The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About006_StormWaterReport BARNARD HEADQUARTERS DRAINAGE REPORT Project No. 22285 Barnard 701 Gold Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 January 25, 2023 BARNARD HEADQUARTERS FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT BOZEMAN, MONTANA CERTIFICATION I hereby state that this Final Drainage Report has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise which is usual and customary in this community of professional engineers. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices specified by the City of Bozeman and within the standard accepted practices. 01/25/2023 Robert Egeberg, P.E. Date January 25, 2023 Project No. 22285 DRAINAGE REPORT BARNARD OFFICE HEADQUARTERS BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59718 OVERVIEW NARRATIVE The purpose of this drainage plan is to present a summary of calculations to quantify the stormwater runoff for the Barnard Office Headquarters project. All design criteria and calculations are in accordance with The City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy, dated March 2004. The site stormwater improvements have been designed with the intent to meet the current drainage regulations for the City of Bozeman. Location The project will be located on three (3) lots in the Nelson Meadows Subdivision. The existing legal descriptions for the three lots are: (1) Nelson Meadows Sub, S22, T01 S, R05 E, Block 7, Lot 26, Plat J-680, Acres 5.56 (2) Nelson Meadows Sub, S22, T01 S, R05 E, Block 8, Lot 25, Plat J-680, Acres 1.78 (3) Nelson Meadows Sub, S22, T01 S, R05 E, Block 8, Lot 24, Plat J-680, Acres 2.41 The lots are west of the Frontage Road and Nelson Road intersection. The approximate total acreage of the three (3) lots is 9.75 Acres. The lots are in the process of being aggregated into one (1) lot. The lot aggregation process will be completed before site plan approval. Existing Site Conditions The project area currently consists of undeveloped lots surrounded by public infrastructure. Prince Lane and Royal Wolf Way border the site to the west and north. Cattail Creek borders the site to the east. An existing asphalt path borders the site to the south. In general, the site grades to the northwest and northeast. The seasonal high groundwater is roughly at an elevation of 7.1’ from existing grade. Reference Appendix H for groundwater monitoring data. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Proposed Project The project will include construction of a new office building, service connections to existing water and sewer infrastructure surrounding the proposed development, new parking areas, and new landscaping. A series of underground chamber systems are proposed for infiltration/treatment of stormwater runoff. Calculations for each sub-basin are included in this report. I. Hydrology The modified rational method was used to determine peak runoff rates and volumes since all sub-basins are less than five (5) acres. The rational formula provided in The City of Bozeman Standard Specifications and Policy was used to calculate the peak runoff rates on site, time of concentration, rainfall intensities, etc. To be conservative, we treated most watersheds as if they were predominately impervious cover, therefore we assumed a time of concentration of 5-minutes. For impervious surfaces, a runoff coefficient of 0.95 was assumed, and for pervious surfaces, a runoff coefficient of 0.15 was assumed. We are proposing underground retention systems to store and infiltrate the on-site drainage. The required retention volumes were sized for the 10-year, 2-hour storm with an intensity of 0.41 in/hr. Infiltration rates were not considered in the sizing of the underground retention systems. A. Pre-Development Basins Sub-Basin A Sub-Basin A includes 104,578 sf of pervious area and 3,847 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin A runs off into a low point at the northern point of the basin near Prince Lane where it pools. Sub-Basin B Sub-Basin B includes 1,767 sf of pervious area and 825 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin B runs off into a low point near the end of the paved drive on the west end of the project where it pools. Sub-Basin C Sub-Basin C includes 1,100 sf of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin C runs off to a low point outside of the project area in the ditch to the southwest. Sub-Basin D Sub-Basin D includes 1,760 sf of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin D runs off to a low point outside of the project area in the ditch to the southwest. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Sub-Basin E Sub-Basin E includes 51,406 sf of pervious area and 542 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin E runs off to a low point at the northern point of the basin behind the existing sidewalk at the intersection of Prince Lane and Royal Wolf Way. Sub-Basin F Sub-Basin F includes 936 sf of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin F runs off to a low point outside of the project area in the ditch to the southwest. Sub-Basin G Sub-Basin G includes 43,442 sf of pervious area and 1,285 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin G runs off to the north and enters the gutters that run along the south side of Royal Wolf Way. Sub-Basin H Sub-Basin H includes 31,703 sf of pervious area and 717 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin H runs off to the north and enters the gutters that run along the south side of Royal Wolf Way. Sub-Basin I Sub-Basin I includes 48,493 sf of pervious area and 1,545 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin I runs off the north and enters the gutters that run along the south side of Royal Wolf Way. Sub-Basin J Sub-Basin J includes 972 sf of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin J runs off to a low point outside of the project area in the ditch to the southwest. Sub-Basin K Sub-Basin K includes 17,714 sf of pervious area and 537 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin K runs off to the north and enters the gutters that run along the south side of Royal Wolf Way. Sub-Basin L Sub-Basin L includes 81,297 sf of pervious area and 4,185 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin L runs off to a low point in the ditch that runs through the eastern side of the project. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Sub-Basin M Sub-Basin M includes 681 sf of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin M runs off to a low point outside of the project area in the ditch to the southwest. Sub-Basin N Sub-Basin N includes 22,696 sf of pervious area and 685 sf of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin N runs off to a low point in the ditch that runs through the eastern side of the project. Sub-Basin O Sub-Basin O includes 1,114 sf of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin O runs off to a low point outside of the project area in the ditch to the southwest. Sub-Basin P Sub-Basin P includes 596 sf of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin P runs off to a low point outside of the project area in the ditch to the southwest. See Appendix A for the Existing Basins – Exhibit A. Runoff calculations for the existing basins are shown in Appendix C. B. Post-Development Basins For the following sections, please refer to Appendix B - Exhibit B of this report, which graphically shows and labels the onsite watersheds as well as the proposed drainage and conveyance facilities. No percolation rates have been included in the required retention storage volume calculations to be conservative. Storage volume calculations used the 10-year, 2-hour design storm frequency for rainfall data, see Appendix C. Most of the site drains to underground ADS chamber storage systems which discharge to existing onsite gravels, with some small areas discharging offsite around the perimeter of the site, as they have historically. The pre-development overall site discharge peak flow was 5.54 ft3/s. The post-development overall site peak flow is 18.13 ft3/s, with most of the peak flow discharging to onsite underground ADS chamber storage systems. The post- development off-site discharge does not exceed the pre-development off-site discharge. Sub-Basin A Sub-Basin A includes a part of the landscape area on the northwest side of the project. Sub-Basin A includes 9,132 sf of pervious area and 0 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin A sheet flows to the north and into Prince Lane. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Post-Development Sub-Basin A includes parts of Pre-Development Basins A and E. The peak flow rate in Pre-Development Basin A and E was 2.04 ft3/s. Post-Development Sub- Basin A peak flow rate has been reduced to 0.10 ft3/s. Sub-Basin B Sub-Basin B includes a part of the landscape area on the northwest side of the project and a part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the building. Sub-Basin B includes 17,644 sf of pervious area and 8,164 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin B is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 1. Sub-Basin C Sub-Basin C includes part of the landscape area on the west side of the project and a part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the building. Sub-Basin C includes 5,733 sf of pervious area and 23,575 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub- Basin C is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 1. Sub-Basin D Sub-Basin D includes part of the landscape area on the west side of the project, a part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the building, and landscape area connecting to the west end of the proposed building. Sub-Basin D includes 6,023 sf of pervious area and 41,988 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin D is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 1. Sub-Basin E Sub-Basin E includes part of the landscape area on the west side of the project, the existing asphalt entrance, and part of the landscape area north of the existing asphalt path. Sub-Basin E includes 2,781 sf of pervious area and 5,486 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin E is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 4. Sub-Basin F Sub-Basin F includes a large part of the existing asphalt path and landscape area on either side of the path. Sub-Basin F includes 3,363 sf of pervious area and 5,300 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin F sheet flows to the south of the project towards the Burlington Northern right-of-way as it has historically. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Sub-Basin G Sub-Basin G includes part of the landscape area to the north of the existing asphalt path and part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the building. Sub-Basin G includes 1,365 sf of pervious area and 5,009 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin G is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 4. Sub-Basin H Sub-Basin H includes part of the landscape area to the north of the existing asphalt path and part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the building. Sub-Basin H includes 1,551 sf of pervious area 4,926 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub- Basin H is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 4. Sub-Basin I Sub-Basin I includes part of the landscape area to the north of the existing asphalt path, part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the building, the trash enclosure, and part of the landscape area directly to the west of the proposed building. Sub-Basin I includes 2,687 sf of pervious area and 8,426 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin I is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 4. Sub-Basin J Sub-Basin J includes a part of the landscape area on the northwest side of the project. Sub-Basin J includes 25,754 sf of pervious area and 12 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin J sheet flows to the northeast and into Royal Wolf Way. Post-Development Sub-Basin J includes parts of Pre-Development Basins E. The peak flow rate in Pre-Development Basin E was 0.61 ft3/s. Post-Development Sub-Basin J peak flow rate has been reduced to 0.29 ft3/s. Sub-Basin K Sub-Basin K includes a part of the landscape area on the northwest side of the project and part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the proposed building. Sub- Basin K includes 3,716 sf of pervious area and 6,560 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin K is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 1. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Sub-Basin L Sub-Basin L includes a part of the landscape area on the north side of the project and part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the proposed building. Sub-Basin L includes 1,151 sf of pervious area and 4,718 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin L is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 1. Sub-Basin M Sub-Basin M includes a part of the landscape area on the north side of the project and part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the proposed building. Sub-Basin M includes 1,829 sf of pervious area and 11,187 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin M is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin N Sub-Basin N includes a part of the proposed parking lot on the west side of the building, the north entrance to the project, and west entrance into the proposed building. Sub- Basin N includes 1,527 sf of pervious area and 9,055 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin N is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin O Sub-Basin O includes the landscape area on the north side of the project. Sub-Basin O includes 9,317 sf of pervious area and 592 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin O sheet flows to the north and into Royal Wolf Way. Post-Development Sub-Basin O includes parts of Pre-Development Basins H, I, K, and L. The peak flow rate in Pre-Development Basins H, I, K, and L was 2.48 ft3/s. Post- Development Sub-Basin O peak flow rate has been reduced to 0.14 ft3/s. Sub-Basin P Sub-Basin P includes the western half of the proposed building roof. Sub-Basin P includes 0 sf of pervious area and 12,653 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin P is captured by roof drains where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin Q Sub-Basin Q includes the eastern half of the proposed building roof. Sub-Basin Q includes 0 sf of pervious area and 18,596 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Sub-Basin Q is captured by roof drains where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 3. Sub-Basin R Sub-Basin R includes the landscape area to the south of the proposed building and trash enclosure, and part of the proposed asphalt path. Sub-Basin R includes 5,066 sf of pervious area and 1,328 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin R is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 4. Sub-Basin S Sub-Basin S includes a part of the landscape area to the south of the proposed asphalt path. Sub-Basin S includes 1,857 sf of pervious area and 44 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin S sheet flows to the south and into the Burlington Northern right-of-way. Post-Development Sub-Basin S includes parts of Pre-Development Basins F, G, H, I, and J. The peak flow rate in Pre-Development Basins F, G, H, I, and J was 1.64 ft3/s. Post- Development Sub-Basin S peak flow rate has been reduced to 0.02 ft3/s. Sub-Basin T Sub-Basin T includes part of the landscape area north of the proposed building, part of the proposed northern parking lot, and part of the sidewalk that runs west to east in front of the proposed building. Sub-Basin T includes 1,060 sf of pervious area and 4,614 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin T is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin U Sub-Basin U includes part of the landscape area north of the proposed building, part of the northern entrance, and part of the northern parking lot. Sub-Basin U includes 4,283 sf of pervious area and 6,273 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin U is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin V Sub-Basin V includes part of the landscape area north of the proposed building, part of the northern entrance, and part of the northern parking lot. Sub-Basin V includes 4,978 sf of pervious area and 9,590 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin V is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 5. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Sub-Basin W Sub-Basin W includes part of the landscape area north of the proposed building, the northeast entrance to the proposed building, and part of the northern parking lot. Sub- Basin W includes 4,491 sf of pervious area and 7,990 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin W is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 5. Sub-Basin X Sub-Basin X includes a part of the landscape area north of the proposed building and the eastern entrance into the project. Sub-Basin X includes 2,691 sf of pervious area and 2,663 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin X is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 5. Sub-Basin Y Sub-Basin Y includes the landscape area northeast of the proposed building and the proposed parking lot to the northeast of the proposed building. Sub-Basin Y includes 4,350 sf of pervious area and 6,182 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin Y is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 3. Sub-Basin Z Sub-Basin Z includes a part of the landscape area on the northeast side of the property. Sub-Basin Z includes 4,239 sf of pervious area and 177 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin Z flows into a culvert and then goes east under the existing gravel path. Post-Development Sub-Basin Z includes parts of Pre-Development Basins L and O. The peak flow rate in Pre-Development Basins L and O was 1.21 ft3/s. Post-Development Sub-Basin Z peak flow rate has been reduced to 0.06 ft3/s. Sub-Basin AA Sub-Basin AA includes a part of the landscape area to the east of the property. Sub- Basin AA includes 22,696 sf of pervious area and 685 sf of impervious area. No proposed work or grading is proposed in this sub-basin. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin AA primarily sheet flows to the east and north of the property as it has historically. Sub-Basin BB Sub-Basin BB includes part of the landscape area to the east of the property. Sub-Basin BB includes 10,269 sf of pervious area and 993 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin BB sheet flows to the east and south of the property as it has historically. P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Post-Development Sub-Basin BB includes parts of Pre-Development Basin L. The peak flow rate in Pre-Development Basins L was 0.45 ft3/s. Pre-Development Sub-Basin BB peak flow rate was reduced to 0.18 ft3/s. Sub-Basin CC Sub-Basin CC includes the parking lot to the east of the proposed building, part of the landscape area to the east of the proposed building, part of the eastern entrance to the proposed building, and part of the existing asphalt path. Sub-Basin CC includes 10,399 sf of pervious area and 16,226 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin CC is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 3. Sub-Basin DD Sub-Basin DD includes the landscape area to the south of the proposed building and the proposed asphalt path. Sub-Basin DD includes 20,699 sf of pervious area and 4,194 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin DD first flows into a swale which provides treatment and a storage volume of 112.5 ft3. During a larger storm run-off enters a landscape inlet set 6” above the bottom of the swale. From the landscape inlet the run-off is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 6. Sub-Basin EE Sub-Basin EE includes part of the existing asphalt path and part of the landscape area to the south of the existing asphalt path. Sub-Basin EE includes 2,997 sf of pervious area and 0 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin EE sheet flows south and into the Burlington Northern right-of-way as it has historically. Post-Development Sub-Basin EE includes parts of Pre-Development Basins L, M, O, and P. The peak flow rate in Pre-Development Basins L, M, O, and P was 1.22 ft3/s. Post- Development Sub-Basin EE flow rate was reduced to 0.03 ft3/s. Sub-Basin FF Sub-Basin FF includes part of the landscaping area to the south of the existing asphalt path. Sub-Basin FF includes 1,101 sf of pervious area and 0 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin FF sheet flows south and into the Burlington Northern right-of- way as it has historically. Sub-Basin GG Sub-Basin GG includes part of the landscaping area to the south of the existing asphalt path. Sub-Basin GG includes 1,760 sf of pervious area and 0 sf of impervious area. Run- P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br off generated in Sub-Basin GG sheet flows south and into the Burlington Northern right-of-way as it has historically. Sub-Basin HH Sub-Basin HH includes part of the landscaping area to the south of the existing asphalt path. Sub-Basin HH includes 711 sf of pervious area and 0 sf of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin HH sheet flows south and into the Burlington Northern right-of- way as it has historically. Underground Chamber System Retention Volumes Sub-Basins B, C, D, K, and L, consisting of a total area of 119,314 sf (2.74 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.72, are routed to chamber system 1. Sub-Basins B, C, D, K, and L require a total retention volume of 5,791.07 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 5,908 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. Sub-Basins M, N, P, T, U, consisting of a total area of 52,481 sf (1.20 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.82, are routed to chamber system 2. Sub-Basins M, N, P, T, and U require a total retention volume of 2,891.91 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 3,123 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. Sub-Basins Q, Y, and CC, consisting of a total area of 55,752 sf (1.28 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.74, are routed to chamber system 3. Sub-Basins Q, Y, and CC require a total retention volume of 2,775.21 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 2,909 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. Sub-Basins E, G, H, I, and R, consisting of a total volume of 38,625 sf (0.89 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.67, are routed to chamber system 4. Sub-Basins E, G, H, I, and R require a total retention volume of 1,748.28 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 1,853 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. Sub-Basins V, W, and X, consisting of a total volume of 32,403 sf (0.74 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.65, are routed to chamber system 5. Sub-Basins V, W, and X, require a total retention volume of 1,419.41 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 1,529 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. Sub-Basin DD, consisting of a total volume of 24,893 sf (0.57 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.28, is routed to chamber system 6. Sub-Basin DD requires a total retention volume of 478 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br retention volume of 391 ft3, and the swale has a storage volume of 112.5 ft3 making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. I. Required Retention Storage Volume Calculations Chamber System 1 Q=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.71; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 2.59 acres Q=5,791 ft3 Chamber System 2 Q=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.82; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 1.26 acres Q=2,891 ft3 Chamber System 3 Q=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.73; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 1.21 acres Q=2,775 ft3 Chamber System 4 Q=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.67; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 0.89 acres Q=1,748 ft3 Chamber System 5 Q=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.65; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 0.74 acres Q=1,419 ft3 Chamber System 6 Q=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.28; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 0.57 acres P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br Swale Storage = 112.5 ft3 Q=478 ft3 – 112.5 ft3 = 365 ft3 II. Hydraulics A. Storm Inlets and Storm Drains All storm drainage pipes were sized to handle peak flow resulting from a 25-year storm event with a minimum slope of 1.00%. The Rational Method was used to calculate peak flow. The Manning’s Equation within ManningSolver Version 1.019 software was used to determine pipe sizing for the full flow capacity of the pipes. Inlets were sized to handle the peak flow resulting from a 25-year storm event. Flow intercepted by drainage inlets was determined using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Toolbox Software Version 5.1.1. All the proposed inlets are in sag conditions and sized assuming a 50% clogging factor. For further information on storm drain and inlet capacity calculations, see Appendix D. III. Water Quality The City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy states the requirement to capture or reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24- hour storm. We meet this requirement by retaining all runoff onsite in the proposed underground stormwater chamber systems. The isolator row, in addition to the sumps in each inlet and manhole prior to the chamber system, provides treatment before water infiltrates into the ground. I. Calculations Chamber System 1 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 85,006.14sf = 3,541.92cf 3,541.92 cf will draw down in 4.33 hrs using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Chamber System 2 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 43,781.43sf = 1,824.23cf 1,824.23 cf will draw down in 3.86 hrs using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Chamber System 3 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 41,004.18sf = 1,708.51cf