN,wo wEax wlmlxG RIMExsmxx EXISTING LEGEND PROPOSED LEGEND rNwIIryIIHFAmInmwYINN GMBERNY mX10VRANAilw6 SIORA0.WX Emi&NATCM �I rz=TmmmN G.Gu11¢ RE•malmwEuvR,vn R•RX&XDAVR/Q �T� EOnh4T R'NIXGIIXATMIRERPTG GFG1EpX'GLR6ORll Q GRADING NOTES 2n IMEN'.D. mX 0 1M mxxEEiiOEAEIINGSiORM OPux MNI N]IE GR OOFT. A 1RIO1ro116TI 0.m. ON YNrtMYSEWEx TIEmxIRIG1MSXNL COANXIVEIIIFYAN. 037 a1LINATEALLdm9160RNOMEORMnIEOMNmNIOTIEFNiOEEvmurvmxflKlEPwmm mNE1RYL1pN1XEmGINFER WRLMXFN XAMIIfSIX1XE&EXFTNEEXWX¢0.6XOFNJ11Flm04 LECw: ]3Rm RIIMIFAlY1POEF ORNHSYaTEMI0W14•xNEEF4RM01.PVH& �mCR ON PMIAFA Ipi FMmmMs1[4F IXINYgPECfKK1 0. N .ANNANNNO N1VNE08YmXEMVCIRINSXNLYGNIIDA1m1XNIVG•CFroRq. ." " NF,FILIBXimN,,NS OV(IEI.'N.-YIR XwI..-04131 • 3 Know whaFa b@IOW. Call before you dig X� Y£AROXRtTIW PWErw wmLaaTwNwogMFxmxsgF MINY s, Rwr. wmeulE, mrto MW xG. mun max wmmG EamRra uwnaN,wo wEax wlmlxG RIMExsmxx EXISTING LEGEND PROPOSED LEGEND rNwIIryIIHFAmInmwYINN GMBERNY mX10VRANAilw6 SIORA0.WX Emi&NATCM �I rz=TmmmN G.Gu11¢ RE•malmwEuvR,vn R•RX&XDAVR/Q �T� EOnh4T R'NIXGIIXATMIRERPTG GFG1EpX'GLR6ORll Q GRADING NOTES GENERAL GRADING NOTES IMEN'.D. mX 1M mxxEEiiOEAEIINGSiORM OPux MNI N]IE GR OOFT. A 1RIO1ro116TI 0.m. ON YNrtMYSEWEx TIEmxIRIG1MSXNL COANXIVEIIIFYAN. LD NA GMVENE FVgnOxs. SA ll MREMWN a1LINATEALLdm9160RNOMEORMnIEOMNmNIOTIEFNiOEEvmurvmxflKlEPwmm mNE1RYL1pN1XEmGINFER WRLMXFN XAMIIfSIX1XE&EXFTNEEXWX¢0.6XOFNJ11Flm04 LECw: ]3Rm RIIMIFAlY1POEF ORNHSYaTEMI0W14•xNEEF4RM01.PVH& �mCR ON PMIAFA Ipi FMmmMs1[4F IXINYgPECfKK1 0. N .ANNANNNO N1VNE08YmXEMVCIRINSXNLYGNIIDA1m1XNIVG•CFroRq. ." " R0m W hXGRYLNNMNEAVNM&Fd1.NE,]NEmNML10R&gLL PmNEE iGPEO1l MPRGVm ATIE j F MN.yWLMH0E5EFm0, F911L0QNIP9RO, WRRRm.WOMNMNNm IR111L mWN6E5TIdlGXEOWNIIPFAS$H VNOYMf NNI fORREEG Md M'GPR014RMIIaipX GRADING DETAILS MIE: ANAs 06NNm WR/JIYRFASONPR!ORTOFWLI!@fN[Eb'nIE PPNECi5XNL0EmRRECIFd arTxEmXmAGTaRATxoNMRIX3LL f6iroTxEOVIMR. c mEcwlmuTGRNvmxouruumxmTw..llemanmArlGroREuwnGvammxGlmlmFsrs ± Rm Roverrw wawxoxmEM rIA3NNRNmoI4REmNsoFn&vN.IwuulunmNPuequnxleREreselE, snMI O EW dlf xnIEFm TXEIxkRAUnax IExTTOwPFumg4KRFIMIXIL1gmMNEIE. m TMTON OHNSN`MIII VXOFPLINN. FlOUMW61j TXEf,WIP.IC1p MLL5T fMlTEYWEPRIRh IrtIMmMP.VNAi1FgEMXmROVOREIM'fY WTMIO R REOVESi F:URnm IILW GF V11V11¢ FGVM!ON 734 w ILTMnOx.. wT1X YXmd/Yx.IMRT11 IN ON WINOOOiEalpl 73F Bg VxIE40TNER1Yl5E&IOINN, GOOD OUT OR WWFIm xENM m WITHIN THE IOWA N:N4NLMW qLW 7iG &Wxnl£aEWgI11PERarvmTNLGELI NFF. NPESFXNNG&WLwwRMLDION iNL]flINLSIORMNNJXxIE{yE NFAWPFOiPOMm11@OF 5}wL'iVWAXON6OFNMEOEM SCIIoxi E POL6 N. W1 NMTOw MN XN& REP1 TO wPPoW n E NFIGM OF MEMEXLT VEXlL NOW NL WEIRmOOX F. 1pT%pry i W WXIM IN NG&&RL OX WN mRIN MON OF OWCM 5V0NMB POORT1 F... APPENDIX F O O OB, O � / 1P dBiofiltration Basin North 2P Biofiltration Basin SW Total Proposed (Subcat Reach Aon Link Routing Diagram for Proposed Model Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc, Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCADV 10.00-20 sin 02540 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Proposed Model Prepared by CEI Enqineerinq Associates, Inc Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.532 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (A, B, C, D) 0.006 98 Paved parking, HSG A (D) 0.887 98 Paved parking, HSG D (A, B) 1.425 91 TOTAL AREA Printed 2/19/2018 Proposed Model Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc HvdroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Pipe Listing (all nodes) Printed 2/19/2018 Line# Node In -Invert Out -Invert Length Slope n Diam/Width Height Inside -Fill Number (feet) (feet) (feet) Oft) (inches) (inches) (inches) 1 1 P 946.60 946.40 17.0 0.0118 0.011 8.0 0.0 0.0 2 2P 944.10 943.90 17.0 0.0118 0.011 15.0 0.0 0.0 3 2P 944.80 944.10 137.0 0.0051 0.020 6.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10 00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 4 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: Runoff Area=52.622 sf 61.71% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.95" Tc=3.0 min CN=91 Runoff=4.82 cfs 0.196 of SubcatchmentB: Runoff Area=7,380 sf 83.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.32" Tc=3.0 min CN=95 Runoff=0.77 cfs 0.033 of SubcatchmentC: Runoff Area=1,730 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.15" Flow Length=l5' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=3.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.10 cfs 0.004 of SubcatchmentD: Runoff Area=345 sf 79.71% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.22" Flow Length=15' Slope=0.0100'P Tc=3.0 min CN=94 Runoff=0.04 cfs 0.001 of Reach T: Total Proposed Inflow --0.33 cfs 0.144 of Outflow=0.33 cfs 0.144 of Pond 1 P: Biofiltration Basin North Peak Elev=947.35' Storage=279 cf Inflow=0.77 cfs 0.033 of Discarded=0.00 cfs 0.001 of Primary=0.73 cfs 0.028 of Outflow=0.73 cfs 0.029 of Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Peak Elev=945.59' Storage=6,013 cf Inflow=5.54 cfs 0.224 of Discarded=0.01 cfs 0.021 of Primary=0.30 cfs 0.139 of Outflow=0.31 cfs 0.159 of Total Runoff Area = 1.425 ac Runoff Volume = 0.234 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.97' 37.30% Pervious = 0.532 ac 62.70% Impervious = 0.894 ac Proposed Model Prepared by CEI E MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Associates, Inc Software Summary for Subcatchment A: Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 4.82 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.196 af, Depth= 1.95' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 20,151 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 32,471 98 Paved parking HSG D 52,622 91 Weighted Average 20,151 38.29% Pervious Area 32,471 61.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 3.0 Direct Entry, Proposed Model Prepared by CEI Ei MN-RP8CWD v1_AHas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Associates, Inc LLC Summary for Subcatchment B: Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 0.77 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.033 af, Depth= 2.32" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Area (sf) CN Description 1,205 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,175 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,380 95 Weighted Average 1,205 16.33% Pervious Area 6,175 83.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 3.0 Direct Entry, Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HvdroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pana 7 Summary for Subcatchment C: Runoff = 0.10 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Depth= 1.18' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Area (sf) CN Description 1,730 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1,730 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 15 0.0100 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.87" Proposed Model Prepared by CEI E MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Associates, Inc LLC Summary for Subcatchment D: Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 0.04 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Depth= 2.22" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87' Area (sf) CN Description 70 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 275 98 Paved parking HSG A 345 94 Weighted Average 70 20.29% Pervious Area 275 79.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 3.0 15 0.0100 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.87" Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Reach T: Total Proposed Inflow Area = 1.425 ac, 62.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.21" for 2y 24hr event Inflow = 0.33 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.144 of Outflow = 0.33 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.144 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD®10 00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Pond 1 P: Biofiltration Basin North Inflow Area = 0.169 ac, 83.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.32" for 2y 24hr event Inflow = 0.77 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.033 of Outflow = 0.73 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af, Atten= 6%, Lag= 1.0 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.001 of Primary = 0.73 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.028 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 947.35'@ 12.07 hrs Surf.Area= 317 sf Storage= 279 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 114.7 min calculated for 0.029 of (89% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 64.8 min ( 841.2 - 776.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 1,365 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 946.00 220 76.0 0.0 0 0 220 946.25 220 76.0 40.0 22 22 239 947.00 220 76.0 100.0 165 187 296 948.00 550 110.0 100.0 373 560 808 948.50 3,000 400.0 100.0 806 1,365 12,578 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.60' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 946.60'/ 946.40' S=0.0118? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Device 1 947.00' 24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Discarded 946.00' 0.060 in/hr Exfltratlon over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' #4 Primary 948.00' 2.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.07 hrs HW=947.34' (Free Discharge) t-3=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.72 cfs @ 12.07 hrs HW=947.34' (Free Discharge) Culvert (Passes 0.72 cfs of 1.23 cfs potential flow) t2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.72 cfs @ 2.00 fps) =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Proposed Model Prepared by CEI E HvdroCAD@ 10.00-20 MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr2y S1 2y 24hr Rainfall=2.87" Associates, Inc Summary for Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Printed 2/19/2018 Inflow Area = 1.377 ac, 64.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.95" for 2y 24hr event Inflow = 5.54 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.224 of Outflow = 0.31 cfs @ 13.05 hrs, Volume= 0.159 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 59.8 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 13.05 hrs, Volume= 0.021 of Primary = 0.30 cfs @ 13.05 hrs, Volume= 0.139 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 945.59'@ 13.05 hrs Surf.Area= 4,174 sf Storage= 6,013 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 344.8 min calculated for 0.159 of (71 % of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 265.2 min ( 1,061.4 - 796.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.85' 24,703 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 943.85 3,600 540.0 0.0 0 0 3,600 944.00 3,600 540.0 40.0 216 216 3,681 945.35 3,600 540.0 100.0 4,860 5,076 4,410 946.00 5,243 678.0 100.0 2,857 7,933 17,792 947.00 7,355 725.0 100.0 6,269 14,203 23,086 948.00 14,000 795.0 100.0 10,501 24,703 31,587 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 944.10' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 944.10'/ 943.90' S= 0.0118'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 944.80' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 137.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 944.80'/ 944.10' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.020 Corrugated PE, corrugated interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf #3 Device 1 946.50' 36.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Discarded 943.85' 0.060 in/hr Exfltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 13.05 hrs HW=945.59' (Free Discharge) t4=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.30 cfs @ 13.05 hrs HW=945.59' (Free Discharge) L -Culvert (Passes 0.30 cfs of 6.11 cfs potential flow) 2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.30 cfs @ 1.52 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-20 s/n 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: Runoff Area=52.622 sf 61.71% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.28" Tc=3.0 min CN=91 Runoff=8.07 cfs 0.330 of SubcatchmentB: Runoff Area=7,380 sf 83.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.70" Tc=3.0 min CN=95 Runoff= 1.22 cfs 0.052 of SubcatchmentC: Runoff Area=1,730 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.27" Fiow Length=l5' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=3.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.19 cfs 0.008 of SubcatchmentD: Runoff Area=345 sf 79.71% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.59" Flow Length=15' Slope=0.0100'P Tc=3.0 min CN=94 Runoff=0.06 cfs 0.002 of Reach T: Total Proposed Inflow=0.57 cfs 0.298 of Outflow=0.57 cfs 0.298 of Pond 1 P: Biofiltration Basin North Peak Elev=947.44' Storage=311 cf Inflow=1.22 cfs 0.052 of Discarded=0.00 cfs 0.001 of Primary=1.16 cfs 0.047 of Outflow=1.16 cfs 0.049 of Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Peak Elev=946.53' Storage=10.965 cf Inflow=9.20 cfs 0.377 of Discarded=0.01 cfs 0.023 of Primary=0.43 cfs 0.288 of Outflow=0.44 cfs 0.312 of Total Runoff Area = 1.425 ac Runoff Volume = 0.392 of Average Runoff Depth = 3.30" 37.30% Pervious = 0.532 ac 62.70% Impervious = 0.894 ac Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions Summary for Subcatchment A: Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 8.07 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.330 af, Depth= 3.28" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlasl4 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Area (sf) CN Description 20,151 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 32,471 98 Paved parking, HSG D 52,622 91 Weighted Average 20,151 38.29% Pervious Area 32,471 61.