P:22285_BarnardHQOffice_Drainage Report (01/25/23) DME/br 1,708.51 cf will draw down in 3.96 hrs using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Chamber System 4 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 25,174.41sf = 1,048.93cf 1,048.93cf will draw down in 4.12 hrs using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Chamber System 5 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 20,243.06sf = 843.46cf 843.46 cf will draw down in 3.98 hrs using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Chamber System 6 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 4,193.92sf = 174.75cf 174.75 cf will draw down in 3.12 hrs using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. IV. Outlet Structures All runoff will be captured and retained on site. There are no outlet structures proposed for this project. Storms larger than the design storm will overflow the inlets and primarily flood the parking lot. In a massive flooding event, the parking lot would overtop, and drainage would flow into Royal Wolf Way and Prince Lane and not impact the building. V. Appendices Appendix A – Exhibit A – Stormwater Pre-Development Basins Appendix B – Exhibit B – Stormwater Post-Development Basins Appendix C – Hydrology Calculations Appendix D – Hydraulic Calculations Appendix E – O&M Plan Appendix F – Geotechnical Report Appendix G – ADS Chamber Details Appendix H – Groundwater Monitoring Data Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 APPENDIX A Exhibit A – Stormwater Pre-Development Basins APPENDIX B Exhibit B – Stormwater Post-Development Basins Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 APPENDIX C Hydrology Calculations Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 14167.3127 0.325 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.31 410255.7337 9.418 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 1.41 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 424423.0464 9.7434 1.7217 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =1.72 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 15.77 5 3.22 5.54 10 2.05 3.53 15 1.58 2.71 20 1.31 2.25 25 1.13 1.95 30 1.00 1.73 35 0.91 1.56 40 0.83 1.43 45 0.77 1.33 50 0.72 1.24 55 0.68 1.17 60 0.64 1.10 75 0.55 0.95 90 0.49 0.85 105 0.44 0.77 120 0.41 0.70 150 0.35 0.61 180 0.31 0.54 360 0.20 0.34 720 0.13 0.22 1440 0.08 0.14 5,055.93 ft3 5.54 (ft3/s) 9465.72 0.00 9465.72 12064.64 0.00 12064.64 5826.83 0.00 5826.83 7426.65 0.00 7426.65 5055.93 0.00 5055.93 5466.62 0.00 5466.62 4571.64 0.00 4571.64 4825.07 0.00 4825.07 3966.80 0.00 3966.80 4289.03 0.00 4289.03 3721.58 0.00 3721.58 3847.82 0.00 3847.82 3441.98 0.00 3441.98 3586.84 0.00 3586.84 3112.29 0.00 3112.29 3284.82 0.00 3284.82 2700.52 0.00 2700.52 2919.89 0.00 2919.89 2118.79 0.00 2118.79 2441.85 0.00 2441.85 946.43 0.00 946.43 1662.37 0.00 1662.37 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1767 Cwd x Cf =0.18 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (OVERALL ON-SITE DISCHARGE) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 3847.289 0.088 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.08 104577.848 2.401 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.36 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 108425.137 2.4891 0.4440 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.44 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 4.07 5 3.22 1.43 10 2.05 0.91 15 1.58 0.70 20 1.31 0.58 25 1.13 0.50 30 1.00 0.45 35 0.91 0.40 40 0.83 0.37 45 0.77 0.34 50 0.72 0.32 55 0.68 0.30 60 0.64 0.28 75 0.55 0.25 90 0.49 0.22 105 0.44 0.20 120 0.41 0.18 150 0.35 0.16 180 0.31 0.14 360 0.20 0.09 720 0.13 0.06 1440 0.08 0.04 1,303.91 ft3 1.43 (ft3/s) 2441.18 0.00 2441.18 3111.44 0.00 3111.44 1502.72 0.00 1502.72 1915.31 0.00 1915.31 1303.91 0.00 1303.91 1409.83 0.00 1409.83 1179.01 0.00 1179.01 1244.37 0.00 1244.37 1023.03 0.00 1023.03 1106.13 0.00 1106.13 959.78 0.00 959.78 992.34 0.00 992.34 887.68 0.00 887.68 925.04 0.00 925.04 802.65 0.00 802.65 847.15 0.00 847.15 696.46 0.00 696.46 753.03 0.00 753.03 546.43 0.00 546.43 629.75 0.00 629.75 244.08 0.00 244.08 428.72 0.00 428.72 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1784 Cwd x Cf =0.18 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN A) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 825.3059 0.019 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.02 1766.6751 0.041 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 2591.981 0.0595 0.0241 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.02 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.22 5 3.22 0.08 10 2.05 0.05 15 1.58 0.04 20 1.31 0.03 25 1.13 0.03 30 1.00 0.02 35 0.91 0.02 40 0.83 0.02 45 0.77 0.02 50 0.72 0.02 55 0.68 0.02 60 0.64 0.02 75 0.55 0.01 90 0.49 0.01 105 0.44 0.01 120 0.41 0.01 150 0.35 0.01 180 0.31 0.01 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 70.72 ft3 0.08 (ft3/s) 132.40 0.00 132.40 168.76 0.00 168.76 81.50 0.00 81.50 103.88 0.00 103.88 70.72 0.00 70.72 76.47 0.00 76.47 63.95 0.00 63.95 67.49 0.00 67.49 55.49 0.00 55.49 59.99 0.00 59.99 52.06 0.00 52.06 53.82 0.00 53.82 48.15 0.00 48.15 50.17 0.00 50.17 43.53 0.00 43.53 45.95 0.00 45.95 37.77 0.00 37.77 40.84 0.00 40.84 29.64 0.00 29.64 34.16 0.00 34.16 13.24 0.00 13.24 23.25 0.00 23.25 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.4047 Cwd x Cf =0.40 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN B) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 1100.8735 0.025 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1100.8735 0.0253 0.0038 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.03 5 3.22 0.01 10 2.05 0.01 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.00 25 1.13 0.00 30 1.00 0.00 35 0.91 0.00 40 0.83 0.00 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 11.13 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 20.84 0.00 20.84 26.56 0.00 26.56 12.83 0.00 12.83 16.35 0.00 16.35 11.13 0.00 11.13 12.04 0.00 12.04 10.07 0.00 10.07 10.62 0.00 10.62 8.73 0.00 8.73 9.44 0.00 9.44 8.19 0.00 8.19 8.47 0.00 8.47 7.58 0.00 7.58 7.90 0.00 7.90 6.85 0.00 6.85 7.23 0.00 7.23 5.95 0.00 5.95 6.43 0.00 6.43 4.67 0.00 4.67 5.38 0.00 5.38 2.08 0.00 2.08 3.66 0.00 3.66 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN C) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 1759.9051 0.040 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1759.9051 0.0404 0.0061 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.06 5 3.22 0.02 10 2.05 0.01 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.01 25 1.13 0.01 30 1.00 0.01 35 0.91 0.01 40 0.83 0.01 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 17.80 ft3 0.02 (ft3/s) 33.32 0.00 33.32 42.47 0.00 42.47 20.51 0.00 20.51 26.14 0.00 26.14 17.80 0.00 17.80 19.24 0.00 19.24 16.09 0.00 16.09 16.98 0.00 16.98 13.96 0.00 13.96 15.10 0.00 15.10 13.10 0.00 13.10 13.54 0.00 13.54 12.12 0.00 12.12 12.63 0.00 12.63 10.96 0.00 10.96 11.56 0.00 11.56 9.51 0.00 9.51 10.28 0.00 10.28 7.46 0.00 7.46 8.60 0.00 8.60 3.33 0.00 3.33 5.85 0.00 5.85 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN D) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 542.3993 0.012 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.01 51406.2345 1.180 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.18 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 51948.6338 1.1926 0.1888 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.19 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 1.73 5 3.22 0.61 10 2.05 0.39 15 1.58 0.30 20 1.31 0.25 25 1.13 0.21 30 1.00 0.19 35 0.91 0.17 40 0.83 0.16 45 0.77 0.15 50 0.72 0.14 55 0.68 0.13 60 0.64 0.12 75 0.55 0.10 90 0.49 0.09 105 0.44 0.08 120 0.41 0.08 150 0.35 0.07 180 0.31 0.06 360 0.20 0.04 720 0.13 0.02 1440 0.08 0.02 554.57 ft3 0.61 (ft3/s) 1038.26 0.00 1038.26 1323.33 0.00 1323.33 639.13 0.00 639.13 814.61 0.00 814.61 554.57 0.00 554.57 599.62 0.00 599.62 501.45 0.00 501.45 529.25 0.00 529.25 435.11 0.00 435.11 470.45 0.00 470.45 408.21 0.00 408.21 422.05 0.00 422.05 377.54 0.00 377.54 393.43 0.00 393.43 341.38 0.00 341.38 360.30 0.00 360.30 296.21 0.00 296.21 320.27 0.00 320.27 232.40 0.00 232.40 267.84 0.00 267.84 103.81 0.00 103.81 182.34 0.00 182.34 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1584 Cwd x Cf =0.16 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN E) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 935.8352 0.021 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 935.8352 0.0215 0.0032 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.03 5 3.22 0.01 10 2.05 0.01 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.00 25 1.13 0.00 30 1.00 0.00 35 0.91 0.00 40 0.83 0.00 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 9.46 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 17.72 0.00 17.72 22.58 0.00 22.58 10.91 0.00 10.91 13.90 0.00 13.90 9.46 0.00 9.46 10.23 0.00 10.23 8.56 0.00 8.56 9.03 0.00 9.03 7.42 0.00 7.42 8.03 0.00 8.03 6.97 0.00 6.97 7.20 0.00 7.20 6.44 0.00 6.44 6.71 0.00 6.71 5.83 0.00 5.83 6.15 0.00 6.15 5.05 0.00 5.05 5.47 0.00 5.47 3.97 0.00 3.97 4.57 0.00 4.57 1.77 0.00 1.77 3.11 0.00 3.11 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN F) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 1284.5843 0.029 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.03 43441.8409 0.997 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.15 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 44726.4252 1.0268 0.1776 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.18 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 1.63 5 3.22 0.57 10 2.05 0.36 15 1.58 0.28 20 1.31 0.23 25 1.13 0.20 30 1.00 0.18 35 0.91 0.16 40 0.83 0.15 45 0.77 0.14 50 0.72 0.13 55 0.68 0.12 60 0.64 0.11 75 0.55 0.10 90 0.49 0.09 105 0.44 0.08 120 0.41 0.07 150 0.35 0.06 180 0.31 0.06 360 0.20 0.04 720 0.13 0.02 1440 0.08 0.01 521.56 ft3 0.57 (ft3/s) 976.47 0.00 976.47 1244.57 0.00 1244.57 601.09 0.00 601.09 766.12 0.00 766.12 521.56 0.00 521.56 563.93 0.00 563.93 471.61 0.00 471.61 497.75 0.00 497.75 409.21 0.00 409.21 442.45 0.00 442.45 383.91 0.00 383.91 396.94 0.00 396.94 355.07 0.00 355.07 370.01 0.00 370.01 321.06 0.00 321.06 338.86 0.00 338.86 278.58 0.00 278.58 301.21 0.00 301.21 218.57 0.00 218.57 251.90 0.00 251.90 97.63 0.00 97.63 171.49 0.00 171.49 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1730 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN G) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 716.6228 0.016 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.02 31703.7212 0.728 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.11 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 32420.344 0.7443 0.1248 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.12 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 1.14 5 3.22 0.40 10 2.05 0.26 15 1.58 0.20 20 1.31 0.16 25 1.13 0.14 30 1.00 0.13 35 0.91 0.11 40 0.83 0.10 45 0.77 0.10 50 0.72 0.09 55 0.68 0.08 60 0.64 0.08 75 0.55 0.07 90 0.49 0.06 105 0.44 0.06 120 0.41 0.05 150 0.35 0.04 180 0.31 0.04 360 0.20 0.02 720 0.13 0.02 1440 0.08 0.01 366.49 ft3 0.40 (ft3/s) 686.14 0.00 686.14 874.53 0.00 874.53 422.37 0.00 422.37 538.34 0.00 538.34 366.49 0.00 366.49 396.26 0.00 396.26 331.39 0.00 331.39 349.76 0.00 349.76 287.54 0.00 287.54 310.90 0.00 310.90 269.77 0.00 269.77 278.92 0.00 278.92 249.50 0.00 249.50 260.00 0.00 260.00 225.60 0.00 225.60 238.11 0.00 238.11 195.75 0.00 195.75 211.65 0.00 211.65 153.59 0.00 153.59 177.00 0.00 177.00 68.60 0.00 68.60 120.50 0.00 120.50 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1677 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN H) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 1544.7149 0.035 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.03 48492.8033 1.113 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.17 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 50037.5182 1.1487 0.2007 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.20 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 1.84 5 3.22 0.65 10 2.05 0.41 15 1.58 0.32 20 1.31 0.26 25 1.13 0.23 30 1.00 0.20 35 0.91 0.18 40 0.83 0.17 45 0.77 0.15 50 0.72 0.14 55 0.68 0.14 60 0.64 0.13 75 0.55 0.11 90 0.49 0.10 105 0.44 0.09 120 0.41 0.08 150 0.35 0.07 180 0.31 0.06 360 0.20 0.04 720 0.13 0.03 1440 0.08 0.02 589.30 ft3 0.65 (ft3/s) 1103.29 0.00 1103.29 1406.21 0.00 1406.21 679.15 0.00 679.15 865.62 0.00 865.62 589.30 0.00 589.30 637.17 0.00 637.17 532.85 0.00 532.85 562.39 0.00 562.39 462.36 0.00 462.36 499.91 0.00 499.91 433.77 0.00 433.77 448.49 0.00 448.49 401.18 0.00 401.18 418.07 0.00 418.07 362.76 0.00 362.76 382.87 0.00 382.87 314.76 0.00 314.76 340.33 0.00 340.33 246.96 0.00 246.96 284.61 0.00 284.61 110.31 0.00 110.31 193.76 0.00 193.76 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1747 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN I) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 972.4384 0.022 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 972.4384 0.0223 0.0033 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.03 5 3.22 0.01 10 2.05 0.01 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.00 25 1.13 0.00 30 1.00 0.00 35 0.91 0.00 40 0.83 0.00 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 9.83 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 18.41 0.00 18.41 23.47 0.00 23.47 11.33 0.00 11.33 14.44 0.00 14.44 9.83 0.00 9.83 10.63 0.00 10.63 8.89 0.00 8.89 9.38 0.00 9.38 7.72 0.00 7.72 8.34 0.00 8.34 7.24 0.00 7.24 7.48 0.00 7.48 6.69 0.00 6.69 6.98 0.00 6.98 6.05 0.00 6.05 6.39 0.00 6.39 5.25 0.00 5.25 5.68 0.00 5.68 4.12 0.00 4.12 4.75 0.00 4.75 1.84 0.00 1.84 3.23 0.00 3.23 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN J) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 536.5448 0.012 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.01 17713.9413 0.407 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.06 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 18250.4861 0.4190 0.0727 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.07 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.67 5 3.22 0.23 10 2.05 0.15 15 1.58 0.11 20 1.31 0.10 25 1.13 0.08 30 1.00 0.07 35 0.91 0.07 40 0.83 0.06 45 0.77 0.06 50 0.72 0.05 55 0.68 0.05 60 0.64 0.05 75 0.55 0.04 90 0.49 0.04 105 0.44 0.03 120 0.41 0.03 150 0.35 0.03 180 0.31 0.02 360 0.20 0.01 720 0.13 0.01 1440 0.08 0.01 213.49 ft3 0.23 (ft3/s) 399.70 0.00 399.70 509.44 0.00 509.44 246.04 0.00 246.04 313.60 0.00 313.60 213.49 0.00 213.49 230.83 0.00 230.83 193.04 0.00 193.04 203.74 0.00 203.74 167.50 0.00 167.50 181.11 0.00 181.11 157.15 0.00 157.15 162.48 0.00 162.48 145.34 0.00 145.34 151.46 0.00 151.46 131.42 0.00 131.42 138.70 0.00 138.70 114.03 0.00 114.03 123.29 0.00 123.29 89.47 0.00 89.47 103.11 0.00 103.11 39.96 0.00 39.96 70.19 0.00 70.19 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1735 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN K) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4184.6699 0.096 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.09 81297.2502 1.866 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.28 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 85481.9201 1.9624 0.3712 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.37 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 3.40 5 3.22 1.19 10 2.05 0.76 15 1.58 0.58 20 1.31 0.49 25 1.13 0.42 30 1.00 0.37 35 0.91 0.34 40 0.83 0.31 45 0.77 0.29 50 0.72 0.27 55 0.68 0.25 60 0.64 0.24 75 0.55 0.21 90 0.49 0.18 105 0.44 0.17 120 0.41 0.15 150 0.35 0.13 180 0.31 0.12 360 0.20 0.07 720 0.13 0.05 1440 0.08 0.03 1,090.10 ft3 1.19 (ft3/s) 2040.89 0.00 2040.89 2601.23 0.00 2601.23 1256.31 0.00 1256.31 1601.25 0.00 1601.25 1090.10 0.00 1090.10 1178.65 0.00 1178.65 985.68 0.00 985.68 1040.32 0.00 1040.32 855.27 0.00 855.27 924.75 0.00 924.75 802.40 0.00 802.40 829.62 0.00 829.62 742.12 0.00 742.12 773.35 0.00 773.35 671.03 0.00 671.03 708.23 0.00 708.23 582.25 0.00 582.25 629.55 0.00 629.55 456.83 0.00 456.83 526.48 0.00 526.48 204.06 0.00 204.06 358.42 0.00 358.42 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1892 Cwd x Cf =0.19 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN L) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 681.2274 0.016 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 681.2274 0.0156 0.0023 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.02 5 3.22 0.01 10 2.05 0.00 15 1.58 0.00 20 1.31 0.00 25 1.13 0.00 30 1.00 0.00 35 0.91 0.00 40 0.83 0.00 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 6.89 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 12.90 0.00 12.90 16.44 0.00 16.44 7.94 0.00 7.94 10.12 0.00 10.12 6.89 0.00 6.89 7.45 0.00 7.45 6.23 0.00 6.23 6.57 0.00 6.57 5.40 0.00 5.40 5.84 0.00 5.84 5.07 0.00 5.07 5.24 0.00 5.24 4.69 0.00 4.69 4.89 0.00 4.89 4.24 0.00 4.24 4.48 0.00 4.48 3.68 0.00 3.68 3.98 0.00 3.98 2.89 0.00 2.89 3.33 0.00 3.33 1.29 0.00 1.29 2.26 0.00 2.26 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN M) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 685.1818 0.016 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.01 22695.5088 0.521 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.08 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 23380.6906 0.5367 0.0931 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.09 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.85 5 3.22 0.30 10 2.05 0.19 15 1.58 0.15 20 1.31 0.12 25 1.13 0.11 30 1.00 0.09 35 0.91 0.08 40 0.83 0.08 45 0.77 0.07 50 0.72 0.07 55 0.68 0.06 60 0.64 0.06 75 0.55 0.05 90 0.49 0.05 105 0.44 0.04 120 0.41 0.04 150 0.35 0.03 180 0.31 0.03 360 0.20 0.02 720 0.13 0.01 1440 0.08 0.01 273.38 ft3 0.30 (ft3/s) 511.83 0.00 511.83 652.36 0.00 652.36 315.07 0.00 315.07 401.57 0.00 401.57 273.38 0.00 273.38 295.59 0.00 295.59 247.20 0.00 247.20 260.90 0.00 260.90 214.49 0.00 214.49 231.92 0.00 231.92 201.23 0.00 201.23 208.06 0.00 208.06 186.11 0.00 186.11 193.95 0.00 193.95 168.29 0.00 168.29 177.62 0.00 177.62 146.02 0.00 146.02 157.88 0.00 157.88 114.57 0.00 114.57 132.04 0.00 132.04 51.18 0.00 51.18 89.89 0.00 89.89 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1734 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN N) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 1113.8649 0.026 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1113.8649 0.0256 0.0038 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.04 5 3.22 0.01 10 2.05 0.01 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.01 25 1.13 0.00 30 1.00 0.00 35 0.91 0.00 40 0.83 0.00 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 11.26 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 21.09 0.00 21.09 26.88 0.00 26.88 12.98 0.00 12.98 16.55 0.00 16.55 11.26 0.00 11.26 12.18 0.00 12.18 10.18 0.00 10.18 10.75 0.00 10.75 8.84 0.00 8.84 9.56 0.00 9.56 8.29 0.00 8.29 8.57 0.00 8.57 7.67 0.00 7.67 7.99 0.00 7.99 6.93 0.00 6.93 7.32 0.00 7.32 6.02 0.00 6.02 6.50 0.00 6.50 4.72 0.00 4.72 5.44 0.00 5.44 2.11 0.00 2.11 3.70 0.00 3.70 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN O) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 595.7659 0.014 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 595.7659 0.0137 0.0021 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.02 5 3.22 0.01 10 2.05 0.00 15 1.58 0.00 20 1.31 0.00 25 1.13 0.00 30 1.00 0.00 35 0.91 0.00 40 0.83 0.00 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 6.02 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 11.28 0.00 11.28 14.38 0.00 14.38 6.94 0.00 6.94 8.85 0.00 8.85 6.02 0.00 6.02 6.51 0.00 6.51 5.45 0.00 5.45 5.75 0.00 5.75 4.73 0.00 4.73 5.11 0.00 5.11 4.43 0.00 4.43 4.58 0.00 4.58 4.10 0.00 4.10 4.27 0.00 4.27 3.71 0.00 3.71 3.91 0.00 3.91 3.22 0.00 3.22 3.48 0.00 3.48 2.52 0.00 2.52 2.91 0.00 2.91 1.13 0.00 1.13 1.98 0.00 1.98 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN P) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4389.6883 0.101 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.10 155984.0825 3.581 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.54 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 160373.7708 3.6817 0.6329 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.63 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 5.80 5 3.22 2.04 10 2.05 1.30 15 1.58 1.00 20 1.31 0.83 25 1.13 0.72 30 1.00 0.64 35 0.91 0.57 40 0.83 0.53 45 0.77 0.49 50 0.72 0.46 55 0.68 0.43 60 0.64 0.41 75 0.55 0.35 90 0.49 0.31 105 0.44 0.28 120 0.41 0.26 150 0.35 0.22 180 0.31 0.20 360 0.20 0.13 720 0.13 0.08 1440 0.08 0.05 1,858.48 ft3 2.04 (ft3/s) 3479.45 0.00 3479.45 4434.77 0.00 4434.77 2141.85 0.00 2141.85 2729.92 0.00 2729.92 1858.48 0.00 1858.48 2009.44 0.00 2009.44 1680.46 0.00 1680.46 1773.62 0.00 1773.62 1458.13 0.00 1458.13 1576.58 0.00 1576.58 1367.99 0.00 1367.99 1414.40 0.00 1414.40 1265.22 0.00 1265.22 1318.46 0.00 1318.46 1144.03 0.00 1144.03 1207.45 0.00 1207.45 992.67 0.00 992.67 1073.30 0.00 1073.30 778.83 0.00 778.83 897.59 0.00 897.59 347.89 0.00 347.89 611.06 0.00 611.06 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1719 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASINS A&E) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 6982.5524 0.160 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.15 179207.716 4.114 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.62 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 186190.2684 4.2743 0.7694 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.77 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 7.05 5 3.22 2.48 10 2.05 1.58 15 1.58 1.21 20 1.31 1.01 25 1.13 0.87 30 1.00 0.77 35 0.91 0.70 40 0.83 0.64 45 0.77 0.59 50 0.72 0.55 55 0.68 0.52 60 0.64 0.49 75 0.55 0.43 90 0.49 0.38 105 0.44 0.34 120 0.41 0.31 150 0.35 0.27 180 0.31 0.24 360 0.20 0.15 720 0.13 0.10 1440 0.08 0.06 2,259.38 ft3 2.48 (ft3/s) 4230.01 0.00 4230.01 5391.41 0.00 5391.41 2603.88 0.00 2603.88 3318.80 0.00 3318.80 2259.38 0.00 2259.38 2442.91 0.00 2442.91 2042.96 0.00 2042.96 2156.21 0.00 2156.21 1772.67 0.00 1772.67 1916.67 0.00 1916.67 1663.09 0.00 1663.09 1719.50 0.00 1719.50 1538.14 0.00 1538.14 1602.88 0.00 1602.88 1390.81 0.00 1390.81 1467.91 0.00 1467.91 1206.80 0.00 1206.80 1304.83 0.00 1304.83 946.84 0.00 946.84 1091.21 0.00 1091.21 422.94 0.00 422.94 742.87 0.00 742.87 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1800 Cwd x Cf =0.18 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASINS H, I, K, and L) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 3545.922 0.081 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.08 125546.639 2.882 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.43 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 129092.561 2.9636 0.5097 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.51 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 4.67 5 3.22 1.64 10 2.05 1.05 15 1.58 0.80 20 1.31 0.67 25 1.13 0.58 30 1.00 0.51 35 0.91 0.46 40 0.83 0.42 45 0.77 0.39 50 0.72 0.37 55 0.68 0.35 60 0.64 0.33 75 0.55 0.28 90 0.49 0.25 105 0.44 0.23 120 0.41 0.21 150 0.35 0.18 180 0.31 0.16 360 0.20 0.10 720 0.13 0.06 1440 0.08 0.04 1,496.65 ft3 1.64 (ft3/s) 2802.03 0.00 2802.03 3571.36 0.00 3571.36 1724.85 0.00 1724.85 2198.43 0.00 2198.43 1496.65 0.00 1496.65 1618.22 0.00 1618.22 1353.29 0.00 1353.29 1428.31 0.00 1428.31 1174.25 0.00 1174.25 1269.63 0.00 1269.63 1101.66 0.00 1101.66 1139.03 0.00 1139.03 1018.89 0.00 1018.89 1061.77 0.00 1061.77 921.30 0.00 921.30 972.37 0.00 972.37 799.41 0.00 799.41 864.34 0.00 864.34 627.20 0.00 627.20 722.83 0.00 722.83 280.16 0.00 280.16 492.09 0.00 492.09 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1720 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASINS F, G, H, I, and J) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4184.6699 0.096 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.09 82411.1151 1.892 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.28 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 86595.785 1.9880 0.3750 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.38 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 3.44 5 3.22 1.21 10 2.05 0.77 15 1.58 0.59 20 1.31 0.49 25 1.13 0.42 30 1.00 0.38 35 0.91 0.34 40 0.83 0.31 45 0.77 0.29 50 0.72 0.27 55 0.68 0.25 60 0.64 0.24 75 0.55 0.21 90 0.49 0.18 105 0.44 0.17 120 0.41 0.15 150 0.35 0.13 180 0.31 0.12 360 0.20 0.07 720 0.13 0.05 1440 0.08 0.03 1,101.36 ft3 1.21 (ft3/s) 2061.97 0.00 2061.97 2628.11 0.00 2628.11 1269.29 0.00 1269.29 1617.79 0.00 1617.79 1101.36 0.00 1101.36 1190.83 0.00 1190.83 995.87 0.00 995.87 1051.07 0.00 1051.07 864.11 0.00 864.11 934.30 0.00 934.30 810.69 0.00 810.69 838.19 0.00 838.19 749.79 0.00 749.79 781.34 0.00 781.34 677.97 0.00 677.97 715.55 0.00 715.55 588.27 0.00 588.27 636.06 0.00 636.06 461.55 0.00 461.55 531.92 0.00 531.92 206.17 0.00 206.17 362.12 0.00 362.12 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1887 Cwd x Cf =0.19 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASINS L&O) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4184.6699 0.096 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.09 83688.1084 1.921 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.29 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 87872.7783 2.0173 0.3794 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.38 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 3.48 5 3.22 1.22 10 2.05 0.78 15 1.58 0.60 20 1.31 0.50 25 1.13 0.43 30 1.00 0.38 35 0.91 0.34 40 0.83 0.32 45 0.77 0.29 50 0.72 0.27 55 0.68 0.26 60 0.64 0.24 75 0.55 0.21 90 0.49 0.19 105 0.44 0.17 120 0.41 0.15 150 0.35 0.13 180 0.31 0.12 360 0.20 0.08 720 0.13 0.05 1440 0.08 0.03 1,114.28 ft3 1.22 (ft3/s) 2086.15 0.00 2086.15 2658.92 0.00 2658.92 1284.18 0.00 1284.18 1636.76 0.00 1636.76 1114.28 0.00 1114.28 1204.79 0.00 1204.79 1007.54 0.00 1007.54 1063.40 0.00 1063.40 874.24 0.00 874.24 945.26 0.00 945.26 820.20 0.00 820.20 848.02 0.00 848.02 758.58 0.00 758.58 790.50 0.00 790.50 685.92 0.00 685.92 723.94 0.00 723.94 595.17 0.00 595.17 643.51 0.00 643.51 466.96 0.00 466.96 538.16 0.00 538.16 208.58 0.00 208.58 366.37 0.00 366.37 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1881 Cwd x Cf =0.19 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASINS L, M, O, and P) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 227206.17 5.216 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 4.96 197261.93 4.529 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.68 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 424468.0982 9.7444 5.6344 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =5.63 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 