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length 3.0 Capacity Description Direct Entry, Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v 1_Atlas14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD®10 00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Subcatchment B: Runoff = 1.22 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.052 af, Depth= 3.70" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Area (sf) CN Description 1,205 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,175 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,380 95 Weighted Average 1,205 16.33% Pervious Area 6,175 83.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 3.0 Direct Entry, Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v 1_Atlas14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment C: Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.008 af, Depth= 2.27' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Area (sf) CN Description 1,730 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1,730 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 3.0 15 0.0100 Description 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.87" Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD —v1 — At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, IncPrinted 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment D: Runoff = 0.06 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af, Depth= 3.59" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Area (sf) CN Description 70 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 275 98 Paved parking HSG A 345 94 Weighted Average 70 20.29% Pervious Area 275 79.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity fin) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) 3.0 15 0.0100 0.08 Description Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.87" Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v 1_Atlas14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27' Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Reach T: Total Proposed Inflow Area = 1.425 ac, 62.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.51" for 10y 24hr event Inflow = 0.57 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.298 of Outflow = 0.57 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.298 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Proposed Model Prepared by CEI E HvdroCAD@ 10.00-20 MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27" Associates, Inc Summary for Pond 1 P: Biofiltration Basin North Printed 2/19/2018 Inflow Area = 0.169 ac, 83.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.70" for 10y 24hr event Inflow = 1.22 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.052 of Outflow = 1.16 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.049 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 0.9 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.001 of Primary = 1.16 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.047 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 947.44'@ 12.07 hrs Surf.Area= 347 sf Storage= 311 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 72.9 min calculated for 0.049 of (93% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 42.4 min ( 801.0 - 758.7 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 1,365 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 946.00 220 76.0 0.0 0 0 220 946.25 220 76.0 40.0 22 22 239 947.00 220 76.0 100.0 165 187 296 948.00 550 110.0 100.0 373 560 808 948.50 3,000 400.0 100.0 806 1,365 12,578 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.60' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 946.60'/946.40' S= 0.0118'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Device 1 947.00' 24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Discarded 946.00' 0.060 in/hr Exfltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' #4 Primary 948.00' 2.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.07 hrs HW=947.44' (Free Discharge) t-3=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.16 cfs @ 12.07 hrs HW=947.44' (Free Discharge) Culvert (Passes 1.16 cfs of 1.37 cfs potential flow) t2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.16 cfs @ 2.26 fps) =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Proposed Model Prepared by CEI Ei MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr10y S1 10y 24hr Rainfall=4.27" leering Associates, Inc 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Summary for Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Printed 2/19/2018 Inflow Area = 1.377 ac, 64.41 % Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.29" for 10y 24hr event Inflow = 9.20 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.377 of Outflow = 0.44 cfs @ 13.11 hrs, Volume= 0.312 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 63.1 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 13.11 hrs, Volume= 0.023 of Primary = 0.43 cfs @ 13.11 hrs, Volume= 0.288 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 946.53'@ 13.11 hrs Surf.Area= 6,309 sf Storage= 10,965 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 331.2 min calculated for 0.312 of (83% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 280.2 min ( 1,052.7 - 772.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.85' 24,703 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 943.85 3,600 540.0 0.0 0 0 3,600 944.00 3,600 540.0 40.0 216 216 3,681 945.35 3,600 540.0 100.0 4,860 5,076 4,410 946.00 5,243 678.0 100.0 2,857 7,933 17,792 947.00 7,355 725.0 100.0 6,269 14,203 23,086 948.00 14,000 795.0 100.0 10,501 24,703 31,587 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 944.10' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 944.10'/943.90' S=0.0118? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 944.80' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 137.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 944.80'/ 944.10' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.020 Corrugated PE, corrugated interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf #3 Device 1 946.50' 36.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Discarded 943.85' 0.060 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 13.11 hrs HW=946.53' (Free Discharge) L4=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.01 cfs) rimary OutFlow Max=0.42 cfs @ 13.11 hrs HW=946.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.42 cfs of 9.82 cfs potential flow) 2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.42 cfs @ 2.12 fps) L 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.54 fps) Proposed Model Prepared by CEI Ei MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 24-hr1O0y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41 " Associates, Inc D 2017 HvdroCAD Printed 2/19/2018 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: Runoff Area=52.622 sf 61.71% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.34" Tc=3.0 min CN=91 Runoff=13.93 cfs 0.638 of SubcatchmentB: Runoff Area=7,380 sf 83.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.81" Tc=3.0 min CN=95 Runoff=2.02 cfs 0.096 of SubcatchmentC: Runoff Area=1,730 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.07" Flow Length=15' Slope=0.0100'P Tc=3.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.39 cfs 0.017 of SubcatchmentD: Runoff Area=345 sf 79.71% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.70" Flow Length=15' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=3.0 min CN=94 Runoff=0.09 cfs 0.004 of Reach T: Total Proposed Inflow=4.34 cfs 0.660 of Outflow=4.34 cfs 0.660 of Pond 1P: Biofiltration Basin North Peak Elev=947.69' Storage=410 cf Inflow --2.02 cfs 0.096 of Discarded=0.00 cfs 0.001 of Primary=1.68 cfs 0.091 of Outflow=1.68 cfs 0.093 of Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Peak Elev=947.21' Storage=15.909 cf Inflow=15.53 cfs 0.730 of Discarded=0.02 cfs 0.025 of Primary=4.20 cfs 0.639 of Outflow=4.22 cfs 0.664 of Total Runoff Area= 1.425 ac Runoff Volume= 0.756 of Average Runoff Depth= 6.37" 37.30% Pervious = 0.532 ac 62.70% Impervious = 0.894 ac Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v 1_Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @ 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 21 Summary for Subcatchment A: Runoff = 13.93 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.638 af, Depth= 6.34" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 20,151 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 32,471 98 Paved parking HSG D 52,622 91 Weighted Average 20,151 38.29% Pervious Area 32,471 61.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope 3.0 Description Direct Entry, Proposed Model Prepared by CEI E MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Associates, Inc ED 2017 HvdroCAD Summary for Subcatchment B: Printed 2/19/2018 Runoff = 2.02 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.096 af, Depth= 6.81" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 1,205 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,175 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,380 95 Weighted Average 1,205 16.33% Pervious Area 6,175 83.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope 3.0 Description Direct Entry, Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41 " Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Subcatchment C: Runoff = 0.39 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.017 af, Depth= 5.07" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 1,730 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1,730 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 3.0 15 0.0100 Capacity Description 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.87" Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD —v1 — Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, IncPrinted 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment D: Runoff = 0.09 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Depth= 6.70" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 24-hrl00y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 70 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 275 98 Paved parking HSG A 345 94 Weighted Average 70 20.29% Pervious Area 275 79.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 3.0 15 0.0100 Capacity Description 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.87" Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD —v1 — Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, IncPrinted 2/19/2018 Summary for Reach T: Total Proposed Inflow Area = 1.425 ac, 62.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.56" for 100y 24hr event Inflow = 4.34 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.660 of Outflow = 4.34 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.660 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Proposed Model Prepared by CEI E MN-RPBCWD_v1_At1as14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41 " Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Summary for Pond 1 P: Biofiltration Basin North Inflow Area = 0.169 ac, 83.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.81" for 100y 24hr event Inflow = 2.02 cis @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.096 of Outflow = 1.68 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.093 af, Atten= 17%, Lag= 1.7 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.001 of Primary = 1.68 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.091 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 947.69'@ 12.08 hrs Surf.Area= 434 sf Storage= 410 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 43.0 min calculated for 0.093 of (96% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 25.0 min ( 770.6 - 745.6 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 1,365 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 946.00 220 76.0 0.0 0 0 220 946.25 220 76.0 40.0 22 22 239 947.00 220 76.0 100.0 165 187 296 948.00 550 110.0 100.0 373 560 808 948.50 3,000 400.0 100.0 806 1,365 12,578 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.60' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 946.60'/ 946.40' S= 0.0118'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Device 1 947.00' 24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Discarded 946.00' 0.060 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' #4 Primary 948.00' 2.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.08 hrs HW=947.69' (Free Discharge) t3=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Frimary OutFlow Max=1.67 cfs @ 12.08 hrs HW=947.69' (Free Discharge) Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.67cfs @ 4.79 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes 1.67 cfs of 2.74 cfs potential flow) =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Proposed Model MN-RPBCWD -v1 - Atlas14 24-hr100y S1 100y 24hr Rainfall=7.41 " Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, IncPrinted 2/19/2018 HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Summary for Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Inflow Area = 1.377 ac, 64.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.36" for 100y 24hr event Inflow = 15.53 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.730 of Outflow = 4.22 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.664 af, Atten= 73%, Lag= 13.4 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.025 of Primary = 4.20 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.639 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 947.21'@ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 8,599 sf Storage= 15,909 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 206.0 min calculated for 0.664 of (91% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det, time= 176.5 min ( 931.4 - 754.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.85' 24,703 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 943.85 3,600 540.0 0.0 0 0 3,600 944.00 3,600 540.0 40.0 216 216 3,681 945.35 3,600 540.0 100.0 4,860 5,076 4,410 946.00 5,243 678.0 100.0 2,857 7,933 17,792 947.00 7,355 725.0 100.0 6,269 14,203 23,086 948.00 14,000 795.0 100.0 10,501 24,703 31,587 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 944.10' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 944.10'/943.90' S= 0.0118'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 944.80' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 137.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 944.80'/ 944.10' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.020 Corrugated PE, corrugated interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf #3 Device 1 946.50' 36.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Discarded 943.85' 0.060 in/hr ExFiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=947.21' (Free Discharge) t 4=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=4.19 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=947.21' (Free Discharge) t 1=Culvert (Passes 4.19 cfs of 12.03 cfs potential flow) �2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.49 cfs @ 2.47 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.71 cfs @ 2.88 fps) Total Proposed Subcat Reach on ILin OB O � / 1P dBiofiltration Basin North 2P Biofiltratlon Basin SW Routing Diagram for Proposed Model - 10 Day Snowmelt Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc, Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-20 s/n 02540 C 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Proposed Model -10 Day Snowmelt Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.532 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (A, B, C, D) 0.006 98 Paved parking, HSG A (D) 0.887 98 Paved parking, HSG D (A, B) 1.425 91 TOTAL AREA Printed 2/19/2018 Proposed Model - 10 Day Snowmelt Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc HvdroCADa 10.00-20 s/n 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Pipe Listing (all nodes) Printed 2/19/2018 Line# Node In -Invert Out -Invert Length Slope n Diam/Width Height Inside -Fill Number (feet) (feet) (feet) Oft) (inches) (inches) (inches) 1 1 P 946.60 946.40 17.0 0.0118 0.011 8.0 0.0 0.0 2 2P 944.10 943.90 17.0 0.0118 0.011 15.0 0.0 0.0 3 2P 944.80 944.10 137.0 0.0051 0.020 6.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Time span=0.00-240.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 24001 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentA: Runoff Area=52.622 sf 61.71 % Impervious Runoff Depth>6.14" Tc=3.0 min CN=91 Runoff=0.22 cfs 0.618 of SubcatchmentB: Runoff Area=7,380 sf 83.67% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.60" Tc=3.0 min CN=95 Runoff=0.03 cfs 0.093 of SubcatchmentC: Runoff Area=1,730 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.88" Flow Length=15' Slope=0.0100 'P Tc=3.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.01 cfs 0.016 of SubcatchmentD: Runoff Area=345 sf 79.71% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.49" Flow Length=l5' Slope=0.0100'P Tc=3.0 min CN=94 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0.004 of Reach T: Total Proposed Inflow=0.23 cfs 0.530 of Outflow=0.23 cfs 0.530 of Pond 1 P: Biofiltration Basin North Peak EIev=947.07' Storage=203 cf Inflow=0.03 cfs 0.093 of Discarded=0.00 cfs 0.007 of Primary=0.03 cfs 0.082 of Outflow=0.03 cfs 0.089 of Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Peak EIev=945.26' Storage=4,754 cf Inflow=0.25 cfs 0.700 of Discarded=0.01 cfs 0.111 of Primary=0.22 cfs 0.510 of Outflow=0.23 cfs 0.621 of Total Runoff Area = 1.425 ac Runoff Volume = 0.731 of Average Runoff Depth = 6.16" 37.30% Pervious = 0.532 ac 62.70% Impervious = 0.894 ac Proposed MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlasl4 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 — --- — -- —' —.--.— ...--'--,.... .._4..--- e. _:...:---:: r 0--- G Summary for Subcatchment A: Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.618 af, Depth> 6.14" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD v1 Atlasl4 Snowmelt_10d_100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Area (sf) CN Description 20,151 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 32,471 98 Paved parking HSG D 52,622 91 Weighted Average 20,151 38.29% Pervious Area 32,471 61.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length 3.0 Capacity Description Direct Entry, Proposed MN-RPBCWD v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Summary for Subcatchment B: Runoff = 0.03 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.093 af, Depth> 6.60" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 Snowmelt_10d_100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Area (sf) CN Description 1,205 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,175 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,380 95 Weighted Average 1,205 16.33% Pervious Area 6,175 83.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 3.0 Direct Entry, Proposed MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 Hvrirn(-Anm 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment C: Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af, Depth> 4.88" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 Snowmelt_10d_100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Area (sf) CN Description 1,730 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1,730 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope fin) (feet) (ft/ft) 3.0 15 0.0100 Description 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.87" Proposed MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC ponc A Summary for Subcatchment D: Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Depth> 6.49" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-RPBCWD_v1—Atlas 14 Snowmelt_10d_100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Area (sf) CN Description 70 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 275 98 Paved parking HSG A 345 94 Weighted Average 70 20.29% Pervious Area 275 79.71 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 3.0 15 0.0100 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" Proposed MN-RPBCWD_v 1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc HvrimCAnR in n0-20 s/n 02540 © 2017 HvdroCAD Software Solutions 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" LLC Summary for Reach T: Total Proposed Printed 2/19/2018 Inflow Area = 1.425 ac, 62.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.46" for 10 -Day Snowmelt event Inflow = 0.23 ds @ 121.84 hrs, Volume= 0.530 of Outflow = 0.23 cis @ 121.84 hrs, Volume= 0.530 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Proposed MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlas14 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 HvdroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 02540 @ 2017 HvdrnCAD Snftwarp Snhitinnc I I C Dom.. 1n Summary for Pond 1P: Biofiltration Basin North Inflow Area = 0.169 ac, 83.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.60" for 10 -Day Snowmelt event Inflow = 0.03 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.093 of Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 121.26 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 2.5 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 121.26 hrs, Volume= 0.007 of Primary = 0.03 cfs @ 121.26 hrs, Volume= 0.082 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 947.07'@ 121.26 hrs Surf.Area= 238 sf Storage= 203 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 585.9 min calculated for 0.089 of (95% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 284.3 min ( 7,888.6 - 7,604.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 1,365 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 946.00 220 76.0 0.0 0 0 220 946.25 220 76.0 40.0 22 22 239 947.00 220 76.0 100.0 165 187 296 948.00 550 110.0 100.0 373 560 808 948.50 3,000 400.0 100.0 806 1,365 12,578 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.60' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 946.60'/946.40' S= 0.0118'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Device 1 947.00' 24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Discarded 946.00' 0.060 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' #4 Primary 948.00' 2.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 121.26 hrs HW=947.07' (Free Discharge) t3=Exfltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 121.26 hrs HW=947.07' (Free Discharge) Culvert (Passes 0.03 cfs of 0.64 cfs potential flow) 2=0rifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.03 cfs @ 0.89 fps) =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Proposed MN-RPBCWD_v1_Atlasl4 Snowmelt 10d 100yr 10 -Day Snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" Prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc Printed 2/19/2018 M --- AI Summary for Pond 2P: Biofiltration Basin SW Inflow Area = 1.377 ac, 64,41% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.10" for 10 -Day Snowmelt event Inflow = 0.25 cfs @ 121.22 hrs, Volume= 0.700 of Outflow = 0.23 cfs @ 121.88 hrs, Volume= 0.621 af, Atten= 10%, Lag= 39.6 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 121.88 hrs, Volume= 0.111 of Primary = 0.22 cfs @ 121.88 hrs, Volume= 0.510 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-240.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 945.26'@ 121.88 hrs Surf.Area= 3,600 sf Storage= 4,754 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 1,248.2 min calculated for 0.621 of (89% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 592.9 min ( 8,448.9 - 7,856.0 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 943.85' 24,703 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (feet) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 943.85 3,600 540.0 0.0 0 0 3,600 944.00 3,600 540.0 40.0 216 216 3,681 945.35 3,600 540.0 100.0 4,860 5,076 4,410 946.00 5,243 678.0 100.0 2,857 7,933 17,792 947.00 7,355 725.0 100.0 6,269 14,203 23,086 948.00 14,000 795.0 100.0 10,501 24,703 31,587 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 944.10' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 17.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 944.10'/ 943.90' S= 0.0118'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 944.80' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 137.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 944.80'/944.10' S= 0.0051 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.020 Corrugated PE, corrugated interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf #3 Device 1 946.50' 36.