51.62 5 3.22 18.13 10 2.05 11.56 15 1.58 8.88 20 1.31 7.36 25 1.13 6.37 30 1.00 5.66 35 0.91 5.12 40 0.83 4.69 45 0.77 4.35 50 0.72 4.06 55 0.68 3.82 60 0.64 3.61 75 0.55 3.12 90 0.49 2.77 105 0.44 2.51 120 0.41 2.30 150 0.35 1.99 180 0.31 1.77 360 0.20 1.13 720 0.13 0.72 1440 0.08 0.46 16,545.96 ft3 18.13 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (OVERALL ON-SITE DISCHARGE) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.5782 Cwd x Cf =0.58 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 3097.27 0.00 3097.27 5440.24 0.00 5440.24 6933.91 0.00 6933.91 7991.17 0.00 7991.17 8837.69 0.00 8837.69 9555.59 0.00 9555.59 10185.23 0.00 10185.23 10749.85 0.00 10749.85 11264.18 0.00 11264.18 11738.24 0.00 11738.24 12179.18 0.00 12179.18 12592.31 0.00 12592.31 12981.69 0.00 12981.69 14036.21 0.00 14036.21 14961.09 0.00 14961.09 15790.46 0.00 15790.46 16545.96 0.00 16545.96 17890.00 0.00 17890.00 19068.82 0.00 19068.82 24304.37 0.00 24304.37 30977.39 0.00 30977.39 39482.56 0.00 39482.56 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 85006.14 1.951 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 1.85 34308.04 0.788 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.12 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 119314.19 2.7391 1.9720 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =1.97 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 18.07 5 3.22 6.35 10 2.05 4.04 15 1.58 3.11 20 1.31 2.58 25 1.13 2.23 30 1.00 1.98 35 0.91 1.79 40 0.83 1.64 45 0.77 1.52 50 0.72 1.42 55 0.68 1.34 60 0.64 1.26 75 0.55 1.09 90 0.49 0.97 105 0.44 0.88 120 0.41 0.80 150 0.35 0.70 180 0.31 0.62 360 0.20 0.39 720 0.13 0.25 1440 0.08 0.16 5,791.07 ft3 6.35 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 1: B, C, D, K, L) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7200 Cwd x Cf =0.72 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 1084.04 0.00 1084.04 1904.08 0.00 1904.08 2426.86 0.00 2426.86 2796.90 0.00 2796.90 3093.18 0.00 3093.18 3344.45 0.00 3344.45 3564.82 0.00 3564.82 3762.43 0.00 3762.43 3942.45 0.00 3942.45 4108.37 0.00 4108.37 4262.70 0.00 4262.70 4407.29 0.00 4407.29 4543.58 0.00 4543.58 4912.66 0.00 4912.66 5236.37 0.00 5236.37 5526.64 0.00 5526.64 5791.07 0.00 5791.07 6261.48 0.00 6261.48 6674.07 0.00 6674.07 8506.50 0.00 8506.50 10842.05 0.00 10842.05 13818.85 0.00 13818.85 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 43781.43 1.005 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 8699.12 0.200 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.03 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 52480.5575 1.2048 0.9848 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.98 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 9.02 5 3.22 3.17 10 2.05 2.02 15 1.58 1.55 20 1.31 1.29 25 1.13 1.11 30 1.00 0.99 35 0.91 0.89 40 0.83 0.82 45 0.77 0.76 50 0.72 0.71 55 0.68 0.67 60 0.64 0.63 75 0.55 0.55 90 0.49 0.48 105 0.44 0.44 120 0.41 0.40 150 0.35 0.35 180 0.31 0.31 360 0.20 0.20 720 0.13 0.13 1440 0.08 0.08 2,891.91 ft3 3.17 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 2: M, N, P, T, U) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.8174 Cwd x Cf =0.82 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 541.34 0.00 541.34 950.85 0.00 950.85 1211.91 0.00 1211.91 1396.70 0.00 1396.70 1544.65 0.00 1544.65 1670.13 0.00 1670.13 1780.18 0.00 1780.18 1878.86 0.00 1878.86 1968.76 0.00 1968.76 2051.61 0.00 2051.61 2128.68 0.00 2128.68 2200.89 0.00 2200.89 2268.94 0.00 2268.94 2453.25 0.00 2453.25 2614.90 0.00 2614.90 2759.86 0.00 2759.86 2891.91 0.00 2891.91 3126.82 0.00 3126.82 3332.85 0.00 3332.85 4247.92 0.00 4247.92 5414.24 0.00 5414.24 6900.77 0.00 6900.77 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 41004.18 0.941 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.89 14748.12 0.339 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.05 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 55752.3077 1.2799 0.9450 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.95 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 8.66 5 3.22 3.04 10 2.05 1.94 15 1.58 1.49 20 1.31 1.24 25 1.13 1.07 30 1.00 0.95 35 0.91 0.86 40 0.83 0.79 45 0.77 0.73 50 0.72 0.68 55 0.68 0.64 60 0.64 0.60 75 0.55 0.52 90 0.49 0.46 105 0.44 0.42 120 0.41 0.39 150 0.35 0.33 180 0.31 0.30 360 0.20 0.19 720 0.13 0.12 1440 0.08 0.08 2,775.21 ft3 3.04 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 3: Q, Y, CC) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7384 Cwd x Cf =0.74 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 519.50 0.00 519.50 912.48 0.00 912.48 1163.01 0.00 1163.01 1340.34 0.00 1340.34 1482.32 0.00 1482.32 1602.73 0.00 1602.73 1708.34 0.00 1708.34 1803.04 0.00 1803.04 1889.31 0.00 1889.31 1968.82 0.00 1968.82 2042.78 0.00 2042.78 2112.07 0.00 2112.07 2177.39 0.00 2177.39 2354.26 0.00 2354.26 2509.38 0.00 2509.38 2648.49 0.00 2648.49 2775.21 0.00 2775.21 3000.64 0.00 3000.64 3198.36 0.00 3198.36 4076.51 0.00 4076.51 5195.76 0.00 5195.76 6622.31 0.00 6622.31 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 25174.41 0.578 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.55 13450.44 0.309 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.05 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 38624.8453 0.8867 0.5953 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.60 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 5.45 5 3.22 1.92 10 2.05 1.22 15 1.58 0.94 20 1.31 0.78 25 1.13 0.67 30 1.00 0.60 35 0.91 0.54 40 0.83 0.50 45 0.77 0.46 50 0.72 0.43 55 0.68 0.40 60 0.64 0.38 75 0.55 0.33 90 0.49 0.29 105 0.44 0.26 120 0.41 0.24 150 0.35 0.21 180 0.31 0.19 360 0.20 0.12 720 0.13 0.08 1440 0.08 0.05 1,748.28 ft3 1.92 (ft3/s) 3273.14 0.00 3273.14 4171.82 0.00 4171.82 2014.86 0.00 2014.86 2568.06 0.00 2568.06 1748.28 0.00 1748.28 1890.30 0.00 1890.30 1580.82 0.00 1580.82 1668.46 0.00 1668.46 1371.68 0.00 1371.68 1483.10 0.00 1483.10 1286.88 0.00 1286.88 1330.53 0.00 1330.53 1190.20 0.00 1190.20 1240.29 0.00 1240.29 1076.20 0.00 1076.20 1135.85 0.00 1135.85 933.81 0.00 933.81 1009.67 0.00 1009.67 732.65 0.00 732.65 844.37 0.00 844.37 327.26 0.00 327.26 574.83 0.00 574.83 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.6714 Cwd x Cf =0.67 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 4: E, G, H, I, R) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 20243.06 0.465 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.44 12159.86 0.279 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.04 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 32402.9146 0.7439 0.4834 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.48 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 4.43 5 3.22 1.56 10 2.05 0.99 15 1.58 0.76 20 1.31 0.63 25 1.13 0.55 30 1.00 0.49 35 0.91 0.44 40 0.83 0.40 45 0.77 0.37 50 0.72 0.35 55 0.68 0.33 60 0.64 0.31 75 0.55 0.27 90 0.49 0.24 105 0.44 0.22 120 0.41 0.20 150 0.35 0.17 180 0.31 0.15 360 0.20 0.10 720 0.13 0.06 1440 0.08 0.04 1,419.41 ft3 1.56 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 5: V, W, X) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6498 Cwd x Cf =0.65 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 265.70 0.00 265.70 466.70 0.00 466.70 594.83 0.00 594.83 685.53 0.00 685.53 758.15 0.00 758.15 819.74 0.00 819.74 873.75 0.00 873.75 922.19 0.00 922.19 966.31 0.00 966.31 1006.98 0.00 1006.98 1044.80 0.00 1044.80 1080.24 0.00 1080.24 1113.65 0.00 1113.65 1204.11 0.00 1204.11 1283.45 0.00 1283.45 1354.60 0.00 1354.60 1419.41 0.00 1419.41 1534.71 0.00 1534.71 1635.84 0.00 1635.84 2084.97 0.00 2084.97 2657.42 0.00 2657.42 3387.05 0.00 3387.05 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4193.92 0.096 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.09 20699.40 0.475 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.07 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 24893.3212 0.5715 0.1627 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.16 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 1.49 5 3.22 0.52 10 2.05 0.33 15 1.58 0.26 20 1.31 0.21 25 1.13 0.18 30 1.00 0.16 35 0.91 0.15 40 0.83 0.14 45 0.77 0.13 50 0.72 0.12 55 0.68 0.11 60 0.64 0.10 75 0.55 0.09 90 0.49 0.08 105 0.44 0.07 120 0.41 0.07 150 0.35 0.06 180 0.31 0.05 360 0.20 0.03 720 0.13 0.02 1440 0.08 0.01 477.91 ft3 0.52 (ft3/s) 894.75 0.00 894.75 1140.41 0.00 1140.41 550.78 0.00 550.78 702.01 0.00 702.01 477.91 0.00 477.91 516.73 0.00 516.73 432.14 0.00 432.14 456.09 0.00 456.09 374.96 0.00 374.96 405.42 0.00 405.42 351.78 0.00 351.78 363.72 0.00 363.72 325.35 0.00 325.35 339.05 0.00 339.05 294.19 0.00 294.19 310.50 0.00 310.50 255.27 0.00 255.27 276.00 0.00 276.00 200.28 0.00 200.28 230.82 0.00 230.82 89.46 0.00 89.46 157.14 0.00 157.14 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.2848 Cwd x Cf =0.28 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 6: DD) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 9132.40 0.210 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 9132.4029 0.2097 0.0346 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.03 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.37 5 3.83 0.13 10 2.46 0.08 15 1.89 0.07 20 1.58 0.05 25 1.37 0.05 30 1.22 0.04 35 1.10 0.04 40 1.01 0.03 45 0.94 0.03 50 0.88 0.03 55 0.82 0.03 60 0.78 0.03 75 0.68 0.02 90 0.60 0.02 105 0.55 0.02 120 0.50 0.02 150 0.43 0.02 180 0.39 0.01 360 0.25 0.01 720 0.16 0.01 1440 0.10 0.00 124.67 ft3 0.13 (ft3/s) 237.62 0.00 237.62 304.97 0.00 304.97 144.26 0.00 144.26 185.15 0.00 185.15 124.67 0.00 124.67 135.09 0.00 135.09 112.40 0.00 112.40 118.82 0.00 118.82 97.14 0.00 97.14 105.26 0.00 105.26 90.96 0.00 90.96 94.14 0.00 94.14 83.94 0.00 83.94 87.58 0.00 87.58 75.68 0.00 75.68 80.00 0.00 80.00 65.41 0.00 65.41 70.88 0.00 70.88 50.96 0.00 50.96 58.97 0.00 58.97 22.25 0.00 22.25 39.71 0.00 39.71 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN A) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 9132.40 0.210 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.03 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 9132.4029 0.2097 0.0314 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.03 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.29 5 3.22 0.10 10 2.05 0.06 15 1.58 0.05 20 1.31 0.04 25 1.13 0.04 30 1.00 0.03 35 0.91 0.03 40 0.83 0.03 45 0.77 0.02 50 0.72 0.02 55 0.68 0.02 60 0.64 0.02 75 0.55 0.02 90 0.49 0.02 105 0.44 0.01 120 0.41 0.01 150 0.35 0.01 180 0.31 0.01 360 0.20 0.01 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 92.35 ft3 0.10 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN A) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 17.29 0.00 17.29 30.36 0.00 30.36 38.70 0.00 38.70 44.60 0.00 44.60 49.33 0.00 49.33 53.33 0.00 53.33 56.85 0.00 56.85 60.00 0.00 60.00 62.87 0.00 62.87 65.52 0.00 65.52 67.98 0.00 67.98 70.28 0.00 70.28 72.46 0.00 72.46 78.34 0.00 78.34 83.50 0.00 83.50 88.13 0.00 88.13 92.35 0.00 92.35 99.85 0.00 99.85 106.43 0.00 106.43 135.65 0.00 135.65 172.90 0.00 172.90 220.37 0.00 220.37 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 8164.46 0.187 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.19 17644.27 0.405 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.07 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 25808.7222 0.5925 0.2543 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.26 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 2.82 5 3.83 1.01 10 2.46 0.65 15 1.89 0.50 20 1.58 0.41 25 1.37 0.36 30 1.22 0.32 35 1.10 0.29 40 1.01 0.27 45 0.94 0.25 50 0.88 0.23 55 0.82 0.22 60 0.78 0.20 75 0.68 0.18 90 0.60 0.16 105 0.55 0.14 120 0.50 0.13 150 0.43 0.11 180 0.39 0.10 360 0.25 0.07 720 0.16 0.04 1440 0.10 0.03 946.73 ft3 1.01 (ft3/s) 1804.51 0.00 1804.51 2315.96 0.00 2315.96 1095.52 0.00 1095.52 1406.01 0.00 1406.01 946.73 0.00 946.73 1025.92 0.00 1025.92 853.59 0.00 853.59 902.30 0.00 902.30 737.66 0.00 737.66 799.36 0.00 799.36 690.80 0.00 690.80 714.91 0.00 714.91 637.47 0.00 637.47 665.09 0.00 665.09 574.76 0.00 574.76 607.55 0.00 607.55 496.70 0.00 496.70 538.24 0.00 538.24 387.01 0.00 387.01 447.83 0.00 447.83 168.94 0.00 168.94 301.54 0.00 301.54 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.4031 Cwd x Cf =0.44 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN B) Surface Type = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 23575.28 0.541 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.54 5773.17 0.133 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 29348.4513 0.6737 0.5631 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.59 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 6.30 5 3.83 2.25 10 2.46 1.44 15 1.89 1.11 20 1.58 0.93 25 1.37 0.80 30 1.22 0.71 35 1.10 0.65 40 1.01 0.59 45 0.94 0.55 50 0.88 0.51 55 0.82 0.48 60 0.78 0.46 75 0.68 0.40 90 0.60 0.35 105 0.55 0.32 120 0.50 0.29 150 0.43 0.25 180 0.39 0.23 360 0.25 0.15 720 0.16 0.09 1440 0.10 0.06 2,117.04 ft3 2.25 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN C) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7926 Cwd x Cf =0.87 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 377.77 0.00 377.77 674.30 0.00 674.30 865.41 0.00 865.41 1001.42 0.00 1001.42 1110.69 0.00 1110.69 1203.60 0.00 1203.60 1285.25 0.00 1285.25 1358.59 0.00 1358.59 1425.49 0.00 1425.49 1487.24 0.00 1487.24 1544.73 0.00 1544.73 1598.65 0.00 1598.65 1649.52 0.00 1649.52 1787.50 0.00 1787.50 1908.76 0.00 1908.76 2017.68 0.00 2017.68 2117.04 0.00 2117.04 2294.12 0.00 2294.12 2449.75 0.00 2449.75 3144.07 0.00 3144.07 4035.19 0.00 4035.19 5178.86 0.00 5178.86 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 41988.32 0.964 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.96 6023.22 0.138 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 48011.5442 1.1022 0.9867 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =1.03 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 11.04 5 3.83 3.94 10 2.46 2.53 15 1.89 1.95 20 1.58 1.62 25 1.37 1.41 30 1.22 1.25 35 1.10 1.13 40 1.01 1.04 45 0.94 0.97 50 0.88 0.90 55 0.82 0.85 60 0.78 0.80 75 0.68 0.70 90 0.60 0.62 105 0.55 0.56 120 0.50 0.52 150 0.43 0.45 180 0.39 0.40 360 0.25 0.26 720 0.16 0.16 1440 0.10 0.11 3,712.38 ft3 3.94 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN D) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.8496 Cwd x Cf =0.93 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 662.44 0.00 662.44 1182.43 0.00 1182.43 1517.56 0.00 1517.56 1756.06 0.00 1756.06 1947.68 0.00 1947.68 2110.60 0.00 2110.60 2253.77 0.00 2253.77 2382.38 0.00 2382.38 2499.70 0.00 2499.70 2607.97 0.00 2607.97 2708.79 0.00 2708.79 2803.35 0.00 2803.35 2892.55 0.00 2892.55 3134.50 0.00 3134.50 3347.14 0.00 3347.14 3538.14 0.00 3538.14 3712.38 0.00 3712.38 4022.90 0.00 4022.90 4295.81 0.00 4295.81 5513.35 0.00 5513.35 7075.98 0.00 7075.98 9081.49 0.00 9081.49 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 5486.29 0.126 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.13 2780.64 0.064 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 8266.9304 0.1898 0.1365 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.14 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.52 5 3.83 0.54 10 2.46 0.35 15 1.89 0.27 20 1.58 0.22 25 1.37 0.19 30 1.22 0.17 35 1.10 0.16 40 1.01 0.14 45 0.94 0.13 50 0.88 0.12 55 0.82 0.12 60 0.78 0.11 75 0.68 0.10 90 0.60 0.09 105 0.55 0.08 120 0.50 0.07 150 0.43 0.06 180 0.39 0.05 360 0.25 0.04 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 512.28 ft3 0.54 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN E) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6809 Cwd x Cf =0.75 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 91.41 0.00 91.41 163.17 0.00 163.17 209.41 0.00 209.41 242.32 0.00 242.32 268.77 0.00 268.77 291.25 0.00 291.25 311.01 0.00 311.01 328.75 0.00 328.75 344.94 0.00 344.94 359.88 0.00 359.88 373.79 0.00 373.79 386.84 0.00 386.84 399.15 0.00 399.15 432.54 0.00 432.54 461.88 0.00 461.88 488.24 0.00 488.24 512.28 0.00 512.28 555.13 0.00 555.13 592.79 0.00 592.79 760.80 0.00 760.80 976.44 0.00 976.44 1253.18 0.00 1253.18 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 5300.30 0.122 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.12 3363.34 0.077 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 8663.6324 0.1989 0.1344 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.14 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.50 5 3.83 0.54 10 2.46 0.34 15 1.89 0.26 20 1.58 0.22 25 1.37 0.19 30 1.22 0.17 35 1.10 0.15 40 1.01 0.14 45 0.94 0.13 50 0.88 0.12 55 0.82 0.12 60 0.78 0.11 75 0.68 0.09 90 0.60 0.08 105 0.55 0.08 120 0.50 0.07 150 0.43 0.06 180 0.39 0.05 360 0.25 0.03 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 504.16 ft3 0.54 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN F) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6394 Cwd x Cf =0.70 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 89.96 0.00 89.96 160.58 0.00 160.58 206.09 0.00 206.09 238.48 0.00 238.48 264.50 0.00 264.50 286.63 0.00 286.63 306.07 0.00 306.07 323.54 0.00 323.54 339.47 0.00 339.47 354.17 0.00 354.17 367.87 0.00 367.87 380.71 0.00 380.71 392.82 0.00 392.82 425.68 0.00 425.68 454.56 0.00 454.56 480.49 0.00 480.49 504.16 0.00 504.16 546.33 0.00 546.33 583.39 0.00 583.39 748.74 0.00 748.74 960.95 0.00 960.95 1233.31 0.00 1233.31 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 5300.30 0.122 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.12 3363.34 0.077 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 8663.6324 0.1989 0.1272 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.13 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 1.17 5 3.22 0.41 10 2.05 0.26 15 1.58 0.20 20 1.31 0.17 25 1.13 0.14 30 1.00 0.13 35 0.91 0.12 40 0.83 0.11 45 0.77 0.10 50 0.72 0.09 55 0.68 0.09 60 0.64 0.08 75 0.55 0.07 90 0.49 0.06 105 0.44 0.06 120 0.41 0.05 150 0.35 0.04 180 0.31 0.04 360 0.20 0.03 720 0.13 0.02 1440 0.08 0.01 373.46 ft3 0.41 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN F) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6394 Cwd x Cf =0.64 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 69.91 0.00 69.91 122.79 0.00 122.79 156.51 0.00 156.51 180.37 0.00 180.37 199.48 0.00 199.48 215.68 0.00 215.68 229.89 0.00 229.89 242.64 0.00 242.64 254.25 0.00 254.25 264.95 0.00 264.95 274.90 0.00 274.90 284.22 0.00 284.22 293.01 0.00 293.01 316.82 0.00 316.82 337.69 0.00 337.69 356.41 0.00 356.41 373.46 0.00 373.46 403.80 0.00 403.80 430.41 0.00 430.41 548.58 0.00 548.58 699.20 0.00 699.20 891.17 0.00 891.17 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 5008.70 0.115 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.11 1364.67 0.031 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 6373.3714 0.1463 0.1202 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.13 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.34 5 3.83 0.48 10 2.46 0.31 15 1.89 0.24 20 1.58 0.20 25 1.37 0.17 30 1.22 0.15 35 1.10 0.14 40 1.01 0.13 45 0.94 0.12 50 0.88 0.11 55 0.82 0.10 60 0.78 0.10 75 0.68 0.08 90 0.60 0.08 105 0.55 0.07 120 0.50 0.06 150 0.43 0.05 180 0.39 0.05 360 0.25 0.03 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 451.66 ft3 0.48 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN G) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7787 Cwd x Cf =0.86 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 80.60 0.00 80.60 143.86 0.00 143.86 184.63 0.00 184.63 213.65 0.00 213.65 236.96 0.00 236.96 256.78 0.00 256.78 274.20 0.00 274.20 289.85 0.00 289.85 304.12 0.00 304.12 317.30 0.00 317.30 329.56 0.00 329.56 341.07 0.00 341.07 351.92 0.00 351.92 381.36 0.00 381.36 407.23 0.00 407.23 430.46 0.00 430.46 451.66 0.00 451.66 489.44 0.00 489.44 522.65 0.00 522.65 670.78 0.00 670.78 860.89 0.00 860.89 1104.89 0.00 1104.89 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4925.83 0.113 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.11 1551.04 0.036 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 6476.8739 0.1487 0.1190 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.12 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.33 5 3.83 0.47 10 2.46 0.30 15 1.89 0.23 20 1.58 0.20 25 1.37 0.17 30 1.22 0.15 35 1.10 0.14 40 1.01 0.13 45 0.94 0.12 50 0.88 0.11 55 0.82 0.10 60 0.78 0.10 75 0.68 0.08 90 0.60 0.07 105 0.55 0.07 120 0.50 0.06 150 0.43 0.05 180 0.39 0.05 360 0.25 0.03 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 447.04 ft3 0.47 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN H) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7584 Cwd x Cf =0.83 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 79.77 0.00 79.77 142.39 0.00 142.39 182.74 0.00 182.74 211.46 0.00 211.46 234.54 0.00 234.54 254.16 0.00 254.16 271.40 0.00 271.40 286.88 0.00 286.88 301.01 0.00 301.01 314.05 0.00 314.05 326.19 0.00 326.19 337.58 0.00 337.58 348.32 0.00 348.32 377.46 0.00 377.46 403.06 0.00 403.06 426.06 0.00 426.06 447.04 0.00 447.04 484.44 0.00 484.44 517.30 0.00 517.30 663.91 0.00 663.91 852.08 0.00 852.08 1093.59 0.00 1093.59 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 8425.62 0.193 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.19 2687.30 0.062 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 11112.9213 0.2551 0.2036 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.21 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 2.28 5 3.83 0.81 10 2.46 0.52 15 1.89 0.40 20 1.58 0.33 25 1.37 0.29 30 1.22 0.26 35 1.10 0.23 40 1.01 0.21 45 0.94 0.20 50 0.88 0.19 55 0.82 0.18 60 0.78 0.17 75 0.68 0.14 90 0.60 0.13 105 0.55 0.12 120 0.50 0.11 150 0.43 0.09 180 0.39 0.08 360 0.25 0.05 720 0.16 0.03 1440 0.10 0.02 765.13 ft3 0.81 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN I) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7565 Cwd x Cf =0.83 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 136.53 0.00 136.53 243.70 0.00 243.70 312.77 0.00 312.77 361.93 0.00 361.93 401.42 0.00 401.42 435.00 0.00 435.00 464.51 0.00 464.51 491.02 0.00 491.02 515.20 0.00 515.20 537.51 0.00 537.51 558.29 0.00 558.29 577.78 0.00 577.78 596.16 0.00 596.16 646.03 0.00 646.03 689.86 0.00 689.86 729.22 0.00 729.22 765.13 0.00 765.13 829.13 0.00 829.13 885.38 0.00 885.38 1136.32 0.00 1136.32 1458.38 0.00 1458.38 1871.72 0.00 1871.72 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 12.47 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 25753.50 0.591 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.10 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 25765.9775 0.5915 0.0978 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.10 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.05 5 3.83 0.37 10 2.46 0.24 15 1.89 0.19 20 1.58 0.15 25 1.37 0.13 30 1.22 0.12 35 1.10 0.11 40 1.01 0.10 45 0.94 0.09 50 0.88 0.09 55 0.82 0.08 60 0.78 0.08 75 0.68 0.07 90 0.60 0.06 105 0.55 0.05 120 0.50 0.05 150 0.43 0.04 180 0.39 0.04 360 0.25 0.02 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 352.64 ft3 0.37 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN J) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1504 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 62.93 0.00 62.93 112.32 0.00 112.32 144.15 0.00 144.15 166.81 0.00 166.81 185.01 0.00 185.01 200.49 0.00 200.49 214.09 0.00 214.09 226.30 0.00 226.30 237.45 0.00 237.45 247.73 0.00 247.73 257.31 0.00 257.31 266.29 0.00 266.29 274.76 0.00 274.76 297.75 0.00 297.75 317.95 0.00 317.95 336.09 0.00 336.09 352.64 0.00 352.64 382.14 0.00 382.14 408.06 0.00 408.06 523.71 0.00 523.71 672.15 0.00 672.15 862.65 0.00 862.65 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 12.47 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 25753.50 0.591 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.09 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 25765.9775 0.5915 0.0890 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.09 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.81 5 3.22 0.29 10 2.05 0.18 15 1.58 0.14 20 1.31 0.12 25 1.13 0.10 30 1.00 0.09 35 0.91 0.08 40 0.83 0.07 45 0.77 0.07 50 0.72 0.06 55 0.68 0.06 60 0.64 0.06 75 0.55 0.05 90 0.49 0.04 105 0.44 0.04 120 0.41 0.04 150 0.35 0.03 180 0.31 0.03 360 0.20 0.02 720 0.13 0.01 1440 0.08 0.01 261.22 ft3 0.29 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN J) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1504 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 48.90 0.00 48.90 85.89 0.00 85.89 109.47 0.00 109.47 126.16 0.00 126.16 139.53 0.00 139.53 150.86 0.00 150.86 160.80 0.00 160.80 169.72 0.00 169.72 177.84 0.00 177.84 185.32 0.00 185.32 192.28 0.00 192.28 198.80 0.00 198.80 204.95 0.00 204.95 221.60 0.00 221.60 236.20 0.00 236.20 249.30 0.00 249.30 261.22 0.00 261.22 282.44 0.00 282.44 301.05 0.00 301.05 383.71 0.00 383.71 489.06 0.00 489.06 623.34 0.00 623.34 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 6560.14 0.151 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.15 3715.93 0.085 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 10276.0608 0.2359 0.1647 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.17 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.84 5 3.83 0.66 10 2.46 0.42 15 1.89 0.32 20 1.58 0.27 25 1.37 0.23 30 1.22 0.21 35 1.10 0.19 40 1.01 0.17 45 0.94 0.16 50 0.88 0.15 55 0.82 0.14 60 0.78 0.13 75 0.68 0.12 90 0.60 0.10 105 0.55 0.09 120 0.50 0.09 150 0.43 0.07 180 0.39 0.07 360 0.25 0.04 720 0.16 0.03 1440 0.10 0.02 617.89 ft3 0.66 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN K) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6607 Cwd x Cf =0.73 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 110.26 0.00 110.26 196.80 0.00 196.80 252.58 0.00 252.58 292.28 0.00 292.28 324.17 0.00 324.17 351.29 0.00 351.29 375.12 0.00 375.12 396.53 0.00 396.53 416.05 0.00 416.05 434.07 0.00 434.07 450.85 0.00 450.85 466.59 0.00 466.59 481.44 0.00 481.44 521.71 0.00 521.71 557.10 0.00 557.10 588.89 0.00 588.89 617.89 0.00 617.89 669.57 0.00 669.57 715.00 0.00 715.00 917.65 0.00 917.65 1177.73 0.00 1177.73 1511.53 0.00 1511.53 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4717.94 0.108 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.11 1151.46 0.026 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 5869.4075 0.1347 0.1127 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.12 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.26 5 3.83 0.45 10 2.46 0.29 15 1.89 0.22 20 1.58 0.19 25 1.37 0.16 30 1.22 0.14 35 1.10 0.13 40 1.01 0.12 45 0.94 0.11 50 0.88 0.10 55 0.82 0.10 60 0.78 0.09 75 0.68 0.08 90 0.60 0.07 105 0.55 0.06 120 0.50 0.06 150 0.43 0.05 180 0.39 0.05 360 0.25 0.03 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 