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Discarded 943.85' 0.060 in/hr Exfltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 940.00' Discarded OutFiow, Max=0.01 cfs @ 121.88 hrs HW=945.26' (Free Discharge) t4=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.22 cfs @ 121.88 hrs HW=945.26' (Free Discharge) Culvert (Passes 0.22 cfs of 4.45 cfs potential flow) 2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.22 cfs @ 1.53 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) APPENDIX G Project Information Calculator Version: Project Name: User Name / Company Name: Date: Project Description: Construction Permit? Site Information Retention Requirement (inches): Site's Zip Code: Annual Rainfall (inches): Phosphorus EMC (mg/I): TSS EMC (mg/1): Total Site Area Version 3: January 2017 Chanhassen, MN Panera Panera, LLC 2-19-18 Panera, LLC is looking to construct a +/- 4,486 SF buil with drive-thru and sufficient parking to meet code. Yes t 055 55317 29.9 0.3 54.5 Land Cover A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Total (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Forest/Open Space - Undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land 0 Managed Turf - disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed 0.49 0.49 Impervious Area (acres) 0.93 Total Area (acres) 1.42 Site Areas Routed to BMPs Land Cover A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Total (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Forest/Open Space - Undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land 0 Managed Turf - disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed 0.47 0.47 Impervious Area (acres) 0.93 Total Area (acres) 1.4 Summary Information Performance Goal Requirement Performance goal volume retention requirement: 1857 ft3 Volume removed by BMPs towards performance goal: 1857 ft3 Percent volume removed towards performance goal 100 % Annual Volume and Pollutant Load Reductions Post development annual runoff volume 2.256 acre -ft Annual runoff volume removed by BMPs: 0.6793 acre -ft Percent annual runoff volume removed: 30 % Post development annual particulate P load: 1.012 lbs Annual particulate P removed by BMPs: 0.88 lbs Post development annual dissolved P load: 0.828 lbs Annual dissolved P removed by BMPs: 0.326 lbs Percent annual total phosphorus removed: 66 % Post development annual TSS load: 334.4 lbs Annual TSS removed by BMPs: 246.5 lbs Percent annual TSS removed: 74 % BMP Summary BMP Name BMP Volume Volume Capacity Recieved (ft3) (ft3) Volume Retained (ft3) Volume Outflow (ft3) Percen Retained 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1803 1732 1732 0 100 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 125 280 125 155 45 Safl Baffle w/sump 3 0 0 0 0 U U Particulate Phosphorus Summary Volume Volume From Volume Volume Percent BMP Name From Direct Upstream Retained outflow Retained Watershed BMPs (acre -ft) (acre -ft) M (acre -ft) (acre -ft) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1.9297 0.2594 0.6236 1.5655 28 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 0.3151 1 0 0.0557 0.2594 18 Safl Baffle w/sump 0 1.5654 0 1.5654 0 <J U Particulate Phosphorus Summary Dissolved Phosphorus Summery Load From Load From BMP Name Direct Upstream Load Outflow Retained Load Percen Outflow Load Watershed BMPs Obs) (lbs) Retained (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 0.866 0.0233 0.7621 0.1272 86 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1 0.1414 0 1 0.1181 0.0233 84 Safl Baffle w/sump 0 0.1272 0 0.1272 0 24 Dissolved Phosphorus Summery TSS Summary Load From Load From BMP Name Direct Upstream Load Retained Outflow Load Percen Watershed BMPs (lbs) (lbs) Retained (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 0.7086 0.088 0.2987 0.4979 37 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1 0.1157 0 1 0.0277 1 0.088 24 Safl Baffle w/sump 1 0 0.4979 1 0 1 0.4979 0 4 .I TSS Summary BMP Schematic Load From Load From BMP Name Direct Upstream Load Retained Outflow Load Percen Watershed BMP) Retained (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 286.05 15.38 215.21 86.22 71 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1 46.71 1 0 1 31.33 1 15.38 67 Safl Baffle w/sump 0 86.22 0 86.22 0 4 .I BMP Schematic 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdmin) Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1-1 Other Safi Baffle w/sump Project Information Calculator Version: Project Name: User Name / Company Name: Date: Project Description: Construction Permit? Site Information Retention Requirement (inches): Site's Zip Code: Annual Rainfall (inches): Phosphorus EMC (mg/1): TSS EMC (mg/q: Total Site Area Version 3: January 2017 Chanhassen, MN Panera Panera, LLC 2-19-18 Panera, LLC is looking to construct a +/- 4,486 SF buil with drive-thru and sufficient parking to meet code. Yes 1.1 55317 29.9 0.3 54.5 Land Cover A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Total (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Forest/Open Space - Undisturbed, protected 0 forest/open space or reforested land Managed Turf - disturbed, graded for yards or 0.49 0.49 other turf to be mowed/managed Impervious Area (acres) 0.93 Total Area (acres) 1.42 Site Areas Routed to BMPs Land Cover A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Total (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Forest/Open Space - Undisturbed, protected 0 forest/open space or reforested land Managed Turf - disturbed, graded for yards or 0.47 0.47 other turf to be mowed/managed Impervious Area (acres) 0.93 Total Area (acres) 1.4 Summary Information Performance Goal Requirement Performance goal volume retention requirement: 3713 ft3 Volume removed by BMPs towards performance goal: 1931 W Percent volume removed towards performance goal 52 % Annual Volume and Pollutant Load Reductions Post development annual runoff volume 2.256 acre -ft Annual runoff volume removed by BMPs: 0.6691 acre -ft Percent annual runoff volume removed: 30 % Post development annual particulate P load: 1.012 lbs Annual particulate P removed by BMPs: 0.963 lbs Post development annual dissolved P load: 0.828 lbs Annual dissolved P removed by BMPs: 0.323 lbs Percent annual total phosphorus removed: 70 % Post development annual TSS load: 334A lbs Annual TSS removed by BMPs: 324.1 lbs Percent annual TSS removed: 97 % BMP Summary e..�i......�...e G..�I G.mmer.. BMP Name BMP Volume Capacity (ft3) Volume Recieved (ft3) Volume Retained (ft3) Volume Outflow (ft3) Percen Retained 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1803 3589 1803 1786 50 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 125 559 125 434 22 Safl Baffle w/sump 3 1786 3 1783 0 U (acre -ft) (acre -ft) U e......al Vnl..ma f4.mmary Particulate Phosphorus Summary Volume Volume From Volume Volume Percent BMP Name From Direct Upstream Retained outflow Retained Watershed BMPs (acre -ft) (acre -ft) (%) (acre -ft) (acre -ft) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1.9297 0.2594 0.6134 1.5757 28 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 0.3151 0 0.0557 0.2594 18 Safl Baffle w/sump 0 1.5757 0 1.5757 0 U Particulate Phosphorus Summary Dissolved Phosphorus Summary Load From Load From Load Outflow BMP Name Direct Upstream Retained Load Percen Retained Watershed BMPs Retained BMPs (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 0.866 0.0233 0.7613 0.128 86 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1 0.1414 1 0 1 0.1181 1 0.0233 84 Safl Baffle w/sump 0 0.128 0.0832 0.0448 65 1 Dissolved Phosphorus Summary TSS Summary Load From Load From Load Outflow BMP Name Direct Upstream Retained Load Percen Watershed BMPs Retained (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 0.7086 0.088 0.2955 0.5011 37 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1 0.1157 0 0.0277 0.088 24 Safl Baffle w/sump 0 0.5011 0 0.5011 0 J U TSS Summary BMP Schematic Load From Load From Load Outflow BMP Name Direct Upstream Retained Load Percen Watershed BMPs Retained (lbs) (lb s) (lbs) (lbs) 1 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 286.05 15.38 214.64 86.79 71 2 - Bioretention basin (with underdrain) 1 46.71 1 0 1 31.33 1 15.38 67 Safl Baffle w/sump 0 1 86.79 1 78.11 18.68000000001 90 tj BMP Schematic 2 - Biomtention basin (with underdrain) 1 - Biondmtion basin (with underdrain) Other Safi Baffle w/sump APPENDIX H Geotechnical Evaluation Report Chanhassen Restaurant Development 531 West 791h Street Chanhassen, Minnesota Preparedfor CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Professional Certification: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Daniel 8. M a { (LICENSED Associate Principal — Principal EngineeE PROFUSION License Number: 42729 = ENGINEER June 22, 2017Nj ti 42729 Project 81702295 Braun Intertec Corporation BRAUN Braun Intertec Corporation Phone: 952.995.2000 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Fax: 952.995.2020 INTERTECMinneapolis, MN 55438 Web: braunintertec.com The Science You Build On. June 22, 2017 Mr. Alan Catchpool CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. 2025 Centre Pointe Blvd Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Chanhassen Restaurant Development 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Catchpool: Project B1702295 We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the Chanhassen Restaurant Development site. Thank you for making Braun Intertec your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have questions about this report, or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please contact Richard Fritz at 651.487.7079 (rfritz@braunintertec.com) Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Richard J. Fr tz, EIT Staff Engineer s Daniel B. Mahrt, PE Associate Principal — Principal Engineer Table of Contents Description Page A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 A.1. Project Description..............................................................................................................1 A.2. Site Conditions and History .................................................................................................2 A.3. Purpose................................................................................................................................2 A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents..........................................................3 A.S. Scope of Services.................................................................................................................3 B. Results ..............................................................................................................................................4 B.1. Geologic Overview..............................................................................................................4 B.2. Boring Results......................................................................................................................5 B.3. Groundwater.......................................................................................................................5 B.4. Laboratory Test Results.......................................................................................................6 C. Recommendations...........................................................................................................................6 C.I. Design and Construction Discussion...................................................................................6 C.l.a. Building Support .....................................................................................................6 C.1.b. Reuse of On-site Soils.............................................................................................7 C.l.c. Groundwater..........................................................................................................7 C.l.d. Construction Disturbance.......................................................................................7 C.1.e. Pavement...............................................................................................................7 C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation..............................................................................8 C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations...............................................................................8 C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing.............................................................................................9 C.2.c. Excavated Slopes....................................................................................................9 C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering.........................................................................................10 C.2.e. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation.............................................10 C.2.f. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll..............................................................................11 C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction..........................................................11 C.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils...................................................................................12 C.3. Spread Footings.................................................................................................................13 C.4. Interior Slabs.....................................................................................................................13 C.4.a. Subgrade Modulus...............................................................................................13 C.4.b. Moisture Vapor Protection..................................................................................14 C.S. Frost Protection.................................................................................................................14 C.S.a. General.................................................................................................................14 C.S.b. Frost Heave Mitigation.........................................................................................14 C.6. Pavements and Exterior Slabs...........................................................................................16 C.6.a. Design Sections....................................................................................................16 C.6.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials..........................................................................16 C.6.c. Subgrade Drainage...............................................................................................16 C.6.d. Performance and Maintenance...........................................................................17 C.7. Utilities..............................................................................................................................17 C.7.a. Subgrade Stabilization..........................................................................................17 C.7.b. Corrosion Potential..............................................................................................18 C.S. Stormwater........................................................................................................................18 C.9. Equipment Support ...........................................................................................................19 D. Procedures......................................................................................................................................19 BRAUN INTERTEC Table of Contents (continued) Description Page D.1. Penetration Test Borings...................................................................................................19 D.2. Exploration Logs................................................................................................................19 D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets.............................................................................................19 D.2.b. Organic Vapor Measurements.............................................................................20 D.2.c. Geologic Origins...................................................................................................20 D.3. Material Classification and Testing...................................................................................20 D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification..........................................................................20 D.3.b. Laboratory Testing...............................................................................................20 D.4. Groundwater Measurements............................................................................................21 E. Qualifications..................................................................................................................................21 E.I. Variations in Subsurface Conditions..................................................................................21 E.1.a. Material Strata.....................................................................................................21 E.1.b. Groundwater Levels.............................................................................................21 E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility..........................................................................22 E.2.a. Plan Review..........................................................................................................22 E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing...............................................................22 E.3. Use of Report .....................................................................................................................22 E.4. Standard of Care................................................................................................................22 Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets ST -1 to ST -6 Descriptive Terminology of Soil BRAUN INTERTEC A. Introduction A.1. Project Description This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the design and construction of a proposed fast food restaurant located at 531 West 79th Street in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The project will include the construction of a new single -story steel framed restaurant along with the associated parking lots and stormwater systems. Tables 1 and 2 provide project details. Table 2. Building Description Aspect Description Below grade levels None (Assumed) Above grade levels One (Provided) Lowest level floor elevation 950 (Assumed) Column loads (kips) 75 (Assumed) Wall loads (kips/foot) 5 (Assumed) Nature of construction Steel Framed (Assumed) Cuts or fills for buildings Less than 2 feet (Assumed) Tolerable building settlement One Inch (Assumed) Table 2. Site Aspects and Grading Description Aspect Description Pavement type(s) Bituminous Assumed Pavement loads Light-duty: 50,000 ESALs* Heavy-duty: 100,000 ESALs* Grade changes Less than 2 feet (Assumed) *Equivalent 18,000 -Ib single axle loads based on 20 -year design. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 2 A.2. Site Conditions and History Currently, the site exists as the Chanhassen Inn, a 2 -story slab on grade hotel. Based on the historical imagery in the Phase 1 ESA the site was undeveloped until the hotel was constructed in the early 1980's. Current grades on the site are relatively flat ranging from 948 to 950. Photograph 1. Aerial Photograph of the Site in 2016 Photograph provided by Google Earth. A.3. Purpose The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation was to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of the proposed fastfood restaurant. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 3 A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents We reviewed the following information: • Preliminary Site Layout provided by CEI. • Previous geotechnical report prepared by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. and dated February 3, 2016 for the adjacent site. • Communications with Alan Catchpool of CEI regarding general information about the proposed construction. • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Braun Intertec and dated April 6, 2017. In addition to the provided sources, we have used several publicly available sources of information including: • Surficial Geologic Atlas of Carver County, Minnesota. • Aerial Imagery of the site available through Google Earth. • Ground surface elevations collected via LiDAR technology by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. A.S. Scope of Services We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal for a Geotechnical Evaluation to CEI Engineering Associates, Inc., dated March 3, 2016, and authorized on April 17, 2017. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services. • Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited. BRAUN I NTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 4 Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. We acquired the surface elevations and locations with GPS technology using the State of Minnesota's permanent GPS base station network. The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the borings. Performing six standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST -1 to ST -6, to nominal depths of 15 to 25 feet below grade across the site. Due to environmental sampling requirements, ST -6 was drilled to 40 feet. • Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis. • Perform engineering analysis including bearing capacity and settlement analysis. • Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for structure and pavement subgrade preparation and the design of foundations, floor slabs, exterior slabs, utilities, stormwater improvements and pavements. Our authorized scope of services for the project also included a Phase 1 and Phase II ESA. We submitted these reports separately. B. Results 13.1. Geologic Overview The Carver county geologic atlas indicates that the site is likely underlain with clayey glacial till soils. We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site. BRAUN I NTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 5 B.2. Boring Results Table 3 provides a summary of the soil boring results, in the general order we encountered the strata. Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive Terminology sheets in the Appendix include definitions of abbreviations used in Table 3. Table 3. Subsurface Profile Summary" *Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheets. For simplicity in this report, we define existing fill to mean existing, uncontrolled or undocumented fill. B.3. Groundwater Table 4 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix also include this information and additional details. Water was not observed in all borings while drilling. Groundwater may take days or longer to reach equilibrium in the boreholes and we immediately backfilled the boreholes, in accordance with our scope of work. Water observed in ST -6 was observed in a temporary well 24 hours after drilling, it is likely that the groundwater elevation across the site is close to that observed in ST -6. BRAUN INTERTEC Soil Type - ASTM Range of Penetration Strata Classification Resistances Commentary and Details • Overall thickness ranges from 81/2 to 12 inches. Pavement Bituminous thickness 3 to 4 inches. section Aggregate base is 5 to 8 inches. • Dark brown to black. Topsoil fill CL NA Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 1.3 to 4 feet. • Generally moist to wet. Fill CL 3 to 7 BPF Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 1 to 4 feet. • General penetration resistance of 9 to 11 BPF. Glacial Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles deposits CL 4 to 20 BPF and boulders. • Generally moist to wet. *Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheets. For simplicity in this report, we define existing fill to mean existing, uncontrolled or undocumented fill. B.3. Groundwater Table 4 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix also include this information and additional details. Water was not observed in all borings while drilling. Groundwater may take days or longer to reach equilibrium in the boreholes and we immediately backfilled the boreholes, in accordance with our scope of work. Water observed in ST -6 was observed in a temporary well 24 hours after drilling, it is likely that the groundwater elevation across the site is close to that observed in ST -6. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 6 Table 4. Groundwater Summary Location Surface Elevation Measured or Estimated Depth to Groundwater (ft) Corresponding Groundwater Elevation (ft) 5T-1 948.5 NA* ST -2 947.8 NA* — ST -3 948.9 20 928.9 ST -4 948.0 NA* — ST -5 947.6 NA* -- ST-6 948.3 4.5** 943.8 *Water not observed while drilling. **Water Observed in Temporary well 24 hours after drilling. BA Laboratory Test Results The boring logs show the results of laboratory testing we performed, next to the tested sample depth. The moisture content of the sandy clay varied from approximately 18 to 27 percent, indicating that the material was likely wet of its probable optimum moisture content. Liquid limits determined for the glacial till ranged from 28 to 32; plastic limits ranged from 16 to 18. These results indicate that the glacial till is lean clay. C. Recommendations C.1. Design and Construction Discussion C.1.a. Building Support Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and evaluation, spread footing foundations bearing on the native soils can support the proposed structure, after performing typical subgrade preparation. Typical subgrade preparation includes removing existing fill, topsoil or organic soils, structures and any soft clays directly below the footings. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 7 This will typically require an excavation of about 4 feet below grade to remove the existing fill. Additional subexcavation or stabilization will likely be needed below that level to stabilize excavation bottoms. C.l.b. Reuse of On-site Soils The soils on this site consist primarily of wet clay soils. While those materials can be reused as fill, they will typically require significant drying, which can add considerable time and cost to the construction process. Contractors should be prepared to either dry the on-site soils or import suitable materials to use for fill. This may require the excavated on-site wet clay materials to be exported. C.l.c. Groundwater Based on the depth of groundwater it is likely that water will be encountered in excavations extending deeper than 4 feet. If water enters an excavation it should be removed. Sumps and pumps can be considered for the removal of groundwater in cohesive materials such as clays. C.1.d. Construction Disturbance The contractor should note the on-site, silty and clayey soils are highly susceptible to disturbance due to repeated construction traffic. Disturbance of these soils may cause areas that were previously prepared, or that were suitable for pavement or structure support, to become unstable and require moisture conditioning and compaction. Subcutting and replacing the disturbed material with crushed, coarse gravel, free of fines is also an alternative. The contractor should use means and methods to limit disturbance of the soils. C.i.e. Pavement The paved areas of the site were previously parking lots and we understand the current project plan includes only minor grade changes. Limited correction and surface compaction of the subgrade is an acceptable approach provided the subgrade passes a proofroll. Areas of the pavement that currently exhibit distress would likely require subcuts that are more extensive. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 8 C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations We recommend removing unsuitable materials from below the proposed building footings and their one to one oversizing area. We define unsuitable materials as existing fill, frozen materials, organic soils, existing structures, existing utilities, vegetation, and soft clay soils. Table 5 shows the anticipated excavation depths and bottom elevations for each of the borings. Table S. Building Excavation Depths Location Approximate Surface Elevation (ft) Anticipated Excavation Depth (ft) Anticipated Bottom Elevation (ft) Anticipated Depth Below Floor (ft) ST -1 948.5 4 9441/2 51/2 ST -2 947.8 4-7* 940 X - 943 1/2 6%-91/2 ST -3 948.9 4-7* 941 % - 9441/2 5%_8% ST -4 948.0 1 1 1 947 3 *Soft, wet clay soils are present below the fill in these locations. Additional subexcavation or stabilization with crushed stone should be expected at these locations. Excavation depths will vary between the borings. Portions of the excavations may also extend deeper than indicated by the borings. A geotechnical representative should observe the excavations to make the necessary field judgments regarding the suitability of the exposed soils. The contractor should use equipment and techniques to minimize soil disturbance. The soils on this site are wet and will be easily disturbed by construction equipment. We recommend that remote excavation equipment equipped with a smooth-edged bucket be used to excavate below depths of about 3 feet. We recommend placing a minimum of 6 inches of sand or gravel stabilization layer (as defined in Section C.2.g) in the base of footing excavations to reduce disturbance of the bearing soils, and allow placement of footing forms and reinforcing. If seepage into the footings is encountered this sand and gravel layer may need to be increased to 1 foot thick, and sumps should be installed at periodic intervals in the footing excavations to allow removal of water. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 9 C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation extend outward and downward at a slope of 1HAV (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. See Figure 1 for an illustration of excavation oversizing. Figure 1. Generalized Illustration of Oversizing 1. Engineered fill as defined in C.3 2. Excavation oversizing minimum of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope or flatter 3. Engineered fill as required to meet pavement support or landscaping requirements as defined in C.3 4. Backslope to OSHA requirements EXCAVATION - L� BACKSLOPE I \ I \ \ O\\O 4 1 \ EXISTING \ SOILS SUITABLE EXCAVATION BOTTOM --- AS DETERMINED IN THE FIELD EXCAVATION OVERSIZING SKETCH NOT TO SCALE C.2.c. Excavated Slopes Based on the borings, we anticipate on-site soils in excavations will consist of lean clay soils. These soils are typically considered Type C Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines. OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type C soils should have a gradient no steeper than 1 %HAV. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. OSHA requires an engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 30 An OSHA -approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, "Excavations and Trenches." This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements. C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering We recommend removing groundwater from the excavations. Project planning should include temporary sumps and pumps for excavations in low -permeability soils, such as clays. We anticipate that excavations deeper than about 4 feet will encounter seepage and will require dewatering. C.2.e. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation We recommend the following steps for pavement and exterior slab subgrade preparation, understanding the site will have a grade change of 2 feet or less. Note that project planning may need to require additional subcuts to limit frost heave. 1. Strip unsuitable soils consisting of topsoil, organic soils, peat, vegetation, existing structures and pavements from the area, within 3 feet of the surface of the proposed pavement grade. 2. Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional subgrade improvements are necessary. 3. Slope subgrade soils to areas of sand or drain tile to allow the removal of accumulating water. 4. Scarify, moisture condition and compact the subgrade to at least 100 percent of Standard Proctor density. S. Place pavement engineered fill to grade and compact in accordance with Section C.2.g to bottom of pavement and exterior slab section. See Section C.5 for additional considerations related to frost heave. 6. Proofroll the pavement or exterior slab subgrade as described in Section C.2.f. As an option, to improve long-term pavement performance, we recommend incorporating 12 to 18 inches of free draining engineered fill in paved areas, in addition to the recommendations above, as a sand subbase. Note, we recommend sloping subgrade soils to promote drainage and removal of accumulated water. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B17O2295 June 22, 2017 Page 11 C.2.f. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll After preparing the subgrade as described above and prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we recommend proofrolling the subgrade soils with a fully loaded tandem -axle truck. We also recommend having a geotechnical representative observe the proofroll. Areas that fail the proofroll likely indicate soft or weak areas that will require additional soil correction work to support pavements. The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include moisture conditioning and recompaction, subcutting and replacement with soil or crushed aggregate, chemical stabilization and/or geotextiles. We recommend performing a second proofroll after the aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous or concrete pavement. C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction Table 6 below contains our recommendations for engineered fill materials. Table 6. Engineered Fill Materials* *Engineered fill materials should satisfy the approved Response Action Plan (RAP), or applicable environmental requirements. * More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in periods of wet or freezing weather. Please note that a sand or gravel stabilization layer will be required over soft or wet clays as noted in Table 6. BRAUN INTERTEC Engineered Fill Possible Soil Type Additional Locations To Be Used Classification Descriptions Gradation Requirements • Below foundations<2%Organic Structural fill SP, SM, CL 100% passing 2 -inch sieve Content (OC) • Below interior slabs • Drainage layer • Non -frost- • Free -draining 100% passing 1 -inch sieve susceptible •Non -frost- GP, GW, SP, SW < 50% passing #40 sieve <2%OC • Stabilization layer susceptible fill < 5% passing #200 sieve over soft/wet clays. < 2% OC Pavements Pavement fill SP, SM, SC, CL 100% passing 3 -inch sieve PI < 15% Below landscaped surfaces, where Non-structural fill SP, SM, SC, CL 100% passing 6 -inch sieve < 10% OC subsidence is not a concern *Engineered fill materials should satisfy the approved Response Action Plan (RAP), or applicable environmental requirements. * More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in periods of wet or freezing weather. Please note that a sand or gravel stabilization layer will be required over soft or wet clays as noted in Table 6. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 12 We recommend spreading engineered fill in loose lifts of approximately 8 inches thick. We recommend compacting engineered fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 7. The project documents should specify relative compaction of engineered fill, based on the structure located above the engineered fill, and vertical proximity to that structure. Table 7. Compaction Recommendations Summary 'Increase compaction requirement to meet compaction required for structure supported by this engineered fill. The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as engineered fill or to place engineered fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during construction. We recommend performing density tests in engineered fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively compacting the soil and meeting project requirements. C.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils We recommend including the site grading and placement of engineered fill within the building pad under the requirements of Special Inspections, as provided in Chapter 17 of the International Building Code, which is part of the Minnesota State Building Code. Special Inspection requires observation of soil conditions below engineered fill or footings, evaluations to determine if excavations extend to the anticipated soils, and if engineered fill materials meet requirements for type of engineered fill and compaction condition of engineered fill. A licensed geotechnical engineer should direct the Special Inspections of site grading and engineered fill placement. BRAUN INTERTEC Relative Moisture Content Variance from Optimum, Compaction, percent percentage points < 12% Passing #200 Sieve > 12% Passing #200 Sieve (ASTM D698 — Reference Standard Proctor) (typically SP, SP -SM) (typically CL, SC, ML, SM) Below foundations and oversizing zones 98 ±3 -1 to +3 Below interior slabs 98 ±3 -1 to +3 Within 3 feet of pavement subgrade 100 ±3 -1 to+3 More than 3 feet below pavement subgrade 95 ±3 ±3 Below landscaped surfaces 90 ±5 ±4 'Increase compaction requirement to meet compaction required for structure supported by this engineered fill. The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as engineered fill or to place engineered fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during construction. We recommend performing density tests in engineered fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively compacting the soil and meeting project requirements. C.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils We recommend including the site grading and placement of engineered fill within the building pad under the requirements of Special Inspections, as provided in Chapter 17 of the International Building Code, which is part of the Minnesota State Building Code. Special Inspection requires observation of soil conditions below engineered fill or footings, evaluations to determine if excavations extend to the anticipated soils, and if engineered fill materials meet requirements for type of engineered fill and compaction condition of engineered fill. A licensed geotechnical engineer should direct the Special Inspections of site grading and engineered fill placement. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 13 The purpose of these Special Inspections is to evaluate whether the work is in accordance with the approved Geotechnical Report for the project. Special Inspections should include evaluation of the subgrade, observing preparation of the subgrade (surface compaction or dewatering, excavation oversizing, placement procedures and materials used for engineered fill, etc.) and compaction testing of the engineered fill. C.3. Spread Footings Table 8 below contains our recommended parameters for foundation design. Table 8. Recommended Spread Footing Design Parameters Item Description Maximum net allowable bearing pressure (psf) 2000 Minimum factor of safety for bearing capacity failure 3.0 Minimum width (inches) 24 (Continuous footings) 36 (Isolated footings) Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for heated structures (inches) 42 Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for unheated structures or for footings not protected from freezing temperatures during construction (inches) 60 Total estimated settlement (inches) Less than 1 inch Differential settlement Typically about 2/3 of total settlement' ' Actual differential settlement amounts will depend on final loads and foundation layout. When tying into the existing buildings, the total settlement of this new building will be differential to the existing building. We can evaluate differential settlement based on final foundation plans and loadings. CA. Interior Slabs C.4.a. Subgrade Modulus The anticipated floor subgrade is lean clay fill soils. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci) to design the slabs. BRAUN I NTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 14 If the slab design requires placing 6 inches of compacted crushed aggregate base immediately below the slab, the slab design may increase the k -value by 50 pci. We recommend that the aggregate base materials be free of bituminous. In addition to improving the modulus of subgrade reaction, an aggregate base facilitates construction activities and is less weather sensitive. C.4.1b. Moisture Vapor Protection Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. If project planning includes using floor coverings or coatings, we recommend placing a vapor retarder or vapor barrier immediately beneath the slab. We also recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances. C.S. Frost Protection C.S.a. General Lean clay will underlie all or some of the exterior slabs, as well as pavements. We consider lean clay moderately to highly frost susceptible. Soils of this type can retain moisture and heave upon freezing. In general, this characteristic is not an issue unless these soils become saturated, due to surface runoff or infiltration, or are excessively wet in situ. Once frozen, unfavorable amounts of general and isolated heaving of the soils and the surface structures supported on them could develop. This type of heaving could affect design drainage patterns and the performance of exterior slabs and pavements, as well as any isolated exterior footings and piers. Note that general runoff and infiltration from precipitation are not the only sources of water that can saturate subgrade soils and contribute to frost heave. Roof drainage and irrigation of landscaped areas in close proximity to exterior slabs, pavements, and isolated footings and piers, contribute as well. C.S.b. Frost Heave Mitigation To address most of the heave related issues, we recommend setting general site grades and grades for exterior surface features to direct surface drainage away from buildings, across large paved areas and away from walkways. Such grading will limit the potential for saturation of the subgrade and subsequent heaving. General grades should also have enough "slope' to tolerate potential larger areas of heave, which may not fully settle after thawing. BRAUN I NTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 15 Even small amounts of frost -related differential movement at walkway joints or cracks can create tripping hazards. Project planning can explore several subgrade improvement options to address this condition. One of the more conservative subgrade improvement options to mitigate potential heave is removing any frost -susceptible soils present below the exterior slab areas down to a minimum depth of 5 feet below subgrade elevations. We recommend filling the resulting excavation with non -frost -susceptible fill. We also recommend sloping the bottom of the excavation toward one or more collection points to remove any water entering the engineered fill. This approach will not be effective in controlling frost heave without removing the water. An important geometric aspect of the excavation and replacement approach described above is sloping the banks of the excavations to create a more gradual transition between the unexcavated soils considered frost susceptible and the engineered fill in the excavated area, which is not frost susceptible. The slope allows attenuation of differential movement that may occur along the excavation boundary. We recommend slopes that are 3H:1V, or flatter, along transitions between frost -susceptible and non - frost -susceptible soils. Figure 2 shows an illustration summarizing some of the recommendations. Figure 2. Frost Protection Geometry Illustration OR SLAB SLOPE TO DRAIN TILE WHERE SUBGRADE WOULD COLLECT WATER DRAIN TILE ROUTED TO SUITABLE DISPOSAL SITE WHEN SUBGRADE WOULD COLLECT WATER BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 16 Another option is to limit frost heave in critical areas, such as doorways and entrances, via frost -depth footings or localized excavations with sloped transitions between frost -susceptible and non -frost - susceptible soils, as described above. Over the life of slabs and pavements, cracks will develop and joints will open up, which will expose the subgrade and allow water to enter from the surface and either saturate or perch atop the subgrade soils. This water intrusion increases the potential for frost heave or moisture -related distress near the crack or joint. Therefore, we recommend implementing a detailed maintenance program to seal and/or fill any cracks and joints. The maintenance program should give special attention to areas where dissimilar materials abut one another, where construction joints occur and where shrinkage cracks develop. CA Pavements and Exterior Slabs C.6.a. Design Sections Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine an R -value for pavement design. Based on our experience with similar sandy clay soils anticipated at the pavement subgrade elevation, we recommend pavement design assume an R -value of 12. Note the contractor may need to perform limited removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value. Table 9 provides recommended pavement sections, based on the soils support and traffic loads. Table 9. Recommended Bituminous Pavement Sections Use Light Duty Heavy Duty Minimum asphalt 31/2 4 thickness (inches) Minimum aggregate base thickness 8 9 (inches) C.6.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials Appropriate mix designs are critical to the performance of flexible pavements. We can provide recommendations for pavement material selection during final pavement design. C.6.c. Subgrade Drainage We recommend installing perforated drainpipes throughout pavement areas at low points, around catch basins, and behind curb in landscaped areas. We also recommend installing drainpipes along pavement and exterior slab edges where exterior grades promote drainage toward those edge areas. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 17 The contractor should place drainpipes in small trenches, extended at least 8 inches below the granular subbase layer, or below the aggregate base material where no subbase is present. C.6.d. Performance and Maintenance We based the above pavement designs on a 20 -year performance life for bituminous. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction. This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. It is common to place the non -wear course of bituminous and then delay placement of wear course. For this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to support construction traffic. Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With regard to bituminous pavements in particular, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the first few years of placement, and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade. C.7. Utilities C.7.a. Subgrade Stabilization Earthwork activities associated with utility installations located inside the building area should adhere to the recommendations in Section C.2.g. For exterior utilities, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support. However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Project design and construction should not place utilities within the 1H:1V oversizing of foundations. BRAUN I NTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project B1702295 June 22, 2017 Page 18 C.7.b. Corrosion Potential Based on our experience, the soils encountered by the borings are moderately corrosive to metallic conduits, but only marginally corrosive to concrete. We recommend specifying non -corrosive materials or providing corrosion protection, unless project planning chooses to perform additional tests to demonstrate the soils are not corrosive. C.8. Stormwater We estimated infiltration rates for some of the soils we encountered in our soil borings, as listed in Table 10. These infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and not the capacity of the soils in their natural state. Field testing, such as with a double -ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385), may justify the use of higher infiltration rates. However, we recommend adjusting field test rates by the appropriate correction factor, as provided for in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual or as allowed by the local watershed. We recommend consulting the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for stormwater design. Table 30. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification Soil Type Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) Clayey sands and clays 0.06 * From Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Rates may differ at individual sites. Fine-grained soils (silts and clays), topsoil or organic matter that mixes into or washes onto the soil will lower the permeability. The contractor should maintain and protect infiltration areas during construction. Furthermore, organic matter and silt washed into the system after construction can fill the soil pores and reduce permeability over time. Proper maintenance is important for long-term performance of infiltration systems. This geotechnical evaluation does not constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or evaluate the potential impacts, if any, from infiltration of large amounts of stormwater. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 19 C.9. Equipment Support The recommendations included in the report may not be applicable to equipment used for the construction and maintenance of this project. We recommend evaluating subgrade conditions in areas of shoring, scaffolding, cranes, pumps, lifts and other construction equipment prior to mobilization to determine if the exposed materials are suitable for equipment support, or require some form of subgrade improvement. We also recommend project planning consider the effect that loads applied by such equipment may have on structures they bear on or surcharge — including pavements, buried utilities, below -grade walls, etc. We can assist you in this evaluation. D. Procedures D.1. Penetration Test Borings We drilled the penetration test borings with a truck -mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow - stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 21/2- or 5 -foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. We collected thin-walled tube samples in general accordance with ASTM D1587 at selected depths. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. We also collected bulk samples of auger cuttings at selected locations for laboratory testing. We sealed penetration test boreholes meeting the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Environmental Borehole criteria with an MDH-approved grout. We will forward/forwarded a sealing record (or sealing records) for those boreholes to the Minnesota Department of Health Well Management Section. D.2. Exploration Logs 13.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance and other in-situ tests performed. The logs also present the results of organic vapor screening, laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples, and groundwater measurements. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 20 We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. D.2.b. Organic Vapor Measurements We screened the material samples retrieved during drilling for the presence of organic vapors with a photoionization detector (PID) using both: (1) direct readings from each sample, and (2) the headspace method of analysis recommended in "Soil Sample Collection and Analysis Procedures," Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Petroleum Remediation Guidance Document 4-04 (September 2008). The PID is equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp and calibrated to an isobutylene standard, prior to the start of fieldwork. The materials encountered in the borings did not generate organic vapor concentrations above background levels. D.2.c. Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3) penetration resistance, (4) laboratory test results, and (5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past. 13.3. Material Classification and Testing D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used. D.3.b. Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM or AASHTO procedures. BRAUN I NTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 21 DA. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes or allowed them to remain open for an extended period of observation, as noted on the boring logs. E. Qualifications E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions E.1.a. Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them. E.1.b. Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. BRAUN INTERTEC CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Project 81702295 June 22, 2017 Page 22 E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility E.2.a. Plan Review We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help us develop our recommendations. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations. E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the preparation of this report and to accept the construction -related geotechnical engineer -of -record responsibilities. EA Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report, our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. EA Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. BRAUN INTERTEC Appendix BRAUN INTERTEC SAFARI O G TAN +GE c . � Y ?N NN n �yq YZ 0 $9� P�co YZ BUFFALO i 'WILD Vd1NG t / \ UNDERDE1�/ LOPMENT1 + _ _ ST -e' (PROPOSE[3 CHIK-FIL-A) , GARBAGE�—t� \ TRANSFORMER ST-2 - ST-5 �d: SHED–Y% ST v ` \ ST-4 \ ST-3 STORM WATER �DPRY� RETENTION POND \ Sti j�gpJN PRgOREjJM BOJ �pR a BRAUN N INTFRTFC LOG OF BORING Braun Project B1702295 BORING: ST -1 Geotechnical Evaluation LOCATION: See attached sketch. Chanhassen Restaurant Development 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN DRILLER: C. MCCLAIN METHOD: 3114" HSA, Autohammer DATE: 4!25(17 SCALE: 1"=4! Elev. Depth feet feet 1 Description of Materials BPF WL PID MC Tests or Notes 948.5 0.0 Symbol (Soil -ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) ppm % FILL FILL: Lean Clay, dark bown, moist. —947.2 1.3 FILL FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace of Gravel, with Sand — layers, brown, wet. 5 0.0 944.5 4.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 9 0.0 22 , i_ i 8 0.0 o— 939.5 9.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, grey, wet, medium to rather stiff. 10 0.0 8 0.0 12 0.0 932.5 16.0 1 END OF BORING. r_ Water not observed while drilling. Boring then backfilled. i— i S — i J _ J J J 3 5L i C L L 7 C L J a D B1702295 Braun ini riw BRAUN'" INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project B1702295 BORING: ST -2 Geotechnical Evaluation Chanhassen Restaurant Development LOCATION: See attached sketch. 