423.61 ft3 0.45 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN L) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7931 Cwd x Cf =0.87 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 75.59 0.00 75.59 134.93 0.00 134.93 173.17 0.00 173.17 200.38 0.00 200.38 222.25 0.00 222.25 240.84 0.00 240.84 257.18 0.00 257.18 271.85 0.00 271.85 285.24 0.00 285.24 297.59 0.00 297.59 309.10 0.00 309.10 319.89 0.00 319.89 330.07 0.00 330.07 357.67 0.00 357.67 381.94 0.00 381.94 403.73 0.00 403.73 423.61 0.00 423.61 459.05 0.00 459.05 490.19 0.00 490.19 629.12 0.00 629.12 807.43 0.00 807.43 1036.28 0.00 1036.28 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 11186.61 0.257 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.26 1829.39 0.042 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 13016.0027 0.2988 0.2637 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.28 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 2.95 5 3.83 1.05 10 2.46 0.68 15 1.89 0.52 20 1.58 0.43 25 1.37 0.38 30 1.22 0.33 35 1.10 0.30 40 1.01 0.28 45 0.94 0.26 50 0.88 0.24 55 0.82 0.23 60 0.78 0.21 75 0.68 0.19 90 0.60 0.17 105 0.55 0.15 120 0.50 0.14 150 0.43 0.12 180 0.39 0.11 360 0.25 0.07 720 0.16 0.04 1440 0.10 0.03 992.13 ft3 1.05 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN M) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.8376 Cwd x Cf =0.92 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 177.04 0.00 177.04 316.00 0.00 316.00 405.57 0.00 405.57 469.30 0.00 469.30 520.51 0.00 520.51 564.05 0.00 564.05 602.32 0.00 602.32 636.69 0.00 636.69 668.04 0.00 668.04 696.98 0.00 696.98 723.92 0.00 723.92 749.19 0.00 749.19 773.03 0.00 773.03 837.69 0.00 837.69 894.52 0.00 894.52 945.56 0.00 945.56 992.13 0.00 992.13 1075.11 0.00 1075.11 1148.05 0.00 1148.05 1473.43 0.00 1473.43 1891.04 0.00 1891.04 2427.01 0.00 2427.01 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 9054.72 0.208 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.21 1526.83 0.035 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 10581.5548 0.2429 0.2137 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.22 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 2.39 5 3.83 0.85 10 2.46 0.55 15 1.89 0.42 20 1.58 0.35 25 1.37 0.30 30 1.22 0.27 35 1.10 0.25 40 1.01 0.23 45 0.94 0.21 50 0.88 0.20 55 0.82 0.18 60 0.78 0.17 75 0.68 0.15 90 0.60 0.13 105 0.55 0.12 120 0.50 0.11 150 0.43 0.10 180 0.39 0.09 360 0.25 0.06 720 0.16 0.04 1440 0.10 0.02 803.68 ft3 0.85 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN N) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.8346 Cwd x Cf =0.92 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 143.41 0.00 143.41 255.98 0.00 255.98 328.53 0.00 328.53 380.16 0.00 380.16 421.65 0.00 421.65 456.92 0.00 456.92 487.91 0.00 487.91 515.75 0.00 515.75 541.15 0.00 541.15 564.59 0.00 564.59 586.42 0.00 586.42 606.89 0.00 606.89 626.20 0.00 626.20 678.58 0.00 678.58 724.61 0.00 724.61 765.96 0.00 765.96 803.68 0.00 803.68 870.90 0.00 870.90 929.99 0.00 929.99 1193.57 0.00 1193.57 1531.85 0.00 1531.85 1966.02 0.00 1966.02 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 592.09 0.014 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.01 9316.95 0.214 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.04 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 9909.043 0.2275 0.0489 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.05 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.53 5 3.83 0.19 10 2.46 0.12 15 1.89 0.09 20 1.58 0.08 25 1.37 0.07 30 1.22 0.06 35 1.10 0.05 40 1.01 0.05 45 0.94 0.05 50 0.88 0.04 55 0.82 0.04 60 0.78 0.04 75 0.68 0.03 90 0.60 0.03 105 0.55 0.03 120 0.50 0.02 150 0.43 0.02 180 0.39 0.02 360 0.25 0.01 720 0.16 0.01 1440 0.10 0.01 178.38 ft3 0.19 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN O) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1978 Cwd x Cf =0.22 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 31.83 0.00 31.83 56.81 0.00 56.81 72.92 0.00 72.92 84.38 0.00 84.38 93.58 0.00 93.58 101.41 0.00 101.41 108.29 0.00 108.29 114.47 0.00 114.47 120.11 0.00 120.11 125.31 0.00 125.31 130.15 0.00 130.15 134.70 0.00 134.70 138.98 0.00 138.98 150.61 0.00 150.61 160.83 0.00 160.83 170.00 0.00 170.00 178.38 0.00 178.38 193.30 0.00 193.30 206.41 0.00 206.41 264.91 0.00 264.91 339.99 0.00 339.99 436.36 0.00 436.36 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 592.09 0.014 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.01 9316.95 0.214 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.03 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 9909.043 0.2275 0.0450 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.04 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.41 5 3.22 0.14 10 2.05 0.09 15 1.58 0.07 20 1.31 0.06 25 1.13 0.05 30 1.00 0.05 35 0.91 0.04 40 0.83 0.04 45 0.77 0.03 50 0.72 0.03 55 0.68 0.03 60 0.64 0.03 75 0.55 0.02 90 0.49 0.02 105 0.44 0.02 120 0.41 0.02 150 0.35 0.02 180 0.31 0.01 360 0.20 0.01 720 0.13 0.01 1440 0.08 0.00 132.13 ft3 0.14 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN O) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1978 Cwd x Cf =0.20 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 24.73 0.00 24.73 43.45 0.00 43.45 55.37 0.00 55.37 63.82 0.00 63.82 70.58 0.00 70.58 76.31 0.00 76.31 81.34 0.00 81.34 85.85 0.00 85.85 89.95 0.00 89.95 93.74 0.00 93.74 97.26 0.00 97.26 100.56 0.00 100.56 103.67 0.00 103.67 112.09 0.00 112.09 119.48 0.00 119.48 126.10 0.00 126.10 132.13 0.00 132.13 142.87 0.00 142.87 152.28 0.00 152.28 194.09 0.00 194.09 247.38 0.00 247.38 315.30 0.00 315.30 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 12652.94 0.290 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.29 0.00 0.000 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 12652.9435 0.2905 0.2905 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.29 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 3.11 5 3.83 1.11 10 2.46 0.71 15 1.89 0.55 20 1.58 0.46 25 1.37 0.40 30 1.22 0.35 35 1.10 0.32 40 1.01 0.29 45 0.94 0.27 50 0.88 0.25 55 0.82 0.24 60 0.78 0.23 75 0.68 0.20 90 0.60 0.17 105 0.55 0.16 120 0.50 0.15 150 0.43 0.13 180 0.39 0.11 360 0.25 0.07 720 0.16 0.05 1440 0.10 0.03 1,046.82 ft3 1.11 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN P) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.9500 Cwd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 186.80 0.00 186.80 333.42 0.00 333.42 427.92 0.00 427.92 495.18 0.00 495.18 549.21 0.00 549.21 595.15 0.00 595.15 635.52 0.00 635.52 671.79 0.00 671.79 704.87 0.00 704.87 735.40 0.00 735.40 763.83 0.00 763.83 790.49 0.00 790.49 815.64 0.00 815.64 883.87 0.00 883.87 943.83 0.00 943.83 997.69 0.00 997.69 1046.82 0.00 1046.82 1134.38 0.00 1134.38 1211.34 0.00 1211.34 1554.66 0.00 1554.66 1995.29 0.00 1995.29 2560.81 0.00 2560.81 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 18595.78 0.427 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.43 0.00 0.000 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 18595.7803 0.4269 0.4269 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.43 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 4.58 5 3.83 1.63 10 2.46 1.05 15 1.89 0.81 20 1.58 0.67 25 1.37 0.58 30 1.22 0.52 35 1.10 0.47 40 1.01 0.43 45 0.94 0.40 50 0.88 0.37 55 0.82 0.35 60 0.78 0.33 75 0.68 0.29 90 0.60 0.26 105 0.55 0.23 120 0.50 0.21 150 0.43 0.19 180 0.39 0.16 360 0.25 0.11 720 0.16 0.07 1440 0.10 0.04 1,538.49 ft3 1.63 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN Q) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.9500 Cwd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 274.53 0.00 274.53 490.03 0.00 490.03 628.91 0.00 628.91 727.75 0.00 727.75 807.16 0.00 807.16 874.68 0.00 874.68 934.01 0.00 934.01 987.31 0.00 987.31 1035.93 0.00 1035.93 1080.80 0.00 1080.80 1122.58 0.00 1122.58 1161.77 0.00 1161.77 1198.74 0.00 1198.74 1299.01 0.00 1299.01 1387.13 0.00 1387.13 1466.28 0.00 1466.28 1538.49 0.00 1538.49 1667.18 0.00 1667.18 1780.28 0.00 1780.28 2284.85 0.00 2284.85 2932.44 0.00 2932.44 3763.57 0.00 3763.57 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 1327.96 0.030 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.03 5066.79 0.116 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 6394.7483 0.1468 0.0497 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.05 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.55 5 3.83 0.20 10 2.46 0.13 15 1.89 0.10 20 1.58 0.08 25 1.37 0.07 30 1.22 0.06 35 1.10 0.06 40 1.01 0.05 45 0.94 0.05 50 0.88 0.04 55 0.82 0.04 60 0.78 0.04 75 0.68 0.03 90 0.60 0.03 105 0.55 0.03 120 0.50 0.03 150 0.43 0.02 180 0.39 0.02 360 0.25 0.01 720 0.16 0.01 1440 0.10 0.01 183.98 ft3 0.20 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN R) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.3161 Cwd x Cf =0.35 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 32.83 0.00 32.83 58.60 0.00 58.60 75.21 0.00 75.21 87.03 0.00 87.03 96.52 0.00 96.52 104.60 0.00 104.60 111.69 0.00 111.69 118.07 0.00 118.07 123.88 0.00 123.88 129.25 0.00 129.25 134.24 0.00 134.24 138.93 0.00 138.93 143.35 0.00 143.35 155.34 0.00 155.34 165.88 0.00 165.88 175.34 0.00 175.34 183.98 0.00 183.98 199.37 0.00 199.37 212.89 0.00 212.89 273.23 0.00 273.23 350.67 0.00 350.67 450.06 0.00 450.06 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 43.63 0.001 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 1857.46 0.043 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1901.0864 0.0436 0.0080 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.09 5 3.83 0.03 10 2.46 0.02 15 1.89 0.02 20 1.58 0.01 25 1.37 0.01 30 1.22 0.01 35 1.10 0.01 40 1.01 0.01 45 0.94 0.01 50 0.88 0.01 55 0.82 0.01 60 0.78 0.01 75 0.68 0.01 90 0.60 0.00 105 0.55 0.00 120 0.50 0.00 150 0.43 0.00 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 29.13 ft3 0.03 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN S) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1684 Cwd x Cf =0.19 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 5.20 0.00 5.20 9.28 0.00 9.28 11.91 0.00 11.91 13.78 0.00 13.78 15.28 0.00 15.28 16.56 0.00 16.56 17.68 0.00 17.68 18.69 0.00 18.69 19.61 0.00 19.61 20.46 0.00 20.46 21.25 0.00 21.25 22.00 0.00 22.00 22.70 0.00 22.70 24.59 0.00 24.59 26.26 0.00 26.26 27.76 0.00 27.76 29.13 0.00 29.13 31.56 0.00 31.56 33.71 0.00 33.71 43.26 0.00 43.26 55.52 0.00 55.52 71.25 0.00 71.25 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 43.63 0.001 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 1857.46 0.043 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1901.0864 0.0436 0.0073 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.07 5 3.22 0.02 10 2.05 0.02 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.01 25 1.13 0.01 30 1.00 0.01 35 0.91 0.01 40 0.83 0.01 45 0.77 0.01 50 0.72 0.01 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 21.58 ft3 0.02 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN S) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1684 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 4.04 0.00 4.04 7.09 0.00 7.09 9.04 0.00 9.04 10.42 0.00 10.42 11.52 0.00 11.52 12.46 0.00 12.46 13.28 0.00 13.28 14.02 0.00 14.02 14.69 0.00 14.69 15.31 0.00 15.31 15.88 0.00 15.88 16.42 0.00 16.42 16.93 0.00 16.93 18.30 0.00 18.30 19.51 0.00 19.51 20.59 0.00 20.59 21.58 0.00 21.58 23.33 0.00 23.33 24.87 0.00 24.87 31.69 0.00 31.69 40.40 0.00 40.40 51.49 0.00 51.49 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4614.23 0.106 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.11 1059.56 0.024 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 5673.7856 0.1303 0.1099 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.11 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.23 5 3.83 0.44 10 2.46 0.28 15 1.89 0.22 20 1.58 0.18 25 1.37 0.16 30 1.22 0.14 35 1.10 0.13 40 1.01 0.12 45 0.94 0.11 50 0.88 0.10 55 0.82 0.09 60 0.78 0.09 75 0.68 0.08 90 0.60 0.07 105 0.55 0.06 120 0.50 0.06 150 0.43 0.05 180 0.39 0.04 360 0.25 0.03 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 413.39 ft3 0.44 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN T) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.8006 Cwd x Cf =0.88 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 73.77 0.00 73.77 131.67 0.00 131.67 168.99 0.00 168.99 195.55 0.00 195.55 216.88 0.00 216.88 235.03 0.00 235.03 250.97 0.00 250.97 265.29 0.00 265.29 278.36 0.00 278.36 290.41 0.00 290.41 301.64 0.00 301.64 312.17 0.00 312.17 322.10 0.00 322.10 349.04 0.00 349.04 372.72 0.00 372.72 393.99 0.00 393.99 413.39 0.00 413.39 447.97 0.00 447.97 478.36 0.00 478.36 613.94 0.00 613.94 787.95 0.00 787.95 1011.27 0.00 1011.27 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 6272.92 0.144 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.14 4283.35 0.098 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 10556.2709 0.2423 0.1602 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.17 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.79 5 3.83 0.64 10 2.46 0.41 15 1.89 0.32 20 1.58 0.26 25 1.37 0.23 30 1.22 0.20 35 1.10 0.18 40 1.01 0.17 45 0.94 0.16 50 0.88 0.15 55 0.82 0.14 60 0.78 0.13 75 0.68 0.11 90 0.60 0.10 105 0.55 0.09 120 0.50 0.08 150 0.43 0.07 180 0.39 0.06 360 0.25 0.04 720 0.16 0.03 1440 0.10 0.02 600.81 ft3 0.64 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN U) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6254 Cwd x Cf =0.69 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 107.21 0.00 107.21 191.36 0.00 191.36 245.60 0.00 245.60 284.20 0.00 284.20 315.21 0.00 315.21 341.58 0.00 341.58 364.75 0.00 364.75 385.56 0.00 385.56 404.55 0.00 404.55 422.07 0.00 422.07 438.39 0.00 438.39 453.69 0.00 453.69 468.13 0.00 468.13 507.28 0.00 507.28 541.70 0.00 541.70 572.61 0.00 572.61 600.81 0.00 600.81 651.06 0.00 651.06 695.23 0.00 695.23 892.27 0.00 892.27 1145.17 0.00 1145.17 1469.73 0.00 1469.73 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 9589.65 0.220 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.22 4977.93 0.114 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 14567.5818 0.3344 0.2390 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.25 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 2.67 5 3.83 0.95 10 2.46 0.61 15 1.89 0.47 20 1.58 0.39 25 1.37 0.34 30 1.22 0.30 35 1.10 0.27 40 1.01 0.25 45 0.94 0.23 50 0.88 0.22 55 0.82 0.21 60 0.78 0.19 75 0.68 0.17 90 0.60 0.15 105 0.55 0.14 120 0.50 0.12 150 0.43 0.11 180 0.39 0.10 360 0.25 0.06 720 0.16 0.04 1440 0.10 0.03 897.04 ft3 0.95 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN V) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6766 Cwd x Cf =0.74 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 160.07 0.00 160.07 285.72 0.00 285.72 366.70 0.00 366.70 424.33 0.00 424.33 470.63 0.00 470.63 509.99 0.00 509.99 544.59 0.00 544.59 575.67 0.00 575.67 604.01 0.00 604.01 630.18 0.00 630.18 654.54 0.00 654.54 677.39 0.00 677.39 698.94 0.00 698.94 757.40 0.00 757.40 808.79 0.00 808.79 854.94 0.00 854.94 897.04 0.00 897.04 972.07 0.00 972.07 1038.02 0.00 1038.02 1332.22 0.00 1332.22 1709.80 0.00 1709.80 2194.40 0.00 2194.40 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 7990.26 0.183 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.18 4491.06 0.103 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 12481.3208 0.2865 0.2004 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.21 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 2.24 5 3.83 0.80 10 2.46 0.51 15 1.89 0.40 20 1.58 0.33 25 1.37 0.29 30 1.22 0.25 35 1.10 0.23 40 1.01 0.21 45 0.94 0.20 50 0.88 0.18 55 0.82 0.17 60 0.78 0.16 75 0.68 0.14 90 0.60 0.13 105 0.55 0.11 120 0.50 0.10 150 0.43 0.09 180 0.39 0.08 360 0.25 0.05 720 0.16 0.03 1440 0.10 0.02 752.11 ft3 0.80 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN W) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6621 Cwd x Cf =0.73 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 134.21 0.00 134.21 239.56 0.00 239.56 307.45 0.00 307.45 355.77 0.00 355.77 394.59 0.00 394.59 427.60 0.00 427.60 456.61 0.00 456.61 482.66 0.00 482.66 506.43 0.00 506.43 528.37 0.00 528.37 548.79 0.00 548.79 567.95 0.00 567.95 586.02 0.00 586.02 635.04 0.00 635.04 678.12 0.00 678.12 716.82 0.00 716.82 752.11 0.00 752.11 815.03 0.00 815.03 870.32 0.00 870.32 1116.99 0.00 1116.99 1433.57 0.00 1433.57 1839.88 0.00 1839.88 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 2663.15 0.061 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.06 2690.87 0.062 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 5354.012 0.1229 0.0713 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.07 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.79 5 3.83 0.28 10 2.46 0.18 15 1.89 0.14 20 1.58 0.12 25 1.37 0.10 30 1.22 0.09 35 1.10 0.08 40 1.01 0.07 45 0.94 0.07 50 0.88 0.06 55 0.82 0.06 60 0.78 0.06 75 0.68 0.05 90 0.60 0.04 105 0.55 0.04 120 0.50 0.04 150 0.43 0.03 180 0.39 0.03 360 0.25 0.02 720 0.16 0.01 1440 0.10 0.01 266.98 ft3 0.28 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN X) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.5479 Cwd x Cf =0.60 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 47.64 0.00 47.64 85.04 0.00 85.04 109.14 0.00 109.14 126.29 0.00 126.29 140.07 0.00 140.07 151.79 0.00 151.79 162.08 0.00 162.08 171.33 0.00 171.33 179.77 0.00 179.77 187.55 0.00 187.55 194.81 0.00 194.81 201.61 0.00 201.61 208.02 0.00 208.02 225.42 0.00 225.42 240.71 0.00 240.71 254.45 0.00 254.45 266.98 0.00 266.98 289.31 0.00 289.31 308.94 0.00 308.94 396.50 0.00 396.50 508.87 0.00 508.87 653.10 0.00 653.10 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 6181.97 0.142 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.14 4349.55 0.100 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 10531.5199 0.2418 0.1584 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.16 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.77 5 3.83 0.63 10 2.46 0.40 15 1.89 0.31 20 1.58 0.26 25 1.37 0.23 30 1.22 0.20 35 1.10 0.18 40 1.01 0.17 45 0.94 0.15 50 0.88 0.14 55 0.82 0.14 60 0.78 0.13 75 0.68 0.11 90 0.60 0.10 105 0.55 0.09 120 0.50 0.08 150 0.43 0.07 180 0.39 0.06 360 0.25 0.04 720 0.16 0.03 1440 0.10 0.02 593.85 ft3 0.63 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN Y) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6196 Cwd x Cf =0.68 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 105.97 0.00 105.97 189.15 0.00 189.15 242.75 0.00 242.75 280.91 0.00 280.91 311.56 0.00 311.56 337.62 0.00 337.62 360.52 0.00 360.52 381.09 0.00 381.09 399.86 0.00 399.86 417.18 0.00 417.18 433.31 0.00 433.31 448.43 0.00 448.43 462.70 0.00 462.70 501.41 0.00 501.41 535.42 0.00 535.42 565.97 0.00 565.97 593.85 0.00 593.85 643.52 0.00 643.52 687.17 0.00 687.17 881.94 0.00 881.94 1131.90 0.00 1131.90 1452.71 0.00 1452.71 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 176.63 0.004 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 4239.41 0.097 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 4416.0415 0.1014 0.0201 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.02 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.22 5 3.83 0.08 10 2.46 0.05 15 1.89 0.04 20 1.58 0.03 25 1.37 0.03 30 1.22 0.02 35 1.10 0.02 40 1.01 0.02 45 0.94 0.02 50 0.88 0.02 55 0.82 0.02 60 0.78 0.02 75 0.68 0.01 90 0.60 0.01 105 0.55 0.01 120 0.50 0.01 150 0.43 0.01 180 0.39 0.01 360 0.25 0.01 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 73.14 ft3 0.08 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN Z) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1820 Cwd x Cf =0.20 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 13.05 0.00 13.05 23.30 0.00 23.30 29.90 0.00 29.90 34.60 0.00 34.60 38.37 0.00 38.37 41.58 0.00 41.58 44.40 0.00 44.40 46.94 0.00 46.94 49.25 0.00 49.25 51.38 0.00 51.38 53.37 0.00 53.37 55.23 0.00 55.23 56.99 0.00 56.99 61.76 0.00 61.76 65.95 0.00 65.95 69.71 0.00 69.71 73.14 0.00 73.14 79.26 0.00 79.26 84.64 0.00 84.64 108.63 0.00 108.63 139.41 0.00 139.41 178.93 0.00 178.93 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 176.63 0.004 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 4239.41 0.097 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 4416.0415 0.1014 0.0185 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.02 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.17 5 3.22 0.06 10 2.05 0.04 15 1.58 0.03 20 1.31 0.02 25 1.13 0.02 30 1.00 0.02 35 0.91 0.02 40 0.83 0.02 45 0.77 0.01 50 0.72 0.01 55 0.68 0.01 60 0.64 0.01 75 0.55 0.01 90 0.49 0.01 105 0.44 0.01 120 0.41 0.01 150 0.35 0.01 180 0.31 0.01 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 54.18 ft3 0.06 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN Z) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1820 Cwd x Cf =0.18 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 10.14 0.00 10.14 17.81 0.00 17.81 22.71 0.00 22.71 26.17 0.00 26.17 28.94 0.00 28.94 31.29 0.00 31.29 33.35 0.00 33.35 35.20 0.00 35.20 36.89 0.00 36.89 38.44 0.00 38.44 39.88 0.00 39.88 41.24 0.00 41.24 42.51 0.00 42.51 45.96 0.00 45.96 48.99 0.00 48.99 51.71 0.00 51.71 54.18 0.00 54.18 58.58 0.00 58.58 62.44 0.00 62.44 79.59 0.00 79.59 101.44 0.00 101.44 129.29 0.00 129.29 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 685.18 0.016 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.02 22695.61 0.521 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.09 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 23380.7943 0.5367 0.1017 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.10 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.10 5 3.83 0.39 10 2.46 0.25 15 1.89 0.19 20 1.58 0.16 25 1.37 0.14 30 1.22 0.12 35 1.10 0.11 40 1.01 0.10 45 0.94 0.10 50 0.88 0.09 55 0.82 0.08 60 0.78 0.08 75 0.68 0.07 90 0.60 0.06 105 0.55 0.06 120 0.50 0.05 150 0.43 0.04 180 0.39 0.04 360 0.25 0.03 720 0.16 0.02 1440 0.10 0.01 369.06 ft3 0.39 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN AA) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1734 Cwd x Cf =0.19 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 65.85 0.00 65.85 117.55 0.00 117.55 150.86 0.00 150.86 174.57 0.00 174.57 193.62 0.00 193.62 209.82 0.00 209.82 224.05 0.00 224.05 236.84 0.00 236.84 248.50 0.00 248.50 259.26 0.00 259.26 269.29 0.00 269.29 278.69 0.00 278.69 287.56 0.00 287.56 311.61 0.00 311.61 332.75 0.00 332.75 351.73 0.00 351.73 369.06 0.00 369.06 399.93 0.00 399.93 427.06 0.00 427.06 548.09 0.00 548.09 703.44 0.00 703.44 902.81 0.00 902.81 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 685.18 0.016 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.01 22695.61 0.521 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.08 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 23380.7943 0.5367 0.0931 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.09 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.85 5 3.22 0.30 10 2.05 0.19 15 1.58 0.15 20 1.31 0.12 25 1.13 0.11 30 1.00 0.09 35 0.91 0.08 40 0.83 0.08 45 0.77 0.07 50 0.72 0.07 55 0.68 0.06 60 0.64 0.06 75 0.55 0.05 90 0.49 0.05 105 0.44 0.04 120 0.41 0.04 150 0.35 0.03 180 0.31 0.03 360 0.20 0.02 720 0.13 0.01 1440 0.08 0.01 273.38 ft3 0.30 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN AA) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1734 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 51.18 0.00 51.18 89.89 0.00 89.89 114.57 0.00 114.57 132.04 0.00 132.04 146.02 0.00 146.02 157.88 0.00 157.88 168.29 0.00 168.29 177.62 0.00 177.62 186.12 0.00 186.12 193.95 0.00 193.95 201.23 0.00 201.23 208.06 0.00 208.06 214.49 0.00 214.49 231.92 0.00 231.92 247.20 0.00 247.20 260.90 0.00 260.90 273.38 0.00 273.38 295.59 0.00 295.59 315.07 0.00 315.07 401.58 0.00 401.58 511.83 0.00 511.83 652.36 0.00 652.36 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 992.73 0.023 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.02 10269.10 0.236 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.04 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 11261.8246 0.2585 0.0617 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.06 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.67 5 3.83 0.24 10 2.46 0.15 15 1.89 0.12 20 1.58 0.10 25 1.37 0.09 30 1.22 0.08 35 1.10 0.07 40 1.01 0.06 45 0.94 0.06 50 0.88 0.05 55 0.82 0.05 60 0.78 0.05 75 0.68 0.04 90 0.60 0.04 105 0.55 0.03 120 0.50 0.03 150 0.43 0.03 180 0.39 0.02 360 0.25 0.02 720 0.16 0.01 1440 0.10 0.01 226.01 ft3 0.24 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN BB) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.2205 Cwd x Cf =0.24 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 40.33 0.00 40.33 71.99 0.00 71.99 92.39 0.00 92.39 106.91 0.00 106.91 118.58 0.00 118.58 128.49 0.00 128.49 137.21 0.00 137.21 145.04 0.00 145.04 152.18 0.00 152.18 158.77 0.00 158.77 164.91 0.00 164.91 170.67 0.00 170.67 176.10 0.00 176.10 190.83 0.00 190.83 203.78 0.00 203.78 215.40 0.00 215.40 226.01 0.00 226.01 244.92 0.00 244.92 261.53 0.00 261.53 335.65 0.00 335.65 430.79 0.00 430.79 552.88 0.00 552.88 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 992.73 0.023 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.02 10269.10 0.236 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.04 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 11261.8246 0.2585 0.0570 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.06 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.52 5 3.22 0.18 10 2.05 0.12 15 1.58 0.09 20 1.31 0.07 25 1.13 0.06 30 1.00 0.06 35 0.91 0.05 40 0.83 0.05 45 0.77 0.04 50 0.72 0.04 55 0.68 0.04 60 0.64 0.04 75 0.55 0.03 90 0.49 0.03 105 0.44 0.03 120 0.41 0.02 150 0.35 0.02 180 0.31 0.02 360 0.20 0.01 720 0.13 0.01 1440 0.08 0.00 167.42 ft3 0.18 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN BB) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.2205 Cwd x Cf =0.22 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 31.34 0.00 31.34 55.05 0.00 55.05 70.16 0.00 70.16 80.86 0.00 80.86 89.42 0.00 89.42 96.69 0.00 96.69 103.06 0.00 103.06 108.77 0.00 108.77 113.98 0.00 113.98 118.77 0.00 118.77 123.24 0.00 123.24 127.42 0.00 127.42 131.36 0.00 131.36 142.03 0.00 142.03 151.39 0.00 151.39 159.78 0.00 159.78 167.42 0.00 167.42 181.02 0.00 181.02 192.95 0.00 192.95 245.93 0.00 245.93 313.45 0.00 313.45 399.51 0.00 399.51 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 16226.44 0.373 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.37 10398.57 0.239 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.04 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 26625.0075 0.6112 0.4119 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.43 