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 0 DRILLER: C. MCCLAIN 0 METHOD: 31/4" HSA, Autohammer DATE: 4/25117 SCALE: V=41' i Elev. Depth feet feet Description of Materials BPF WL PID MC Tests or Notes 947.8 0.0 Symbol (Soil -ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) ppm % ' PAV 3 1/2" bituminous over 5" aggregate base. � 946.8 1.0 FILL FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace of Gravel, dark grey to — brown, moist to wet. 0 — 7 0.1 943.8 4.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, brown, wet. — (Glacial Till) 4 0.1 28 i — i 6 0.0 936.8 11.0 10 0.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, grey, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial Till) — 10 0.0 19 LL=32%, PL -18%, PI=14% 9 0.0 926.8 21.0 9 0.0 END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring then backfilled with cuttings. oraun imenw wrporauon ST -2 page 1 of 1 BRAUNm INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project B1702295 BORING: ST -3 Geotechnical Evaluation LOCATION: See attached sketch. Chanhassen Restaurant Development 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN DRILLER: C. MCCLAIN METHOD: 31/4" HSA, Autohammer DATE: 4125/17 SCALE: 1"=4' Elev. Depth feet feet Description of Materials BPF WL PID MC Tests or Notes 948.9 0.0 Symbol (Soil -ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) ppm % FILL FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, with roots, dark brown, moist. 7 0.1 944.9 4.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, Sand layers at 19, brown, wet. 4 0.1 27 i (Glacial Till) i 7 0.0 9 0.0 937.9 11.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, grey, wet, _ medium to rather stiff. (Glacial Till) 9 0.0 18 LL=28%, PL=16%, — P1=12% I 9 0.0 Q 6 0.0 An open triangle in the water level i — (WL) column indicates the depth _ at which groundwater was i— observed while I _ drilling. 9 0.0 - 922.9 26.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 20 feet while drilling. Boring then grouted. 0 L J 0 i M_'! noon 1 M 1 81702295 Braun Intertec Corpora w BRAUN' LOG OF BORING INTERTEC Braun Project B1702295 BORING: ST -4 Geotechnical Evaluation Chanhassen Restaurant Development LOCATION: See attached sketch. 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN DRILLER: C. MCCLAIN METHOD: 31/4" HSA, Autohammer DATE: 4/25/17 SCALE: 1" ='V Elev. Depth feet feet Description of Materials BPF WL PID MC Tests or Notes 948.0 0.0 Symbol (Soil -ASTM D2488 or 132487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) ppm % 947.2 0.8 PAV 3" bituminous over 7" aggregate base. CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, grey to brown, moist to wet. (Glacial Till) _ 5 0.0 7 0.1 24 941.0 7.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, brown, wet, medium to stiff. 7 0.0 (Glacial Till) 8 0.1 _ 12 0.1 16 0.1 932.0 16.0 END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring then backfilled with cuttings. B1702295 Braun IMertec Corporation ST -4 page 1 of 1 B RAI! Nm INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project B1702295 BORING: ST -5 Geotechnical Evaluation LOCATION: See attached sketch. Chanhassen Restaurant Development 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN DRILLER: C. MCCLAIN METHOD: 3114" HSA, Autohammer DATE: 4/25117 SCALE: 1"=N Elev. Depth feet feet Description of Materials BPF WL PID MC Tests or Notes 948.6 0.0 Symbol (Soil -ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) ppm % PAV 3" bituminous over 71/2 aggregate base. 947.7 0.9 CL LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, brown, moist. (Glacial Till) 6 0.0 20 9 0.0 941.6 7.0 CL LEAN CLAY, brown, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial Till) 10 0.0 939.6 9.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, grey, wet, rather stiff to stiff. (Glacial Till) 15 0.0 10 0.0 10 0.0 932.6 16.0 END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring then backfilled with cuttings. 81702295 Braun Intedw Corporation 3T5 Page 1 or 1 BRAUN'" INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project B1702295 BORING: ST -6 Geotechnical Evaluation Chanhassen Restaurant Development LOCATION: See attached sketch. 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN DRILLER: C. MCCLAIN METHOD: 3114" HSA, Autohammer DATE: 4/25117 SCALE: 1" ='V Elev. Depth feet feet Description of Materials BPF WL PID MC Tests or Notes 948.3 0.0 Symbol (Soil -ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) ppm % PAV 4" bituminous over 8" aggregate base. 947.3 1.0 FILL FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace of Gravel, brown, moist. _ 3 0.0 26 944.3 4.0 SZ CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, with Sand layers — from 12-15', brown, wet. (Glacial Till) 7 0.0 _ 11 0.0 11 0.0 _ 14 0.0 20 0.0 930.3 18.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, grey, wet, medium to stiff. (Glacial Till) 7 0.0 9 0.0 7 0.0 Braun Imertec CorporMon ST -6 page 1 of 2 BRAUN W INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project B1702295 BORING: ST -6 Cont. Geotechnical Evaluation LOCATION: See attached sketch. Chanhassen Restaurant Development 531 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN DRILLER: C. MCCLAIN METHOD: 31/4" HSA, Autohammer DATE: 4/25117 SCALE: 1" = 4' Elev. feet Depth feet Description of Materials BPF WL PID MC Tests or Notes 916.3 32.0 Symbol (Soil -ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) ppm % SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace of Gravel, grey, wet, _ medium to stiff. (Glacial Till) (continued) 12 0.0 13 0.0 907.3 41.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 41/2 feet while drilling in temp well — on 4/26/2017. — i Boring then grouted. 81702295 maun imnw LoWraoon ZRAUN INTERTEC Descriptive Terminology of Soil Standard D 2487 c �i IL Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes .o... (Unified Soil Classification System) a. Based on the material passing the 3 -inch (75mm) sieve. It. If field sample contained Cobbles or boulders, or both, add With Cobbles or boulders or both" to group name. C. C.=DePi C°=(D30)z Dr. x 16 d. If soil contaims 215% sand, add With send" tc group name. e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well -graded gravel with sift GW -GC wen -graded gravel with day GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with day C N fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM or Si g. If firres are organic, add'Win organic fines: to group name. h. If soil contains 215% gravel, add %vith gravel' to group name. 1. Sand with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well -graded sand with silt SW -SC well -graded sand with day SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt SP -SC poorly graded sand with day i. If Atterberg limits plot In hatched area, soil is a CL -ML, silty day. k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add With send" or "with gravel" whichever is predominant. I. If soil contains 2 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add 'sandy' to group name. m. If soil contains z 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly to group name. in. PI 2 4 and plots on or above 'A" line. o. PI <4 a plots below "A' lim- p. PI plots on or above "A" lines. q. PI plots below "A" line. go 50 40 30 Zo Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Soils Classification WD Group Names Using Laboratory Tests ° Group MC Natural moisture content, % 9190 LL Symbol Group Name b `o Gravels Clean Gravels C° 2 4 and 1 < C : 3 GW Well -graded gravel '—'a 0 More than 50% Of Less than 5%fines' C <4 and/or 1 > C,> 3 c GP Poody graded gravel coarse fraction Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel drs a = v retained on Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey ravel °,9 c o Na. 4 sieve More than 12% fines' mm n Sands Clean Sands C" 2 6 and 1 < C < 3 c SW Welbgraded sand ^ C i 50% or more of Less than 5% fines C < 6 and/or 1 > C > 3 ° SP Poorly graded sand h M — coarse fraction Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand rs" u° o passes 1 Fines classify as CL or CH SC I Clayev sand is E No.4 sieve More than 12%' 5 Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above °A' line I CL Lean clayx m PI < 4 or plots below "A" lines ML Silt" m — a o e o Silts and Clays Liquid limit Liquid limit- oven dried Organic < 0.75 OL Organic clay" w a m . less than 50 � m o Li uid limit -not tlrietl OL Organic silt" Aon PI plots on or above "A" line Inorganic CH Fat clay q� E Silts and clays PI lots below "A" line p MH Elastic silt x m C o z' Liquid limit Organic Liquid limit- oven dried OH Organic clay n, P E o 50 or more vo < 0 75 Li uid limit- not dried OH Or anic Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor PT Peat a. Based on the material passing the 3 -inch (75mm) sieve. It. If field sample contained Cobbles or boulders, or both, add With Cobbles or boulders or both" to group name. C. C.=DePi C°=(D30)z Dr. x 16 d. If soil contaims 215% sand, add With send" tc group name. e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well -graded gravel with sift GW -GC wen -graded gravel with day GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with day C N fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM or Si g. If firres are organic, add'Win organic fines: to group name. h. If soil contains 215% gravel, add %vith gravel' to group name. 1. Sand with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well -graded sand with silt SW -SC well -graded sand with day SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt SP -SC poorly graded sand with day i. If Atterberg limits plot In hatched area, soil is a CL -ML, silty day. k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add With send" or "with gravel" whichever is predominant. I. If soil contains 2 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add 'sandy' to group name. m. If soil contains z 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly to group name. in. PI 2 4 and plots on or above 'A" line. o. PI <4 a plots below "A' lim- p. PI plots on or above "A" lines. q. PI plots below "A" line. go 50 40 30 Zo 10 7 4 00 10 is 20 30 40 50 00 70 s0 90 100 110 LkryW Limit (LL) Laboratory Tests DD Dry density, pd oc WD Wet density, pog S MC Natural moisture content, % 9190 LL Liquid limit, % NN�.■■ PL Plastic limits, % 0 PI Plasticity indei % qu P200 IFFN qp 'A®r MMM.■.■ <No. 200, PI > 4 and on or about "A" line IS 10 7 4 00 10 is 20 30 40 50 00 70 s0 90 100 110 LkryW Limit (LL) Laboratory Tests DD Dry density, pd oc WD Wet density, pog S MC Natural moisture content, % SG LL Liquid limit, % C PL Plastic limits, % 0 PI Plasticity indei % qu P200 %passing 200 sieve qp Organic content, % Percent of saturation, % Specific gravity Cohesion, par Angle of internal friction Unconfined compressive strength, par Pocket penetrometer strength, tar Particle Size Identification Boulders ................. over 12" Cobbles ................. 3" to 12" Gravel 11 to 30 PPF Coarse ........... 3/4" to 3" Fine ................ No. 4 to 3/4" Sand Stiff ........................ Coarse........... No. 4 to No. 10 Medium .......... No. 10 to No. 40 Fine ................ No. 40 to No. 200 Silt ......................... <No. 200, PI<4 or below °A" line Clay ...................... <No. 200, PI > 4 and on or about "A" line Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very Loose ............. 0 to 4 BPF Loose ..................... 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense ....... 11 to 30 PPF Dense .................... 31 to 50 BPF Very dense ............. over 50 BPF Consistency of Cohesive Soils Very soft ................. 0 to 1 BPF Soft ........................ 2 to 3 BPF Rather soft ............. 4 to 5 BPF Medium .................. 6 to 8 BPF Rather stiff ............. 9 to 12 BPF Stiff ........................ 13 to 16 BPF Very stiff ................. 17 to 30 BPF Hard ....................... over 30 BPF Drilling Notes Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4" or 6 1/4" ID hollow -stem augers, unless noted otherwise. Jetting water was used to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs. All samples were taken with the standard 2" OD split -tube samples, except where noted. Power auger borings were advanced by 4" or 6" diameter continuous flight, solid -stem augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were inferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface, and are therefore, somewhat approldmate. Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2" or 3 1/4" diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could be manually withdrawn. BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test, also known as "N" value. The sampler was set 6" into undisturbed soil below the hollow -stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted for second and third 6" increments, and added to get BPF. Where they differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for the second and third 6" increments, respectively. WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight, and driving not required. TW: TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample. Note: All tests were con in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. Rev. 9115