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 4.59 5 3.83 1.64 10 2.46 1.05 15 1.89 0.81 20 1.58 0.68 25 1.37 0.59 30 1.22 0.52 35 1.10 0.47 40 1.01 0.43 45 0.94 0.40 50 0.88 0.38 55 0.82 0.35 60 0.78 0.33 75 0.68 0.29 90 0.60 0.26 105 0.55 0.23 120 0.50 0.21 150 0.43 0.19 180 0.39 0.17 360 0.25 0.11 720 0.16 0.07 1440 0.10 0.04 1,544.83 ft3 1.64 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN CC) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6376 Cwd x Cf =0.70 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 275.66 0.00 275.66 492.04 0.00 492.04 631.50 0.00 631.50 730.75 0.00 730.75 810.49 0.00 810.49 878.28 0.00 878.28 937.86 0.00 937.86 991.38 0.00 991.38 1040.20 0.00 1040.20 1085.25 0.00 1085.25 1127.21 0.00 1127.21 1166.56 0.00 1166.56 1203.67 0.00 1203.67 1304.36 0.00 1304.36 1392.84 0.00 1392.84 1472.32 0.00 1472.32 1544.83 0.00 1544.83 1674.05 0.00 1674.05 1787.61 0.00 1787.61 2294.27 0.00 2294.27 2944.52 0.00 2944.52 3779.07 0.00 3779.07 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4193.92 0.096 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.10 20699.40 0.475 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.08 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 24893.3212 0.5715 0.1747 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.18 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 1.92 5 3.83 0.68 10 2.46 0.44 15 1.89 0.34 20 1.58 0.28 25 1.37 0.24 30 1.22 0.22 35 1.10 0.20 40 1.01 0.18 45 0.94 0.17 50 0.88 0.16 55 0.82 0.15 60 0.78 0.14 75 0.68 0.12 90 0.60 0.11 105 0.55 0.10 120 0.50 0.09 150 0.43 0.08 180 0.39 0.07 360 0.25 0.04 720 0.16 0.03 1440 0.10 0.02 645.16 ft3 0.68 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN DD) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.2848 Cwd x Cf =0.31 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 115.12 0.00 115.12 205.49 0.00 205.49 263.73 0.00 263.73 305.18 0.00 305.18 338.48 0.00 338.48 366.79 0.00 366.79 391.67 0.00 391.67 414.02 0.00 414.02 434.41 0.00 434.41 453.23 0.00 453.23 470.75 0.00 470.75 487.18 0.00 487.18 502.68 0.00 502.68 544.73 0.00 544.73 581.69 0.00 581.69 614.88 0.00 614.88 645.16 0.00 645.16 699.12 0.00 699.12 746.55 0.00 746.55 958.14 0.00 958.14 1229.70 0.00 1229.70 1578.23 0.00 1578.23 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 4193.92 0.096 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.09 20699.40 0.475 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.07 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 24893.3212 0.5715 0.1627 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.16 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 1.49 5 3.22 0.52 10 2.05 0.33 15 1.58 0.26 20 1.31 0.21 25 1.13 0.18 30 1.00 0.16 35 0.91 0.15 40 0.83 0.14 45 0.77 0.13 50 0.72 0.12 55 0.68 0.11 60 0.64 0.10 75 0.55 0.09 90 0.49 0.08 105 0.44 0.07 120 0.41 0.07 150 0.35 0.06 180 0.31 0.05 360 0.20 0.03 720 0.13 0.02 1440 0.08 0.01 477.91 ft3 0.52 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN DD) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.2848 Cwd x Cf =0.28 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 89.46 0.00 89.46 157.14 0.00 157.14 200.28 0.00 200.28 230.82 0.00 230.82 255.27 0.00 255.27 276.00 0.00 276.00 294.19 0.00 294.19 310.50 0.00 310.50 325.35 0.00 325.35 339.05 0.00 339.05 351.78 0.00 351.78 363.72 0.00 363.72 374.96 0.00 374.96 405.42 0.00 405.42 432.14 0.00 432.14 456.09 0.00 456.09 477.91 0.00 477.91 516.73 0.00 516.73 550.78 0.00 550.78 702.01 0.00 702.01 894.75 0.00 894.75 1140.41 0.00 1140.41 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 2997.21 0.069 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 2997.2138 0.0688 0.0114 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.12 5 3.83 0.04 10 2.46 0.03 15 1.89 0.02 20 1.58 0.02 25 1.37 0.02 30 1.22 0.01 35 1.10 0.01 40 1.01 0.01 45 0.94 0.01 50 0.88 0.01 55 0.82 0.01 60 0.78 0.01 75 0.68 0.01 90 0.60 0.01 105 0.55 0.01 120 0.50 0.01 150 0.43 0.00 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 40.91 ft3 0.04 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN EE) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 7.30 0.00 7.30 13.03 0.00 13.03 16.73 0.00 16.73 19.35 0.00 19.35 21.47 0.00 21.47 23.26 0.00 23.26 24.84 0.00 24.84 26.26 0.00 26.26 27.55 0.00 27.55 28.74 0.00 28.74 29.85 0.00 29.85 30.90 0.00 30.90 31.88 0.00 31.88 34.55 0.00 34.55 36.89 0.00 36.89 38.99 0.00 38.99 40.91 0.00 40.91 44.34 0.00 44.34 47.35 0.00 47.35 60.76 0.00 60.76 77.99 0.00 77.99 100.09 0.00 100.09 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 2997.21 0.069 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 2997.2138 0.0688 0.0103 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.09 5 3.22 0.03 10 2.05 0.02 15 1.58 0.02 20 1.31 0.01 25 1.13 0.01 30 1.00 0.01 35 0.91 0.01 40 0.83 0.01 45 0.77 0.01 50 0.72 0.01 55 0.68 0.01 60 0.64 0.01 75 0.55 0.01 90 0.49 0.01 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 30.31 ft3 0.03 (ft3/s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN EE) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention = = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 5.67 0.00 5.67 9.97 0.00 9.97 12.70 0.00 12.70 14.64 0.00 14.64 16.19 0.00 16.19 17.50 0.00 17.50 18.66 0.00 18.66 19.69 0.00 19.69 20.63 0.00 20.63 21.50 0.00 21.50 22.31 0.00 22.31 23.07 0.00 23.07 23.78 0.00 23.78 25.71 0.00 25.71 27.41 0.00 27.41 28.92 0.00 28.92 30.31 0.00 30.31 32.77 0.00 32.77 34.93 0.00 34.93 44.52 0.00 44.52 56.74 0.00 56.74 72.32 0.00 72.32 = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 1100.87 0.025 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1100.8735 0.0253 0.0042 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.04 5 3.83 0.02 10 2.46 0.01 15 1.89 0.01 20 1.58 0.01 25 1.37 0.01 30 1.22 0.01 35 1.10 0.00 40 1.01 0.00 45 0.94 0.00 50 0.88 0.00 55 0.82 0.00 60 0.78 0.00 75 0.68 0.00 90 0.60 0.00 105 0.55 0.00 120 0.50 0.00 150 0.43 0.00 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 15.03 ft3 0.02 (ft3/s) 28.64 0.00 28.64 36.76 0.00 36.76 17.39 0.00 17.39 22.32 0.00 22.32 15.03 0.00 15.03 16.29 0.00 16.29 13.55 0.00 13.55 14.32 0.00 14.32 11.71 0.00 11.71 12.69 0.00 12.69 10.97 0.00 10.97 11.35 0.00 11.35 10.12 0.00 10.12 10.56 0.00 10.56 9.12 0.00 9.12 9.64 0.00 9.64 7.88 0.00 7.88 8.54 0.00 8.54 6.14 0.00 6.14 7.11 0.00 7.11 2.68 0.00 2.68 4.79 0.00 4.79 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN FF) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 1100.87 0.025 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1100.8735 0.0253 0.0038 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.03 5 3.22 0.01 10 2.05 0.01 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.00 25 1.13 0.00 30 1.00 0.00 35 0.91 0.00 40 0.83 0.00 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 11.13 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 20.84 0.00 20.84 26.56 0.00 26.56 12.83 0.00 12.83 16.35 0.00 16.35 11.13 0.00 11.13 12.04 0.00 12.04 10.07 0.00 10.07 10.62 0.00 10.62 8.73 0.00 8.73 9.44 0.00 9.44 8.19 0.00 8.19 8.47 0.00 8.47 7.58 0.00 7.58 7.90 0.00 7.90 6.85 0.00 6.85 7.23 0.00 7.23 5.95 0.00 5.95 6.43 0.00 6.43 4.67 0.00 4.67 5.38 0.00 5.38 2.08 0.00 2.08 3.66 0.00 3.66 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN FF) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 1760.00 0.040 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1760 0.0404 0.0067 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.07 5 3.83 0.03 10 2.46 0.02 15 1.89 0.01 20 1.58 0.01 25 1.37 0.01 30 1.22 0.01 35 1.10 0.01 40 1.01 0.01 45 0.94 0.01 50 0.88 0.01 55 0.82 0.01 60 0.78 0.01 75 0.68 0.00 90 0.60 0.00 105 0.55 0.00 120 0.50 0.00 150 0.43 0.00 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 24.03 ft3 0.03 (ft3/s) 45.79 0.00 45.79 58.77 0.00 58.77 27.80 0.00 27.80 35.68 0.00 35.68 24.03 0.00 24.03 26.04 0.00 26.04 21.66 0.00 21.66 22.90 0.00 22.90 18.72 0.00 18.72 20.29 0.00 20.29 17.53 0.00 17.53 18.14 0.00 18.14 16.18 0.00 16.18 16.88 0.00 16.88 14.59 0.00 14.59 15.42 0.00 15.42 12.60 0.00 12.60 13.66 0.00 13.66 9.82 0.00 9.82 11.36 0.00 11.36 4.29 0.00 4.29 7.65 0.00 7.65 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN GG) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 1760.00 0.040 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1760 0.0404 0.0061 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 9.16 0.06 5 3.22 0.02 10 2.05 0.01 15 1.58 0.01 20 1.31 0.01 25 1.13 0.01 30 1.00 0.01 35 0.91 0.01 40 0.83 0.01 45 0.77 0.00 50 0.72 0.00 55 0.68 0.00 60 0.64 0.00 75 0.55 0.00 90 0.49 0.00 105 0.44 0.00 120 0.41 0.00 150 0.35 0.00 180 0.31 0.00 360 0.20 0.00 720 0.13 0.00 1440 0.08 0.00 17.80 ft3 0.02 (ft3/s) 33.32 0.00 33.32 42.47 0.00 42.47 20.51 0.00 20.51 26.14 0.00 26.14 17.80 0.00 17.80 19.24 0.00 19.24 16.09 0.00 16.09 16.98 0.00 16.98 13.96 0.00 13.96 15.10 0.00 15.10 13.10 0.00 13.10 13.54 0.00 13.54 12.12 0.00 12.12 12.63 0.00 12.63 10.96 0.00 10.96 11.56 0.00 11.56 9.51 0.00 9.51 10.28 0.00 10.28 7.46 0.00 7.46 8.60 0.00 8.60 3.33 0.00 3.33 5.85 0.00 5.85 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN GG) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 711.08 0.016 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 711.076 0.0163 0.0027 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.03 5 3.83 0.01 10 2.46 0.01 15 1.89 0.01 20 1.58 0.00 25 1.37 0.00 30 1.22 0.00 35 1.10 0.00 40 1.01 0.00 45 0.94 0.00 50 0.88 0.00 55 0.82 0.00 60 0.78 0.00 75 0.68 0.00 90 0.60 0.00 105 0.55 0.00 120 0.50 0.00 150 0.43 0.00 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 9.71 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 18.50 0.00 18.50 23.75 0.00 23.75 11.23 0.00 11.23 14.42 0.00 14.42 9.71 0.00 9.71 10.52 0.00 10.52 8.75 0.00 8.75 9.25 0.00 9.25 7.56 0.00 7.56 8.20 0.00 8.20 7.08 0.00 7.08 7.33 0.00 7.33 6.54 0.00 6.54 6.82 0.00 6.82 5.89 0.00 5.89 6.23 0.00 6.23 5.09 0.00 5.09 5.52 0.00 5.52 3.97 0.00 3.97 4.59 0.00 4.59 1.73 0.00 1.73 3.09 0.00 3.09 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN HH) Surface Type Impervious = Project: BARNARD Office HQ Project #: 22285 Date: 01/25/2023 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation Value A A/(43560 ft2/acre)C Cf C x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 711.08 0.016 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 711.076 0.0163 0.0027 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, Cwd SCjAj SAj Cwd x Cf x SAj =0.00 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type j Rainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3/s) 1 10.72 0.03 5 3.83 0.01 10 2.46 0.01 15 1.89 0.01 20 1.58 0.00 25 1.37 0.00 30 1.22 0.00 35 1.10 0.00 40 1.01 0.00 45 0.94 0.00 50 0.88 0.00 55 0.82 0.00 60 0.78 0.00 75 0.68 0.00 90 0.60 0.00 105 0.55 0.00 120 0.50 0.00 150 0.43 0.00 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 9.71 ft3 0.01 (ft3/s) 18.50 0.00 18.50 23.75 0.00 23.75 11.23 0.00 11.23 14.42 0.00 14.42 9.71 0.00 9.71 10.52 0.00 10.52 8.75 0.00 8.75 9.25 0.00 9.25 7.56 0.00 7.56 8.20 0.00 8.20 7.08 0.00 7.08 7.33 0.00 7.33 6.54 0.00 6.54 6.82 0.00 6.82 5.89 0.00 5.89 6.23 0.00 6.23 5.09 0.00 5.09 5.52 0.00 5.52 3.97 0.00 3.97 4.59 0.00 4.59 1.73 0.00 1.73 3.09 0.00 3.09 = Cwd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) = 0.1500 Cwd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention Pervious Totals = RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN HH) Surface Type Impervious = APPENDIX D Hydraulic Calculations Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 Manning Formula: Circular Channel Input Flow 3.83 cfs Slope 0.01 ft/ft Manning's n 0.013 Diameter 12 in Output Depth 0.929 ft Flow Area 0.761 sf Velocity 5.03 fps Velocity Head 0.394 ft Top Width 0.514 ft Froude Number 0.730 Critical Depth 0.832 ft Critical Slope 0.0113 ft/ft 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Untitled 1/20/2023 ManningSolver v1.019 Copyright (c) 2000 Current Applications 12" SD Max Flow Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: 22285 Barnard HQ Curb and Gutter Analysis: Sag Inlet Type II Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0000 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Depressed Gutter Geometry Cross-Slope of Gutter: 0.0466 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0150 Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 2.5800 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 10.8191 ft Gutter Depression: 0.4788 in Area of Flow: 1.2004 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.3652 Gutter Depth at Curb: 3.0754 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 50.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P - 1-7/8 Grate Width: 1.4800 ft Grate Length: 2.7500 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.7100 ft Effective Perimeter: 2.8550 ft Area: 3.6630 ft^2 Effective Area: 1.8315 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.4494 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 22.1972 ft Flow type: Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 APPENDIX E O&M Plan Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 January 25, 2023 Project No. 22285 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR BARNARD HEADQUARTERS BOZEMAN, MONTANA OVERVIEW NARRATIVE The purpose of this maintenance plan is to outline the necessary details related to ownership, responsibility, and cleaning schedule for the storm drainage facilities for Barnard Headquarters. This plan has been completed in accordance with The City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy, dated March 2004. The site stormwater improvements have been designed with the intent to meet the current City of Bozeman drainage regulations for the entire site to the extent feasible. Specific site information and criteria are described below: I. Ownership of Facilities Barnard Barnard will own all stormwater facilities which includes the chamber system, catch basins, manholes, and piping within the site boundary. II. Inspection Thresholds for Cleaning Infiltration Chamber If sediment in isolator row exceeds three (3) inches or grate is more than 25% clogged with debris, clean grate and/or structure and vacuum isolator row. Catch Basins If sediment fills 60% of the sump or comes within 6-inches of a pipe, clean sump with vacuum. III. Cleaning Infiltration Chamber To clean grate of structure, remove and dispose of debris clogging the grate. To clean the structure, use catch basin vacuum to remove sediment and debris. To clean isolator row, use a JetVac. Catch Basins To clean grate of structure, remove and disposed of debris clogging the grate. To clean the structure, use catch basin vacuum to remove sediment and debris. IV. Inspection, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule Infiltration Chamber Inspection: Every six (6) months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation Maintenance: Vacuum isolator row every five(5) years or as needed based on inspection Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years Catch Basins Inspection: Every six (6) months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation Maintenance: Clean grate of structure and vacuum sediment and debris out of the sump every five (5) years or as needed based on inspection Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years V. Responsible Party Barnard Barnard will be responsible for the inspection, maintenance, and replacement of all stormwater facilities located within the project limits. I agree to the above inspection, maintenance, and replacement schedule detailed above. Signature: __________________________________________ Barnard Representative Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 APPENDIX F Geotechnical Report Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 2 bearing material) in a “bathtub” excavation and re-filled back up to footing and slab grades with a thick building pad section of compacted, granular structural fill. Given the relatively shallow gravel depths in the east part of the building, the moisture variations of the silt/clay across the site, the overly moist and less stiff, soil conditions of the lower silt/clay in the west part of the building, and the expected, seasonal high groundwater conditions in the spring/early summer, we believe mass over-excavation and building pad structural fill is the best approach for building support at this project location. This excavation and fill recommendation, which is detailed in the report, has allowed us to provide a higher soils bearing pressure (5,000 psf), which was requested by the Structural Engineer due to the heavy building loads. A while back, a question was asked by the Owner and General Contractor regarding the possibility of “mining” gravel at the site (from under the parking lot areas) for use as on-site-generated, granular structural fill for placement under the building (as opposed to using imported, 3”-minus sandy gravel, which is the recommended structural fill material). There is more discussion on this item at the back of the report. The short answer is that the native gravels would be acceptable for use as granular structural fill (due the fact that the size of the gravels are on the smaller side with less over-sized cobbles as compared to other areas); but, in our opinion, the cost for groundwater dewatering, thick overburden removal of silt/clay, gravel mining, material handling/stockpiling/sequencing, having to “touch” material multiple times, and re-filling the mined-out areas will likely far outweigh the costs for importing the gravel from a commercial pit. With that said, this is an available construction option for evaluation and pricing. In addition to the mining/re-filling costs of the borrow areas, another potential downside of the mining option is some of the silt/clay that is used for “re-filling” will be overly moist and well above optimum moisture. If the soils cannot be adequately dried (due to time of year, weather, or time constraints) and proper compaction cannot be achieved, parking lot area settlement is a risk and could occur. Also, if the “re-filled” parking lot subgrade soils are soft and unstable, this could trigger the need to use the thicker pavement section with geogrid subgrade stabilization (as opposed to using the thinner, standard section with normal road geotextile fabric), which will add a significant amount of cost to the project. SITE LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site, which includes Lots 24 – 26, encompasses about 10 acres on the south/southwest side of the Nelson Meadows Subdivision. The site is bordered by Royal Wolf Way on the north, by Prince Lane on the west, by a gravel trail and creek corridor on the east, and by a paved walking path on the south. The subdivision lot to the west is currently under construction, while the lots to the north and east are undeveloped. The legal description for the site is the SW1/4, SE1/4 of Section 22, T1S, R5E, Gallatin County; and the latitude/longitudinal coordinates (near the center of the site) are 45.730530°N and -111.087808°W. See Figure 1 for an aerial photo of the site location. The subject property is undeveloped and in its natural state. Prior to subdivision development, the project area was used as an agricultural field. The site terrain is relatively flat lying, but it does grade to Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 3 the northwest and northeast at about one to two percent. The east side of the property falls a little more moderately to the east toward the creek corridor. The adjacent city streets contain water/sewer mains; and water/sewer services are currently stubbed into the lots. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Provided below are a few design considerations for the project: • Geotechncial Report included in Bid Documents: This geotechnical report should be included in the bidding documents and made part of the project specifications. All bidding contractors need to be informed of the site conditions and geotechnical recommendations. • Parking Lot Subgrade Depths: Generally across the site, the silt/clay soils in the uppermost 3.0 to 4.0 feet are drier than those at deeper depths. In some areas, the silt/clay soils are slightly moist throughout their thickness; while in other areas, the silt/clay soils below about 3.0 to 4.0 feet become overly moist and softer (less stiff). Wherever possible, parking lot subgrade depths should try and be designed in the drier, upper soils. By doing so, the hope is that soft subgrade conditions will be limited. Two pavement sections are provided in this report. The thinner, 24- inch thick, design section requires stable subgrade; whereas the thicker, 33-inch section must be used for unstable conditions and requires the use of Tensar TX-190L geogrid. • Scarification/Drying of Parking Lot Subgrade: We recommend it be included and clearly stated in the civil plans and specifications that some subgrade scarification and drying may be required in the parking lot areas to dry out the subgrade to a stable condition (particularly in those areas where the subgrade elevations are deeper in the soil profile). For silt/clay soils, the best piece of equipment for the drying task is an agricultural disk that repeatedly “turns and works the dirt”. As an FYI, the use of a disk was used for subgrade preparation during much of the road building in the Nelson Meadows Subdivision. It will be the responsibility of the earthwork contractor to make reasonable efforts to first attempt to dry any overly moist subgrade areas as opposed to immediately requesting a change order for the additional costs related to the thicker, geogrid- reinforced, pavement section option. Subgrade drying will take time, effort, and good weather. • Hydraulic Connection of Underground Stormwater Systems to Native Gravel: Based on the civil plans, there appears to be three locations for underground stormwater detention systems. The native silt/clay is a very slow percolating soil, which will require the systems be quite large in area. Our recommendation is to downsize the systems by designing them to rapidly drain into the underlying native sandy gravel. This will require over-excavation under the footprints of the systems (down to native gravel) and replacement material under the systems (that will establish the required hydraulic connection). On past projects, we have found that the least expensive and best performing, replacement material is over-sized cobbles from a commercial pit. When using cobbles, an 8 oz. non-woven, geotextile fabric will be required between the cobbles and system’s bedding material. We recommend a detail showing this be included on the civil plans. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 4 PROJECT KNOWNS Provided below are the items that we know about the proposed project: • See Figures 4 and 5 for a recent site plan for the project. Since final design is still on-going, some modifications to the final site plan may be made prior to plan approval and construction. • The building will be located in the middle and east parts of the site and have a large footprint size. It will the four stories in height. • The building will be underlain by an at-grade slab and be supported on a conventional, shallow foundation consisting of perimeter footings and frost walls as well as a dense layout of interior, strip and spread footings. The building will not contain any basement or crawl space areas. The deepest foundation elements (below slab grade and under the building) will be the elevator pits. • As we understand it, some of the footings will be heavily loaded. In order to keep footings at reasonable sizes, a higher bearing pressure is being requested for foundation design. • A large, asphalt parking lot area will be constructed in the west half of the site. Smaller parking lot areas will wrap around the north and east sides of the building. • Several concrete sidewalk areas will be constructed. Most of the sidewalks will be located well away from the building foundation and adjacent to or within parking lots and next to streets. Three, large, entryway corridors/patio slab areas are shown in front of the main building doors (in the middle of the building and on the two ends). It is not known if these three, hardscape areas will be surfaced with concrete slabs or decorative, landscape pavers. • On the south side of the building, a grass-covered, emergency access road will be constructed. This area will utilize a rigid, “grasspave” or “grassgrid” product that will provide stability to the grass surface. The specific surfacing product will be specified by the Design Team. • The existing asphalt path on the south side of the site may or may not be impacted during construction. If it is damaged or removed, it may need to be replaced. • The building will be connected to city water and sewer mains in Royal Wolf Way. The building will be serviced by a water service, fire service, and sewer service. • The storm drain infrastructure in the parking lot areas will include piping and inlet structures. Based on the civil site plan, three, underground stormwater detention systems are planned for stormwater collection and subsurface infiltration. Two system locations are shown under the parking lot areas on the east and north sides of the building. A larger system is shown on the northwest side of the site in a landscape area to the north of the large parking lot. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 5 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS Provided below are the items that we assume about the proposed project: • Since the existing Yellowstone Pipeline runs under a portion of the west side parking lot area, we expect that parking lot elevations will be set near or above existing site grades. By doing so, earthen cover will not be removed from the pipeline. • Since the site topography in the building area is highest on the west side and specifically in the southwest corner; and the alignment of the Yellowstone Pipeline is nearby, we expect that the finished floor elevation on this end of the building will be set above existing grades. • Since existing site grades slope to the northeast and east in the building area, we expect that the finished floor elevation of the building will extend higher above existing grades in the east half of the building. • As a result of the building finished floor “rising” further above existing ground grades in the east direction, more site fill thickness will likely be needed and placed under the north and east side parking lot areas as opposed to the west site parking lot area (to raise new site grades above the existing conditions). SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Provided below is a summary of the site conditions: • No random fill was found in any of the explorations. All soils are native and in-place. • The site is blanketed by 9 to 12 inches of topsoil throughout. In most areas, topsoil thickness is closer to 12 inches. See Figure 2 for the variation of topsoil thickness across the site. • Underlying the topsoil is native silt/clay. The silt/clay thickness is the thinnest on the east side of the site (including the east half of the building location) at 3.0 to 5.0 feet. In the east-central area of the site (including the west half of the building location), the silt/clay thickness is about 5.0 to 7.0 feet thick. In most areas throughout the west half of the site, the silt/clay thickness increases to 7.0 to 8.0 feet. See Figure 3 for the variation of silt/clay thickness across the site. • The moisture content (and consequently the stiffness) of the native silt/clay varies across the site. The silt/clay is slightly moist (and the driest and stiffest) on the northwest side and on the east side. At these locations, the silt/clay is generally slightly moist to moist and stiff to very stiff throughout its entire thickness (10% to 15% moisture in all test pits except for TP-10, which had moisture contents of 15% to 20%). On the southwest side as well as in the middle of the site, the silt/clay was much more moist. Throughout this area, the upper 3.0 to 4.0 feet of silt/clay Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 6 was moist (at 15% to 20% moisture) but still in a stiff to very stiff condition; however, below this depth range, the silt/clay became very moist (20% to 25% moisture) and much less stiff (softer). See Figure 3 for the variation of silt/clay moisture across the site. • Native sandy gravel underlies the site beginning at depths of 4.0 to 5.0 feet on the east side and 8.0 to 9.0 feet on the west side. In the east half of the building location, the gravel depths are 5.0 to 7.0 feet. In the west half of the building location; the gravel depths deepen to 7.0 to 8.0 feet in most areas with the possibility of being closer to 9.0 feet on the west/southwest side. The sandy gravel consists of “clean” sands and gravels with abundant smaller gravels (3” to 4”- minus) and scattered, larger cobbles (6 to 8 inches) and is defined as the “target” foundation bearing material. See Figure 4 for the variation in gravel depth across the site. • At the time of our test pit and borehole explorations, which were conducted on September 26, 2022 and December 13, 2022, respectively, the groundwater levels across the site were deep. They ranged from 9.0 to 13.0 feet deep in the east half of the site to 14.0 to 15.0 feet deep in the west half of the site. In most areas, the groundwater table was 5.0 to 6.0 feet below the top of the native sandy gravel. See Figure 5 for the late fall/early winter groundwater levels across the site. • As part of the platting/development of the Nelson Meadows Subdivision, groundwater levels were monitored across the subdivision area in the spring/summer of 2018. One of the wells (MW-8) that was used for the monitoring was located near the middle of the Barnard Head- quarters project site (Lots 24 – 26). In this well, the seasonal high water level rose to a depth of 7.1 feet, which corresponds to being very near or just above the top of the native sandy gravel. See Figure 6 for the 2018 high groundwater depths across the Nelson Meadows Subdivision. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES There are two potential geotechnical issues at the site. Each is summarized below: • High Groundwater During Foundation Excavation: Depending on the time of year when the mass foundation excavation occurs, the seasonal high groundwater table may be near or above the top of the “target” sandy gravel. As a result, groundwater dewatering may be required during excavation. If the bottom of the excavation is wet or contains areas of shallow, standing groundwater, another excavation requirement will be the use of a thin layer of fabric-covered, clean crushed rock to get above the wetness (prior to placing the granular structural fill). • Soft Subgrade Areas During Parking Lot Construction: We expect stable, silt/clay subgrade in most areas of the parking lot, especially where subgrade cut depths are less than 3.0 to 4.0 feet. If some areas of the subgrade are found to be overly moist and soft, some subgrade drying and scarification may be required by the Contractor to firm up and dry out the soils. If areas are too wet to dry out, then the thicker, geogrid pavement section option may need to be used. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 7 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Provided below is a summary of the geotechnical recommendations for the project: • The design soils bearing pressure for this project is 5,000 psf. This assumes that the building will be mass over-excavated down to native gravel per our recommendations. • The on-site soils are not corrosive to concrete. As a result, normal cement can be used for the foundation concrete. • The entire building foundation footprint area shall be mass over-excavated down to the native sandy gravel (in a large, “bathtub” excavation) and a building pad section of granular structural fill shall be placed to build up to footing and slab grades. All footings must bear on native gravel or on structural fill that in turn is supported on the native gravel. • The recommended granular structural fill material is import, 3”-minus sandy gravel. • All interior foundation wall backfill (under interior slabs) must consist of granular structural fill. For exterior wall backfill, native non-organic soils are be used. • The interior slab of the building shall be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of 1”-minus clean, crushed rock that in turn bears on the thick section of building pad granular structural fill, which overlies “target” sandy gravel. • The moisture protection provisions for the building shall include a 15-mil, heavy duty, vapor barrier under the interior slab and damp-proofing of the foundation walls per the IBC. Due to the slab-on-grade foundation configuration, no footing drains are required. The elevator pits shall be underlain by a vapor barrier, be water-proofed per IBC, and contain a sump chamber. • The typical city standard under exterior concrete slabs is 3 inches (min.) of clean, crushed rock. We recommend thickening this crushed rock layer to 6 to 12 inches (depending on the location of the slab relative to the building) in order to improve the subgrade support and reduce the risk of frost heaving. For driveway/vehicle slabs, our recommendation for the slab support section is 6 inches of crushed rock and 12 inches of sub-base gravel over fabric-covered subgrade. • In 2018, AESI performed a subdivision-wide, soil corrosivity analysis for the Nelson Meadows Subdivision to determine what requirements would be required for the corrosion protection of ductile iron water mains, water services, and fire services. As part of this work, we tested several samples of silt/clay and sandy gravel. Based on the testing, none of the subdivision soils are highly corrosive and the use of special, zinc-coated DIP pipe is not needed. Some of the silt/clay samples were borderline as far as needing standard polyethylene encasement around the pipe. As a result, our only recommendation is to poly-wrap all DIP water mains and services. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 8 • One of the major benefits of the building pad granular structural fill section is that all of the sub- slab plumbing trenches and excavation under the slab area will be in the 3”-minus gravel section materials. For plumbing trench backfill (above the pipe bedding), either the granular structural fill can be re-used (which will require placement in thin lifts and compaction) or 1”-minus, clean, crushed rock can be used (which is easier to place and compact in tight/confined areas). It is our recommendation that if crushed rock is used for trench backfill, it should be placed in lifts and be vibratory compacted. The use of crushed rock is viewed as a construction expediate to the Contractor and we do not believe a change order is warranted if the Contractor elects to use crushed rock in lieu of the excavated, 3”-minus sandy gravel. • To improve the drainage performance of the underground stormwater detention systems and to downsize their footprint sizes (by designing for a faster, gravel infiltration rate as opposed to a slower, silt/clay infiltration rate), we recommend these areas be mass excavated down to native gravel thereby removing all the underlying silt/clay. The replacement material under the system locations should be fabric-covered, over-sized cobbles (below the system bedding material). • We expect stable parking lot subgrade conditions in most areas of the site. Where subgrade soils are overly moist and softer, some level of subgrade drying and scarification may be needed. The design pavement section we recommend for stable subgrade conditions is as follows: o 3” Asphalt o 6” Base Gravel o 15” Sub-Base Gravel o 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric o Stable Subgrade (Dry, Hard, and Compacted) 24” Total Section Thickness • If some areas of the parking lot subgrade are too wet and soft to adequately dry out, then a thicker pavement section option with geogrid reinforcement may be needed. The section that is provided below is for unstable subgrade conditions: o 3” Asphalt o 6” Base Gravel o 24” Sub-Base Gravel o Tensar TX-190L Geogrid o 8 oz. Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric o Soft Subgrade (Smooth and Rut-Free) 33” Total Section Thickness • The existing asphalt pathway on the south side of the project site may be impacted or damaged during construction, which would require replacement. The pavement section for the path shall be 2.5 inches of asphalt and 9 inches of base gravel over fabric-covered, stable subgrade soils. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 9 • On the south side of the building, a grass-covered, emergency access road is planned for fire truck access. For this area, the surfacing material will be some sort of “grasspave” or “grassgrid” product, which will be specified by the Design Team. The recommended gravel section under the surfacing material is 12 inches of base gravel over fabric-covered, stable subgrade soils. • In the large, exterior, “patio slab” areas near the three, main doorway entries, these areas may be surfaced with decorative, landscape pavers as opposed to concrete slabs. If concrete is used, we recommend that the slabs be underlain by a minimum of 12 inches of clean, crushed rock (to reduce frost heaving risk). If pavers are used, the gravel support section materials and thickness should follow manufacturer recommendations and design guidance. • If desired and cost effective, the native gravels under the parking lot areas (but not under the underground stormwater detention areas) can be “mined” and used as the granular structural fill material for the building pad (in lieu of import, 3”-minus sandy gravel). For many reasons, we do not suspect that the on-site mining option will be the cheapest approach. Also, due to the elevated moisture condition of some of the silt/clay, compaction of the “re-filling” material in the borrow areas may be problematic. This may require additional time and effort for material drying. If the soils are placed with poor compaction, some settlement of the parking lot areas could occur. The most costly ramification of soft soils and poor compaction may be the need to build the parking lot areas with the thicker, geogrid-reinforced pavement section option. EXPLORATIONS, TESTING, AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Explorations Subsurface conditions were investigated across the site in two phases by Lee Evans, a professional geotechnical engineer with Allied Engineering. Phase 1 consisted of the digging of 10 test pits on September 26, 2022. The test pits extended to depths of 10 to 15 feet and were dug with a sub- contractor excavator, provided by Walker Excavation. These were identified as TP-1 through TP-10. All test pits were backfilled with a 10-foot piece of perforated, 4-inch PVC pipe for use as a future ground- water monitoring well. The monitoring wells are identified as MW-1 through MW-10 and match the test pit locations/numbering. Phase 2 consisted of the drilling of three, deeper boreholes on December 13, 2022. The borings, which extended to depths of about 30 feet, were drilled by O’Keefe Drilling and were identified as BH-1 through BH-3. The purpose of the deeper borings was to confirm the deep gravel depth and also the dense to very dense condition of the gravels (based on blow counts of 50 to 100). All explorations were scattered throughout the site with the highest concentration test pits and boreholes in and around the building location. See Figures 1 through 5 for site maps that show the approximate exploration locations. During the explorations, soil and groundwater conditions were visually characterized, measured, and logged. The relative density of the soils was estimated based on pocket penetrometer measurements, ease/difficulty of digging, side wall stability of the test pit excavation, blow counts, and the rate of auger Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 10 advancement. Borehole and test pit logs are attached. Each log provides an array of field information, such as soil depths, thicknesses, and descriptions, groundwater depth measurements (at the time of exploration), relative density data, soil sample information, and a sketch of the soil stratigraphy. Please be aware that the detail provided on the logs cannot be accurately summarized in a paragraph; therefore, it is very important to review the logs in conjunction with the report. Following completion of the fieldwork, the excavations were backfilled, staked with identifying lath, and cleaned up to the best extent possible. To better illustrate the on-site soils, three photos from each test pit are included as part of this report. The first photo (of each test pit set) shows the sidewall of the excavation, while the latter two photos show the excavated silt/clay and sandy gravel spoils. The purpose of the photos is to illustrate the soil stratigraphy, the condition of the silt/clay, and the “target” sandy gravel at each test pit location. All photos have been marked up to call out the soil layers and materials that are described on the logs as well as identifying characteristics. Note: Please be aware that no compaction of test pit backfill soils was done; therefore, these areas will be susceptible to future settlement. As discussed in a later section of the report, all old test pit locations should be re-excavated to their original depth and properly backfilled and compacted if they will under- lie any of the building site improvements, including foundation footprints, exterior slabs, and asphalt pavement areas. Laboratory Testing During the explorations, several samples were collected. All silt/clay samples and all gravel samples above the groundwater table were tested for natural moisture content. The moisture data is shown on all the borehole and test pit logs. The purpose of the silt/clay moisture content data is to better identify and define which soils are below optimum moisture (for compaction), which soils are above optimum moisture (for compaction), and to show the moisture variations across the site (in location and depth). In addition to the moisture content testing, two composite samples of silt/clay from a depth range of 2.0 to 3.0 feet were collected. Composite “A” was from the west half of the site, while Composite “B” was from the east half of the site. These two samples were tested for atterberg limits and standard proctor. Provided in Tables 1 and 2 (below and on the following page) is a summary of the testing results for atterberg limits and standard proctors. The lab testing forms are included at the back of the report. Table 1. Lab Testing Results – Atterberg Limits (Silt/Clay from Lots 24 – 26) SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL TYPE LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SOIL SYMBOL Comp. A 2.0’ - 3.0’ Sandy Silt/Clay 34.0 % 19.0 % 15.0 % CL (Lean Clay) Comp. B 2.0’ - 3.0’ Sandy Silt/Clay 34.0 % 20.0 % 14.0 % CL (Lean Clay) Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 11 Notes: 1) Composite A was obtained from TP-1 through TP-4, all of which were located in the W ½ of the site. 2) Composite B was obtained from TP-5 through TP-10, all of which were located in the E ½ of the site. 3) Both results indicate the soils are a low plasticity sandy silt/sandy lean clay, which is a non-expansive soil. Table 2. Lab Testing Results – Standard Proctor (Silt/Clay from Lots 24 – 26) SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE Comp. A 2.0’ - 3.0’ Sandy Silt/Clay 106.5 pcf 17.6 % Comp. B 2.0’ - 3.0’ Sandy Silt/Clay 104.2 pcf 18.5 % Notes: 1) Composite A was obtained from TP-1 through TP-4, all of which were located in the W ½ of the site. 2) Composite B was obtained from TP-5 through TP-10, all of which were located in the E ½ of the site. 3) In TP-1, TP-4, TP-6, TP-8, and TP-9, the silt/clay was slightly moist throughout (10% to 15% moisture content). 4) In TP-10, the silt/clay was a little more moist throughout (15% to 20% moisture content). 5) In TP-2, TP-3, TP-5, and TP-7, the silt/clay was moist in the upper 3.0’ to 4.0’ (15% to 20% moisture content). 6) In TP-2, TP-3, TP-5, and TP-7, the silt/clay was very moist below 3.0’ to 4.0’ (20% to 25% moisture content). 7) Based on this data, all of the upper soils are at a natural moisture content below or near optimum moisture. 8) Based on this data, some of the lower soils are at a natural moisture content well above optimum moisture. In 2021, AESI conducted the geotechnical work for the Bronken Warehouse project, which is located on Lots 5 – 6 of the Nelson Meadows Subdivision. See Figure 6 for the location of these lots in relation to the Barnard Headquarters project site (Lots 24 – 26). As part of our 2021 work, we tested silt/clay soil samples for atterberg limits, standard proctor, and soil corrosivity. The atterberg limit data for Lots 5 – 6 is nearly identical to the data from Lots 24 – 26, meaning the silt/clay soils are consistent and uniform across the Nelson Meadows Subdivision area. For this reason, we have decided to incorporate and use the soil corrosivity data from Lots 5 – 6 as part of this report. Provided in Table 3 is a summary of the testing results for soil corrosivity (from Lots 5 – 6). The lab testing forms for soil corrosivity as well as atterberg limits are included at the back of the report. Table 3. Lab Testing Results – Soil Corrosivity (Silt/Clay from Lots 5 – 6: Bronken Warehouse) SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL TYPE pH MARBLE pH CONDUCTIVITY (mmhos/cm3) RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm) SOLUBLE SULFATE Comp. A 2.0’ - 4.0’ Silt/Clay 8.50 8.47 0.76 690 0.0098 % Comp. E 2.0’ - 4.0’ Silt/Clay 8.66 8.62 0.42 1000 0.0036 % Notes: 1) Resistivity < 500 ohm-cm is considered to have severe corrosion potential to non-galvanized metal objects. 2) Soluble sulfate < 0.20 % is considered to be non-corrosive to standard concrete. Soil Conditions Based on all our explorations, no random/foreign fill was found and the site is covered by 9 to 12 inches of native, organic topsoil. In most areas, the topsoil thickness is about 12 inches. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 12 Underlying the topsoil is 3.0 to 8.0 feet of native silt/clay. The silt/clay is thinnest on the east side at 3.0 to 5.0 feet thick. In the east-central part of the site, the silt/clay thickness increases to 5.0 to 7.0 feet. Throughout most of the west half of the site, the silt/clay is 7.0 to 8.0 feet thick. The only exception was in the NE corner (of the west half). In this area, the silt/clay was a little thinner at 5.0 to 6.0 feet. The native silt/clay varies in moisture content both in location, aerial extent, and depth. The driest area of the silt/clay is located on the northwest side as well as the east side. In most of the test pits in these two areas, the silt/clay was slightly moist throughout the entire thickness (10% to 15% moisture) and consequently stiff to very stiff. The only exception was in TP-10 where the silt/clay soil profile was still stiff to very stiff but a little more moist (15% to 20% moisture). In the southwest and central areas of the site, the silt/clay is more moist. In the test pits in this area, the upper 3.0 to 4.0 feet of silt/clay is moist (15% to 20% moisture), but yet still stiff to very stiff. Beginning at the 3.0 to 4.0-foot depth, there is a moisture break with very moist soils below (20% to 25% moisture). Along with the big increase in moisture, the lower soils are significantly less stiff and softer. Beginning at depths of 4.0 to 6.0 feet on the east side of the site and 8.0 to 9.0 feet throughout the west half of the site is the native sandy gravel. In the east-central part of the site, the gravel depths are 6.0 to 8.0 feet, but could be encroaching on the 9.0-foot depth in the southwest direction. The sandy gravel consists of “clean” sands and gravels with abundant smaller gravels (3” to 4”-minus) and scattered, larger cobbles (6 to 8 inches). Based on high blow counts (50 to 100) obtained during borehole drilling, the gravels are in a dense to very dense condition. The sandy gravel is defined as the “target” bearing materials for all building footings. See Figures 1 through 4 for site maps that show the exploration locations along with topsoil thickness, silt/clay thickness, variation in silt/clay moisture content, and gravel depth. Provided in Table 4 is a summary of soil conditions observed in BH-1 through BH-3. This terminology matches the attached borehole logs. Table 4. Summary of Soil Conditions in Boreholes 1 through 3 BH # BH LOCATION RANDOM FILL NATIVE TOPSOIL NATIVE SILT/CLAY NATIVE SANDY GRAVEL 1 W. Side of Building Location -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 8.5’ 8.5’ - 30.5’ 2 Middle of Building Location -------- 0.0’ - 0.8’ 0.8’ - 7.0’ 7.0’ - 29.0’ 3 E. Side of Building Location -------- 0.0’ - 0.8’ 0.8’ - 6.0’ 6.0’ - 29.9’ Notes: 1) All soil measurements are depths below existing ground. 2) No random fill was found in any of the three boreholes. 3) The native topsoil consists of slightly moist, black to dark brown, organic clayey silt w/ roots. 4) The native silt/clay consists of slightly moist to very moist, brown/tan, sandy silt to sandy clean clay. 5) The native silt/clay generally becomes more moist and less stiff with increasing depth (see TPs for more info). 6) The native sandy gravel consists of brown, “clean” sandy gravel with abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 13 7) Based on SPT blow counts of 50 to 100, the native sandy gravel is in a dense to very dense condition. 8) The “target” bearing material for all footings is the native sandy gravel at depths of 6.0 to 8.5 feet. Provided in Table 5 is a summary of soil conditions observed in TP-1 through TP-10. This terminology matches the attached test pit logs. Table 5. Summary of Soil Conditions in Test Pits 1 through 10 TP # TP LOCATION RANDOM FILL NATIVE TOPSOIL NATIVE SILT/CLAY NATIVE SANDY GRAVEL 1 W ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 9.0’ 9.0’ - 14.0’ 2 W ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 0.8’ 0.8’ - 8.0’ 8.0’ - 15.0’ 3 W ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 9.0’ 9.0’ - 14.0’ 4 W ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 6.5’ 6.5’ - 13.0’ 5 E ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 0.8’ 0.8’ - 5.5’ 5.5’ - 13.0’ 6 E ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 4.0’ 4.0’ - 11.0’ 7 E ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 8.0’ 8.0’ - 13.0’ 8 E ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 5.5’ 5.5’ - 11.0’ 9 E ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 4.0’ 4.0’ - 10.0’ 10 E ½ of Project Site -------- 0.0’ - 1.0’ 1.0’ - 6.5’ 6.5’ - 12.0’ Notes: 1) All soil measurements are depths below existing ground. 2) No random fill was found in any of the 10 test pits. 3) The native topsoil consists of slightly moist, black to dark brown, organic clayey silt w/ roots. 4) The native silt/clay consists of slightly moist to very moist, brown/tan, sandy silt to sandy clean clay. 5) The native silt/clay was “drier” in TP-1, TP-4, TP-6, TP-8, TP-9, and TP-10. See Figure 3 for these “drier” conditions. 6) In these six pits, the native silt/clay was generally slightly moist throughout (10% to 15% moisture content). 7) The only exception was TP-10 where the native silt/clay was a little more moist (15% to 20% moisture content). 8) Due to the slightly moist to moist conditions in these six pits, the native silt/clay was stiff to very stiff throughout. 9) The native silt/clay was “moister” in TP-2, TP-3, TP-5, and TP-7. See Figure 3 for these “moister” conditions. 10) In these four pits, the native silt/clay was generally moist in the upper 3.0’ to 4.0’ (15% to 20% moisture content). 11) In these four pits, the native silt/clay was very moist below a depth of 3.0’ to 4.0’ (20% to 25% moisture content). 12) As a result of the moisture break in these four pits, the upper 3.0’ to 4.0’ of native silt/clay was stiff to very stiff. 13) As a result of the moisture break in these four pits, the lower depth native silt/clay was medium stiff (and softer). 14) In each of the 10 pits, the lower 6 inches (+/-) of the native silt/clay contains some scattered, intermixed gravels. 15) The native sandy gravel consists of brown, “clean” sandy gravel with abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. 16) In general, the native sandy gravel contains smaller 3” to 4”-minus gravels and scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. 17) The “target” bearing material for all footings is the native sandy gravel at depths of 4.0 to 9.0 feet. Groundwater Conditions All of our test pits and boreholes were dug and drilled in the late fall or early winter when the ground- water table is at or near the deepest seasonal depth. During our fieldwork in September (9/26) and December (12/13), the groundwater depth ranged from 9.0 to 10 feet on the east side to 14.0 to 15.0 Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 14 feet throughout the western half of the site. In most of the explorations, the groundwater table was 5.0 to 6.0 feet below the top of the sandy gravel. See Figures 5 for a site map that shows the exploration locations along with the groundwater depths measured in the test pits and boreholes on 9/26/22 and 12/13/22. Provided in Table 6 is a summary of the groundwater depths measured in the 10 test pits on 9/26/22. Also included in the table is the groundwater depth relative to the top of the native sandy gravel. Table 6. Summary of Groundwater Depths in Test Pits 1 Through 10 (on 9/26/22) TP # TP LOCATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH GW DEPTH RELATIVE TO TOP OF NATIVE SANDY GRAVEL 1 W ½ of Project Site 14.0’ 5.0’ below top of gravel 2 W ½ of Project Site 14.5’ 6.5’ below top of gravel 3 W ½ of Project Site 14.0’ 5.0’ below top of gravel 4 W ½ of Project Site 12.5’ 6.0’ below top of gravel 5 E ½ of Project Site 11.0’ 5.5’ below top of gravel 6 E ½ of Project Site 9.5’ 5.5’ below top of gravel 7 E ½ of Project Site 13.0’ 5.0’ below top of gravel 8 E ½ of Project Site 11.0’ 5.5’ below top of gravel 9 E ½ of Project Site 9.0’ 5.0’ below top of gravel 10 E ½ of Project Site 11.5’ 5.0’ below top of gravel Notes: 1) All groundwater measurements are depths below existing ground. 2) All 10 test pits were backfilled with 10’ long, 4” dia., perforated PVC monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-10). Provided in Table 7 is a summary of the groundwater depths measured in the 3 boreholes on 12/13/22. Also included in the table is the groundwater depth relative to the top of the native sandy gravel. Table 7. Summary of Groundwater Depths in Boreholes 1 Through 3 (on 12/13/22) BH # BH LOCATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH GW DEPTH RELATIVE TO TOP OF NATIVE SANDY GRAVEL 1 W. Side of Building Location 15.0’ (+/-) 6.5’ below top of gravel 2 Middle of Building Location 14.0’ (+/-) 7.0’ below top of gravel 3 E. Side of Building Location 13.0’ (+/-) 7.0’ below top of gravel Notes: 1) All groundwater measurements are depths below existing ground. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 15 It must be clearly understood that groundwater levels will rise during the spring and early summer of all years. In 2018, extensive groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the Nelson Meadows Subdivision from 3/30/18 to 7/27/18 to record seasonal high groundwater depths. It just so happens that one of the 2018 monitoring wells (MW-8) was located near the middle of the Barnard Headquarter project site (Lots 24 – 26). At this location, the highest groundwater depth occurred on 4/27 and rose to a depth of about 7.1 feet. The MW-8 location is just to the west of the BH-2 location, which had a groundwater depth of about 14.0 feet on 12/13/22. In this general area of the site, the native gravel depth is 7.0 to 8.0 feet. This means that the 2018 high groundwater depth was near or above the top of the gravels. See Figures 6 for a site map that shows the 2018 seasonal high groundwater depths across the Nelson Meadows Subdivision area. The location of MW-8 is highlighted. Provided in Table 8 is all the 2018 groundwater monitoring data from MW-8. Also included in the table is the groundwater depth relative to the top of the native sandy gravel. This is an approximate location based on an estimated gravel depth of 7.5 feet. Table 8. Summary of 2018 Groundwater Monitoring Measurements in MW-8 (3/30/18 to 7/27/18) DATE MW-8 LOCATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH GW DEPTH RELATIVE TO TOP OF NATIVE SANDY GRAVEL 3/30 Near BH-2 (Middle of Building Location) > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 4/6 “ > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 4/13 “ > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 4/19 “ 7.9’ 0.4’ (+/-) below top of gravel 4/27 “ 7.1’ 0.4’ (+/-) above top of gravel 5/4 “ 7.8’ 0.3’ (+/-) below top of gravel 5/11 “ 8.0’ 0.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 5/18 “ 8.2’ 0.7’ (+/-) below top of gravel 5/25 “ 8.2’ 0.7’ (+/-) below top of gravel 6/1 “ 8.3’ 0.8’ (+/-) below top of gravel 6/8 “ 8.4’ 0.9’ (+/-) below top of gravel 6/15 “ > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 6/22 “ > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 6/29 “ 8.5’ 1.0’ (+/-) below top of gravel 7/5 “ > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 7/13 “ > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel 7/27 “ > 9.0’ > 1.5’ (+/-) below top of gravel Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 16 Notes: 1) All groundwater measurements are depths below existing ground. 2) The MW-8 location is a short distance to the west of BH-2 near the Lot 25/26 common property line (see Fig. 6). 3) In the area of BH-2 (middle of building location), native gravel depth is about 7.0’ to 8.0’. 4) According to our 2018 test pit logs, the native gravel depth at the MW-8 location was 7.5’. 5) The highest (shallowest) groundwater depth recorded in 2018 was at 7.1’ on 4/27/18. 6) Based on this data, the seasonal high groundwater table rises to near or above the top of the native gravel. GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES The site has limited geotechnical issues (due to the relatively shallow gravel depths of 5.0 to 8.0 feet in most of the building area) and the deeper groundwater conditions (during most of the year). With that said, there is a potential for a couple of issues that could occur during construction, depending on the time year, the weather during road building, and the depth of the parking lot subgrade elevations. The two potential issues that we foresee are summarized below: • High Groundwater During Foundation Excavation: There is a chance that groundwater will be near or above the top of the “target” sandy gravel during mass foundation over-excavation. If this is the situation, we first recommend that the excavation area be dewatered to below the top of the gravel. If some areas of the excavation contain wet gravel subgrade soils or shallow, standing groundwater, the first lift of granular structural fill must consist of fabric-covered, 1”- minus, clean, crushed rock (to get above the wetness before placing granular structural fill). • Soft Subgrade During Parking Lot Construction: All of the subgrade soils under the parking lots will consist of native, non-organic silt/clay (following topsoil stripping). We expect slightly moist to moist and stiff to very stiff conditions in most areas (especially if cut depths are less than about 3.0 feet). The areas with the moistest soils are in the southwest area as well as the middle area of the site. If subgrade soils are overly moist and on the softer side, some level of drying and scarification may be required by the Earthwork Contractor to improve the stability of the subgrade soils. This work will take time, effort, and quite possibly an agricultural disk for maximum effectiveness. If this condition occurs, it will be a requirement that the subgrade first try and be dried out. If the weather does not cooperate or if the soils are just too wet and soft, then the thicker, geogrid-reinforced pavement section option may need to be used in some areas of the site. We do expect that the use of the thicker section will be widespread. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Re-Excavation of Test Pits Most, if not all, of our 10 test pits will be encroached upon during site work, foundation earthwork, and parking lot construction. During backfilling of the pits, the spoils were not placed in lifts and compacted; as a result, they will undergo significant soil settlement over time. Where any of the site and building improvements, including foundations, interior and exterior concrete slabs, underground utilities, and asphalt parking lot areas, will overlie any of the test pits, we recommend that they be re-excavated back Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 17 down to their original depth and properly backfilled and compacted with suitable material. All of our test pits were dug to depths of 10 to 15 feet. Topsoil Stripping and Re-Use The site is blanketed by 9 to 12 inches of black to dark brown, organic topsoil. In most areas, the topsoil thickness is approximately 12 inches. All topsoil must be completely removed from within the building foundation footprint area and from under all exterior concrete slab and asphalt pavement areas. The final site grading (in landscape areas) and the reclamation of disturbed construction areas are the only recommended uses of this material. Groundwater Dewatering Depending on the time of year, groundwater dewatering may be required for foundation excavation and water and sewer installations. If groundwater dewatering is needed, we recommend the installation of standard wellpoints/dewatering wells (which most utility contractors use) that lower the groundwater table well below the bottom of the excavation. Subgrade Scarification and Drying Depending on the time of year and the subgrade elevations (ie. cut depth), some areas of the parking lot subgrade soils may need to be dried and scarified. This will take time, effort, and good weather. The use of an agricultural disk is the most efficient way to dry subgrade soils (which is a typical piece of equipment on heavy highway projects). As a FYI, during the road building in the Nelson Meadows Subdivision, a disk was used to dry and prepare the subgrade in many areas, especially throughout the east side of the subdivision (east of creek corridor). Subgrade Excavation/Cover Conflicts with Yellowstone Pipeline The Yellowstone Pipeline runs through the west side of the parking lot area. Depending on the design asphalt grades in this area, the depth of subgrade excavation for the 24-inch design pavement section may get too close to the pipeline (based on the Pipeline’s construction guidelines). If this condition occurs, one available option is to “thin” the pavement section (ie. sub-base thickness) in this limited area and use a layer of Tensar TX-190L geogrid for subgrade reinforcement and obtaining the design ESAL capacity of the pavement section. This can be addressed during construction if this issue arises. Excavation and Re-Use of On-Site Soils The soils that will be excavated during foundation earthwork and site development will include topsoil, silt/clay, and sandy gravel. Provided below are the allowable re-uses of the on-site materials: • Organic topsoil materials shall only be used for final site grading in landscape areas. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 18 • The only allowable uses for native silt/clay are for site grading, embankment fill under parking lot areas, and exterior foundation wall backfill. Only the driest silt/clay that can be compacted to project specifications shall be re-used for wall backfill. As discussed in a later backfill section of the report, we are recommending a thicker gravel/crushed rock section under exterior slabs that abut the foundation walls and lie in front of doorways. • For interior foundation wall backfill (under interior slabs), we recommend the exclusive use of imported, granular structural fill (3”-minus sandy gravel). No on-site soils shall be used for interior backfill. • Due to the 4.0 to 9.0-foot depth to native sandy gravel, we expect that very little of this material will be excavated during site development. The only locations where native gravels will likely be encountered is at the bottom of the foundation excavation and in the utility trench excavations. STRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERS AND CONSIDERATIONS Foundation Design We assume that the new building will be underlain by an at-grade slab (slab-on-grade) with perimeter footings and foundations walls as well as an array of interior footings (throughout the building area). No basement or crawl space areas are being planned. Seismic Design Factors A main requirement of the Structural Engineer’s seismic analysis will be a determination of the site class. Based on our on-site explorations and knowledge of the underlying geology, the site class for the project site will be Site Class D (as per criteria presented in the 2021 IBC). This site class designation is valid as long as our foundation recommendations are followed. To obtain site-specific seismic loading and response spectrum parameters, a web-based application from the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program can be used. The link to their web page is as follows: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/. Upon entering this page, there are links to three third- party interfaces that can be used to obtain the seismic information. The user needs to enter the design code reference document, site soil classification, risk category, site latitude, and site longitude. Foundation Bearing Pressure (Shallow Foundation/Footings) As long as our shallow foundation support recommendations are followed (ie. mass exc.), the allowable bearing pressure for all perimeter, interior, and exterior footings and any other foundation component is 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Allowable bearing pressures from transient loading (due to wind or seismic forces) may be increased by 50 percent. We estimate that the above-referenced bearing pressure will result in total settlements of one inch or less, with only minor differential settlements. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 19 Note: For this project, we are recommending mass over-excavation under the entire building footprint area (down to native, “target” sandy gravel) and placement of a thick, building pad section of granular structural fill (back up to footing and slab grades). As a result, all footings will either bear on the native gravel or on compacted, granular structural fill that in turn bears on the native gravel. Note: Based on the borehole drilling, the native sandy gravel within a depth of 30 feet has blow counts of 50 to 100. This indicates a dense to very dense condition. As a result, we are providing a higher soils bearing capacity of 5,000 psf. Lateral Earth Pressures All foundation walls that will be fixed at the top prior to the placement of backfill should be designed for an “at rest” equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Cantilevered retaining walls may be designed for a lower, “active” equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf, provided either some slight outward rotation of the wall is acceptable upon backfilling or the wall is constructed in such a way that accommodates the expected rotation. These “at rest” and “active” design values are only applicable for walls that will have backfill slopes of less than ten percent; and which will not be externally loaded by surface pressures applied above and/or behind the wall. Lateral forces from wind, earthquakes, and earth pressures on the opposite side of the structure will be resisted by passive earth pressure against the buried portion of the foundation wall and by friction at the bottom of the footing. Passive earth pressures in compacted, fine-grained backfill (silt/clay) should be assumed to have an equivalent fluid pressure of 280 pcf; while a coefficient of friction of 0.5 is estimated between cast-in-place concrete and the “target” sandy gravel (or granular structural fill that is placed to build back up to footing grade from the “target” gravel subgrade). Actual footing loads (not factored or allowable loads) should be used for calculating frictional resistance to sliding along the base of the footing. Please be aware that the friction coefficient has no built-in factor of safety; therefore, an appropriate safety factor should be selected and used in all subsequent calculations for each load case. The above-referenced, equivalent fluid pressures (for at rest, active, and passive conditions) assume that the wall will be backfilled with a suitable material that is compacted to an unyielding condition and it will lie above the groundwater table and/or be well drained; thereby, preventing the backfill from becoming saturated and the wall from experiencing hydrostatic pressure. Each of these design pressures is for static conditions and will need to be factored accordingly to represent seismic loading. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate lateral earth pressures for geometries and/or loading conditions that do not meet the previously mentioned criteria. Subgrade Reaction Modulus (under Slabs) As long as our interior slab support recommendations are followed (as presented later in the report), the subgrade reaction modulus (k) can be assumed to be 200 pounds/cubic inch (pci). This is a modified design value that uses the subgrade reaction modulus (k) of the native silt/cay and factors it (increases Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 20 it) based on a minimum section thickness of imported gravel to be placed under the slab. This design value assumes the slab will be underlain by at least 18 inches of compacted gravel or crushed rock. Note: For this project, we are recommending a minimum 18-inch thick, gravel support section under the interior slab area that consists of an upper 6-inch section of clean crushed rock and a lower 12-inch section of granular structural fill. In all actuality (since we are also recommending mass over-excavation of the entire building area down to “target” gravel), the entire slab area will be underlain by a thick section of compacted, granular structural fill that in turn bears on native gravel. Interior Slab Thickness Given the office/commercial use of the building, we expect that the interior slab will be 4 inches thick (minimum). With that said, the structural design will dictate the slab thickness. Soil Corrosivity to Concrete According to Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) highway design standards, Type I-II cement is used when soil sulfate contents are less than 0.20%. However, if sulfate levels are between 0.20 and 2.00%, then Type V cement is used. Note: Two composite samples of the native silt/clay, each from the depth range of 2 to 4 feet, were submitted for lab testing from the Bronken Warehouse project (Lots 5 – 6). The results for Composite A and E were 0.0098% and 0.0036%, respectively. Based on the results, the silt/clay soils (in the Nelson Meadows Subdivision) are not corrosive to standard concrete. Note: We are comfortable using the nearby data from Lots 5 – 6 (for the Barnard Headquarters project) because the Atterberg limit data from the two sites is nearly identical. This indicates that the silt/clay soils are of the same composition. Note: Over the years, we have tested several samples of Bozeman-area silt/clay. All samples have come back as being non-corrosive to standard concrete as well. There is no reason to use Type V cement. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General A detailed illustration showing our earthwork, foundation bearing, slab support, and building moisture protection recommendations for an at-grade slab (slab-on-grade) configuration is included as Figure 7. Please refer to this figure during the review of the report. Note: Figure 7 shows mass over-excavation of the entire building footprint (down to native gravel) and a building pad of compacted, granular structural fill (back up to footing and slab grades). Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 21 Foundation Design and Support • We assume the building will be underlain by an at-grade slab (slab-on-grade). • We assume the foundation for the building will be designed as a shallow foundation consisting of perimeter footings/frost walls along with interior and exterior footings. • The “target” foundation bearing material for all footings is the “clean”, sandy gravel at depths of 4.0 to 9.0 feet. All footings must bear directly on the native gravel or on granular structural fill that in turn is supported on the native gravel. • The minimum depth of cover for frost protection of perimeter and exterior footings is four feet. This dimension is measured from bottom of footing up to the final grade of the ground surface. Foundation Excavation and Earthwork • We recommend mass over-excavation (“bathtub” excavation) of the entire building area down to the “target” sandy gravel. The excavation area shall extend a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the outside edge of perimeter footings and must encapsulate all exterior footings (for roof over- hangs) on the outside of the foundation walls. This method of excavation will prevent having to excavate/over-excavate under all footings on an individual basis (in trench and pad excavations). • We recommend that a building pad section of imported, granular structural fill (3”-minus, sandy gravel) be placed throughout the building excavation area. The gravel fill material must extend from the “target” gravel surface up to the bottom of footing and slab grades. • There is a very high probability that shallow groundwater could be above the top of the “target” gravel, depending on the time of year (namely during the spring). This will require groundwater dewatering to lower the water level during excavation and before structural fill placement. • If the “target” gravel subgrade is wet or contains some areas of shallow standing water, then granular structural fill cannot be placed. Instead, the initial lift of gravel fill material will need to consist of 1”-minus, clean crushed rock. The crushed rock layer shall be vibratory compacted and covered with a layer of 8 oz. non-woven geotextile separator fabric (Mirafi 180N or equal) before placing the first lift of granular structural fill. • If the “target” gravel surface is dry, it must be vibratory compacted with a large roller to a dense and unyielding condition prior to pouring footings or placing granular structural fill. • If the “target” gravel surface is wet or contains shallow standing water, it must be track-packed with the excavator and static rolled with a roller prior to placing the initial crushed rock layer. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 22 Shallow Footings (Standard Foundation) • Refer to Figure 7 for design and construction recommendations. • The “target” bearing material for all footings (incl. perimeter, interior, and exterior footings) is the native sandy gravel that underlies the site at depths of 4.0 to 9.0 feet. None of the overlying soil materials (incl. topsoil, silt/clay or “dirty” gravel) shall be left in-place under any footings. The “target” gravel is identifiable based on its brown color, “clean” sandy composition, and abundant rounded gravels and cobbles. • All footings must bear directly on the “target” gravel (ie. “clean” sandy gravel) or on compacted granular structural that in turn is supported on the native gravel. • Depending on the perimeter footing grades relative to the top of the native gravel, some footing areas may bear directly on “target” gravel, while others will need to be over-excavated down to gravel and built back up to footing grade with granular structural fill. • All of the interior footings located directly under the slab will need to bear on a thicker granular structural fill section that in turn is supported on the “target” gravel. Based on the mass over- excavation method, the entire area inside of the perimeter foundation walls will be in-filled with granular structural fill (back up to interior footing and slab grades) following the pouring of the perimeter foundation walls. • To minimize disturbance to the native gravel subgrade surface, the excavation should be dug with a smooth-edge foundation bucket. • Prior to pouring footings or placing granular structural fill, the native gravel subgrade shall be cleaned of loose spoil materials and re-compacted to a dense and unyielding condition with a smooth drum roller. Track packing of the gravel subgrade with the excavator (to smooth it out) prior to compaction with the roller works well. • In areas where the foundation will need to be over-excavated down to native gravel, the limits of the excavation will need to extend wide enough beyond the outside edge of footings such that enough compacted structural fill is placed to keep the footing load transfer in the structural fill materials down to the “target” gravel. • The required minimum width that the granular structural fill section must extend beyond the outside edge of footing is dependent on the structural fill thickness. The formula is as follows: Structural Fill Thickness / 2.0 = Min. Width of Structural Fill Beyond Edge of Footing. Here are some examples: For 2.0 feet of fill, the fill must extend 1.0-foot beyond the edge of footing; For 4.0 feet of fill, the fill must extend 2.0 feet beyond the edge of footing. To ensure the structural fill extends far enough beyond the outside edge of footing and can be properly compacted along Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 23 the sides of the excavation, we recommend that the structural fill extend a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond footings in all areas. This distance will need to be increased for structural thicknesses greater than 10.0 feet (which will not occur on this project site). • All granular structural fill that is placed under footings must consist of either 3”-minus, sandy (pitrun) gravel or 1.5”-minus, crushed (roadmix) gravel. Specifications for these materials are provided in a later section of the report. We recommend 3”-minus gravel for the building pad. • The granular structural fill section should be placed in multiple lifts (depending on thickness of fill required and the size of the roller used) with each lift being vibratory compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. See a later report section for additional compaction specifications. A large, smooth drum roller should be used wherever possible. Small, walk-behind sheepsfoot rollers and hand-held, jumping jack compactors should be used in narrow/confined excavations and along edges and in corners of the excavation. FOUNDATION WALL BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS Provided below are our general recommendations for interior and exterior foundation wall backfill. • For interior foundation wall backfill (under interior slab areas), all backfill material must consist exclusively of high quality, 3”-minus granular structural fill. This material is easy to compact and will minimize any settlement potential under the slab. All backfill must be placed in thin lifts and be vibratory compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. We do not recommend using any native silt/clay soils for any interior backfill. • Select native silt/clay soils can be used for exterior foundation wall backfill. These materials must be well compacted to prevent unwanted settlements, especially under exterior slab areas. Use only the driest material available. All backfill must be placed in lifts and be well compacted. • To prevent any exterior slab settlement or exterior slab frost heaving issues for those slabs that are adjacent to doorways, we are recommending a minimum 12-inch thick, clean crushed rock section under these slab areas. During construction, some consideration should be given (by the Contractor) to fully backfilling these relatively small areas (from perimeter footing grade up to slab grade) under all the doorway entry slabs with granular structural fill or clean crushed rock. By doing so, all frost heaving risk would be removed. INTERIOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS Provided below are our recommendations for interior slab support: • All interior slabs shall be supported on a minimum, 18-inch thick, compacted gravel section consisting of 6 inches of clean crushed rock underlain by 12 inches of granular structural fill. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 24 • Since we are recommending mass over-excavation of the entire building area down to “target” gravel and the placement of a building pad section of granular structural fill, the sub-slab gravel section will be much thicker (ie. 5.0 to 10.0 feet) than the 18-inch (min.) thickness in all areas. MOISTURE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Provided below are our moisture protection and subsurface drainage recommendations for at-grade slab (slab-on-grade) foundation configurations. Moisture Protection (At Grade Slabs) • A heavy-duty vapor barrier shall underlie the entire floor area of the interior slab (directly under the slab and above the clean crushed rock layer). The purpose of the barrier is to minimize the upward migration of water vapor into the building. The vapor barrier that we exclusively recommend is a Stego 15-mil vapor barrier (which has a water vapor transmission rate of 0.006 or less as established by ASTM E 96). All seams, joints, and pipe penetrations in the vapor barrier shall be sealed with Stego wrap polyethylene tape. Also, the barrier should be secured and sealed along the perimeter foundation walls. • Perimeter frost walls around at-grade slab areas shall be damp-proofed (per the current code). • If the current code does not require damp-proofing, then damp-proofing of the foundation walls can be omitted. Subsurface Drainage (At-Grade Slabs) • For at-grade slab areas (set above exterior grades), no perimeter footing drains are required. Elevator Pits (Beneath At-Grade Slabs) • All elevator pits shall be underlain by a 15-mil vapor barrier. • We recommend that foundation walls of elevator pits be water-proofed (per the code). • A sump chamber shall be part of the bottom of the pit. EXTERIOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS Provided in Table 9 (on the following page) is our recommendations for the design section under the light-duty, exterior slabs (including standard pedestrian sidewalks away from the building foundation and next to streets). Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 25 Table 9. Exterior Concrete Slab (Light-Duty) – Sidewalks Away From Building – Stable Subgrade COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) Concrete Slab: 4 (min.) 1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock: 6 Granular Structural Fill – 3”-Minus Gravel or 1.5”-Minus Roadmix: No 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Separation Fabric (Mirafi 600X or Equal): No Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil) or Embankment Fill: Compacted to 95% TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 6 + Slab Thickness Notes: 1) We recommend this section for std. pedestrian sidewalks away from the building foundation and next to streets. 2) We expect pedestrian slabs will be 4 inches thick (min.). 3) City of Bozeman specs call for 3 inches (min.) of crushed rock; we recommend increasing this to 6 inches. 4) The purpose of the 6-inch thick, crushed rock section is to provide better support under the slab. 5) Stable subgrade is required for this section. 6) If unstable subgrade exists, the soils must first be scarified and attempted to be dried out. Provided in Table 10 is our recommendations for the design section under the medium-duty, exterior slabs (including pedestrian sidewalks next to the building foundation wall, slabs at all doorway entries, and large “patio area” slabs). To remove all frost heaving risk under slabs adjacent to doorways, strong consideration should be given to fully backfilling these relatively small slab areas with granular structural fill and/or clean crushed rock from footing grade up to bottom of slab. Table 10. Exterior Concrete Slab (Medium-Duty) – Sidewalks Next To Building – Stable Subgrade COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) Concrete Slab: 4 (min.) 1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock: 12 Granular Structural Fill – 3”-Minus Gravel or 1.5”-Minus Roadmix: No 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Separation Fabric (Mirafi 600X or Equal): No Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil) or Embankment Fill: Compacted to 95% TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 12 + Slab Thickness Notes: 1) We recommend this section for pedestrian sidewalks next to the building, at all doorways, and large patio areas. 2) We expect pedestrian slabs will be 4 inches thick (min.). 3) City of Bozeman specs call for 3 inches (min.) of crushed rock; we recommend increasing this to 12 inches. 4) The purpose of the 12-inch thick, crushed rock section is to lower the frost heaving risk of the underlying silt/clay. 5) Stable subgrade is required for this section. 6) If unstable subgrade exists, the soils must first be scarified and attempted to be dried out. 7) An option for removing all frost heaving risk next to doors is to fully backfill under slabs with granular structural fill. 8) The granular backfill material shall extend from footing grade up to the bottom of the layer of clean crushed rock. 9) In lieu of granular structural fill, the doorway slabs can be fully backfilled with clean crushed rock. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 26 Provided in Table 11 is our recommendations for the design section under the heavy-duty, exterior slabs (including driveway aprons and sidewalks; as well as any other vehicle slabs). Table 11. Exterior Concrete Slab (Heavy-Duty) – Driveway Aprons and Sidewalks – Stable Subgrade COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) Concrete Slab: 6 (min.) 1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock or 1.5”-Minus Base Course Gravel: 6 Sub-Base Course – 6”-Minus Uncrushed Sandy (Pitrun) Gravel: 12 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Separation Fabric (Mirafi 600X or Equal): Yes Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil) or Embankment Fill: Compacted to 95% TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 18 + Slab Thickness Notes: 1) We recommend this section for driveway aprons and sidewalks; and any other vehicle slabs. 2) We expect driveway apron/sidewalk slabs and vehicle slabs will be 6 inches thick (min.). 3) City of Bozeman specs call for 3 inches (min.) of crushed rock; we recommend increasing this to 6 inches. 4) The purpose of the 18-inch thick, total gravel section is to provide better support under the vehicle slabs. 5) Stable subgrade is required for this section. 6) If unstable subgrade exists, the soils must first be scarified and attempted to be dried out. SURFACE DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Final site grading next to the building must establish and promote positive surface water drainage away from the foundation footprint in all directions. Absolutely no water should be allowed to accumulate against or flow along any exposed wall (and thereby soak into the foundation wall backfill). Concrete or asphalt surfacing that abut the foundation should be designed with a minimum grade of two percent; while adjacent landscaped areas should have a slope of at least five percent within ten feet of the wall. Steeper side slopes than five percent (in landscape areas) are encouraged wherever possible. By doing this, any minor settlements in the foundation backfill should not negatively affect the positive drainage away from the building. To further reduce the potential for moisture infiltration along foundation walls, backfill materials should be placed in thin lifts and be well compacted, and in landscaped areas, they should be capped by four to six inches of topsoil. With the exception of the locations that will be surfaced by concrete or asphalt, finished grades (next to foundation walls) should be set no less than six inches below the top of the interior concrete slab or below the bottom of the sill plate for framed floor applications. FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS Provided below are specifications for the fill materials that are recommended for use during foundation earthwork construction. These include on-site excavated soils, sandy (pitrun) gravel, crushed (road mix) gravel, and clean crushed rock. Fill placement and compaction criteria follow the specifications. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 27 Excavated Foundation Soils For more information on this, please refer to an earlier section of the report that is entitled “Excavation and Re-Use of On-Site Soils”. Sandy (pitrun) Gravel Sandy (pitrun) gravel is a granular structural fill alternative for placement under footings and slabs and behind walls. This material shall be a non-plastic, well-graded, mixture of clean, sand and gravel with 100 percent of its gravels/cobbles passing a three-inch screen and between 2 and 10 percent of its silt/clay particles (by weight) finer than the No. 200 sieve. It should meet all material and gradation specifications as presented in Section 02234 of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) for 3”-minus, uncrushed, sub-base course gravel. Note: We recommend the use of 3”-minus sandy gravel for all building pad structural fill material (from “target” gravel up to footing and slab grades) and for all interior foundation wall backfill. Crushed (road mix) Gravel Crushed (road mix) gravel is a granular structural fill alternative for placement under footings and slabs and behind walls. This material shall be a non-plastic, well-graded, mixture of clean, sand and gravel that is processed (crushed) such that 100 percent of its rock fragments pass a 1-1/2-inch screen and between 0 and 8 percent of its silt/clay particles (by weight) are finer than the No. 200 sieve. It should meet all material and gradation specifications as presented in Section 02235 of the MPWSS for 1-1/2”- minus, crushed, base course gravel. Clean Crushed Rock The primary uses for crushed rock include placement under concrete slabs and behind foundation and retaining walls for drainage-related purposes. Crushed rock shall be a clean assortment of angular fragments with 100 percent passing a one-inch screen and less than 1 percent (by weight) finer than the No. 100 sieve. This aggregate product needs to be manufactured by a crushing process and over 50 percent of its particles must have fractured faces. It is not acceptable to use rock containing abundant spherical particles for foundation-related applications. Fill Placement and Compaction All fill materials should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts and compacted to an unyielding condition. This includes clean crushed rock, which can be readily compacted by vibratory means. In general, the maximum “loose lift thickness” for all fill materials (prior to compaction) should be limited to 12 inches for large, self-propelled rollers, 6 inches for remote-controlled, dual drum rollers and walk-behind, jumping jack compactors, and 4 inches for walk-behind vibratory plate compactors. The moisture Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 28 content of any material to be compacted should be within approximately two percent (+/-) of its optimum value for maximum compaction. Provided in Table 12 are compaction recommendations for general foundation applications. These are presented as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the fill material as defined in ASTM D-698. Table 12. Compaction Recommendations (Application vs. Percent Compaction) APPLICATION % COMPACTION Granular Structural Fill Under Footings and Slabs: 97 Interior Wall Backfill under Slabs (Granular Structural Fill): 97 Exterior Wall Backfill (Native Soil or Granular Structural Fill): 95 Clean Crushed Rock Under Footings/Slabs and Behind Walls: N/A (Vibration Required) Site Fill Around Building and Under Concrete and Pavement Areas: 95 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES General The underground “wet” utilities on this project (in addition to the storm drainage piping) will include a water service, fire service, and a sewer service as well as all the underslab piping/plumbing. Soil Corrosivity Potential for DIP Pipes For sure, the fire service will be a ductile iron pipe (DIP). Depending on the size of the water service, it may either be copper or DIP. Back in 2018, AESI performed a soil corrosivity analysis for the Nelson Meadows Subdivision. This was required by the City at the time of subdivision development to determine if any of the on-site soils are corrosive to DIP pipes and if so, what level of corrosion protection would be recommended by the DIPRA guidelines. Our work included several test pits throughout the area, soil sampling, and the lab testing of many samples of silt/clay and sandy gravel soils. What was learned through this investigation and analysis was that none of the area wide, silt/clay and sandy gravel soils (in Nelson Meadows) are highly corrosive to DIP. The sandy gravel is not corrosive at all, while a few of the silt/clay samples showed very low corrosivity potential. The recommendations based on lab testing and DIPRA design guidance were as follows: • None of the soil conditions require the use of special, zinc-coated DIP pipe. • A few of the silt/clay samples either required (or were borderline) to requiring poly-wrap. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 29 Provided in Table 13 is the DIPRA scores and recommendations for each of the 10 soil samples that were collected and analyzed as part of the 2018 Nelson Meadows soil corrosivity analysis. This table is an excerpt from the 2018 report, which was submitted to the City at that time. Table 13. Summary of DIPRA Scores and Recommendations from TP-A – TP-J TP # SAMPLE COMPOSITION TABLE 2 LIKELIHOOD SCORE TABLE 3 CONSEQUENCE SCORE TABLE 1 DIPRA RECOMMENDATION A Silt/Clay 18.5 0 Standard Shop Coat B Sandy Gravel 13.5 0 Standard Shop Coat C Sandy Gravel 11 0 Standard Shop Coat D Silt/Clay 23.5 0 Std. Shop Coat w/ Poly Encmt E Silt/Clay 18.5 0 Standard Shop Coat F Silt Clay 8.5 0 Standard Shop Coat G Silt/Clay 13.5 0 Standard Shop Coat H Sandy Gravel 11 0 Standard Shop Coat I Sandy Gravel 11 0 Standard Shop Coat J Silt/Clay 18.5 0 Standard Shop Coat Notes: 1) TP-A through TP-E were dug along the Royal Wolf Way alignment. 2) TP-F through TP-J were dug along the Prince Lane alignment. 3) For likelihood scores of 1 to 20, the DIPRA recommendation is “as manufactured with shop coat”. 4) For likelihood scores of 21 to 40, the DIPRA recommendation is “V-Bio Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement”. 5) For likelihood scores of 41 to 50, the DIPRA recommendation is “V-Bio Poly Encasement w/ Zinc Coated Pipe”. 6) Based on the borderline test results for silt/clay, use standard DIP pipe with polyethylene encasement. DIP Corrosion Protection Recommendations for Barnard Headquarters Project Site Due to the thicker silt/clay depths in the area (4.0 to 9.0 feet), we expect that portions of the building services will be in contact with the silt/clay. Since the silt/clay is borderline as far as requiring corrosion protection for DIP pipes, we recommend erring on the conservative side and suggest the placement of polyethylene encasement around all DIP fire service and water service piping. We recommend that it be stated on the civil plans and specifications that DIP w/ poly wrap will be required. As discussed on the previous page, the use of special, zinc-coated DIP pipe is not needed on this project site. Sub-Slab Plumbing Excavation and Trench Backfill Based on the mass over-excavation and building pad granular structural fill recommendation, all of the sub-slab materials that will be excavated during plumbing installation will be previously placed, 3”-minus granular structural fill or native sandy gravel. All of these gravelly materials can be readily re-used for trench backfill above the pipe bedding gravel. These materials must be placed in lifts and be compacted. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 30 As an option (for ease of backfill/compaction, faster backfilling, and convenience), the Contactor can choose to use 1”-minus, clean crushed rock for all of the plumbing trench backfill under the slab area. We still recommend that the crushed rock be placed in reasonable lifts and be vibratory compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. The use of crushed rock is not a requirement or a recommendation; it is simply an available option that the Contractor can choose to use. In our opinion, there should not be any change orders for the Contractor’s decision to use crushed rock. UNDERGROUND STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEMS General We recommend the size of the underground stormwater detention systems be down-sized by designing them for a higher gravel infiltration rate (verses the slower, silt/clay infiltration rate) and by hydraulically connecting them to the underlying native sandy gravel (thereby removing all of the silt/clay from under the system footprint areas). The native silt/clay is a very tight and very stiff soil that will not percolate very well at all. When these soils are more moist (in the spring), their percolation rate will be further reduced. Excavation and Replacement We recommend mass over-excavating under all of the stormwater detention system locations down to “clean” sandy gravel. In order to re-fill the excavation area and build back up to the system elevations, we recommend that over-sized cobbles (available from a commercial pit) be used as the replacement material. The cobbles are free-draining and cheaper than 6”-minus pitrun gravel or clean crushed rock. When using “open-graded” cobbles, the top of the cobbles must be covered with a layer of 8 oz. non- woven geotextile separator fabric (Mirafi 180N or equal) before placing the bedding rock/gravel under the stormwater systems. A detail that shows the over-excavation and replacement material should be included on the civil plans. ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Pavement Section Design and Options All parking lot subgrade will consist of native silt/clay (or on-site embankment in the site grading and fill areas on the north and east sides of the building). In most areas, we expect that the subgrade soils will be slightly moist to moist and consequently stiff to very stiff. As a result, we are recommending a design pavement section (Option 1) with a 24-inch total thickness for all pavement areas. This section requires dry, hard, compacted, and “stable” subgrade soils and is presented in Table 14 (on the following page). Some areas of the subgrade may be overly moist and softer (either due to higher moisture contents or precipitation while the subgrade is cut/open during construction). This may require that the subgrade be dried and scarified to improve the performance of subgrade and get it to a stable condition. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 31 Table 14. Pavement Section Design – Option 1 – All Parking Lot Areas – Stable Subgrade COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) Asphalt Concrete: 3 Base Course – 1.5”-Minus Crushed (Roadmix) Gravel: 6 Sub-Base Course – 6”-Minus Uncrushed Sandy (Pitrun) Gravel: 15 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 600X or Approved Equal): Yes Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil): Hard and Compacted TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 24 Notes: 1) This is the standard pavement section design for all areas of the project site (parking lots and access drives). 2) The use of this design section requires that the subgrade soils are dry, hard, compacted, and stable. 3) To confirm the subgrade stability, all areas should be prepared and proof-rolled with a loaded gravel/water truck. 4) For stable silt/clay subgrade, place a 315 lb. woven fabric for subgrade separation. 5) At all seams, over-lap the fabric by 12 inches (min.). If areas of the parking lot subgrade are very moist to wet and highly unstable and drying is not a possible option, then we have provided a second pavement section option (Option 2) for “unstable” subgrade. This section, which is presented in Table 15, has a 33-inch total thickness and requires the use of Tensar TX-190L geogrid for subgrade stabilization. We do not expect that this option will be needed; not in less subgrade elevations are cut deep into the soil profile (below about 3.0 feet) in the southwest and middle parts of the site (where the lower silt/clay soils were very moist). As stated numerous times throughout this report, we believe it is the responsibility of the contractor to first make reasonable attempts to dry the subgrade as opposed to immediately requesting a change order for the thicker, geogrid section. Table 15. Pavement Section Design – Option 2 – All Parking Lot Areas – Unstable Subgrade COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) Asphalt Concrete: 3 Base Course – 1.5”-Minus Crushed (Roadmix) Gravel: 6 Sub-Base Course – 6”-Minus Uncrushed Sandy (Pitrun) Gravel: 24 Tensar TriAx TX-190L Geogrid: Yes 8 oz. Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 180N or Approved Equal): Yes Unstable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil): Smooth and Rut-Free TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 33 Notes: 1) This heavy-duty pavement section is designed for unstable and soft soil conditions. 2) The non-woven fabric and geogrid layers shall be installed with 12-inch (min.) over-laps at the seams. 3) The geogrid layer shall be zip-tied together at the seams. 4) Depending on severity, the 24-inch sub-base gravel section may or may not be able to be placed in two lifts. 5) For firmer subgrade, the lower lift of sub-base should be 15 to 18 inches (+/-) if the conditions will allow. 6) For very soft subgrade, the entire 24-inch thick section should be placed/compacted in one single lift. 7) If the 24-inch sub-base will not bridge the soft soils, then the sub-base will need to be thickened (> 24 inches). Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 32 Pavement Section Materials, Placement, and Compaction The sub-base and base course materials that comprise the granular parts of the pavement section shall consist of 6-inch minus uncrushed sandy (pitrun) gravel and 1-1/2-inch minus crushed (road mix) gravel, respectively. Both gravel courses shall meet the material and gradation specifications as presented in the MPWSS, Sections 02234 and 02235. All gravels shall be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as defined in ASTM D-698. Asphalt pavement shall meet specifications in MPWSS Section 02510 and be compacted to a minimum of 93 percent of the Rice mix density. ASPHALT PATH RECOMMENDATIONS Pavement Section Design Provided in Table 16 is our design pavement section for the asphalt walking path on the south side of the site (if it is damaged or removed as part of construction). This section matches the City of Bozeman standard for asphalt pathways, which is presented on Standard Drawing No. 02529-16 in the COB Modifications to the MPWSS. One addition we recommend to the COB standard section is the inclusion of a 315 lb. woven separation fabric below the gravel section materials. Table 16. Pavement Section Design – Asphalt Path – Stable Subgrade COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) Asphalt Concrete: 2.5 Base Course – 1.5”-Minus Crushed (Roadmix) Gravel: 9 Sub-Base Course – 6”-Minus Uncrushed Sandy (Pitrun) Gravel: No 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 600X or Approved Equal): Yes Embankment Fill – Non-Organic On-Site Soils: As Needed Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil): Compacted to 95% TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 11.5 Notes: 1) See COB Standard Drawing No. 02529-16 in the COB Mods. to the MPWSS for the standard asphalt path detail. 2) Strip all organic topsoil from under the asphalt path. 3) Stable subgrade is required for this section. 4) Per the COB Std. Drawing, a soil sterilant shall be applied to the subgrade prior to gravel section placement. 5) Depending on final grades and topsoil stripping depths, some embankment fill may be needed (or more gravel). 6) We recommend the placement of a 315 lb. woven separation fabric under the gravel section materials. GRASSPAVE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Provided in Table 17 is our gravel section recommendation for the proposed, grass-covered, emergency access road on the south side of the building. As we understand, this area is being planned for use by a Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 33 fire truck in the event of an emergency. We understand that a “grasspave” product is being considered for the grass surfacing. This will be specified by the Design Team. The section recommendation that is presented below is based on the expected loading, the silt/clay subgrade conditions, and a design chart for GrassPave. There are many other “grassgrid-type” or similar products available as well. Table 17. GrassPave Section Design – Fire Truck Emergency Access Road – Stable Subgrade COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) GrassPave Product or Other: Product Thickness Base Course – 1.5”-Minus Crushed (Roadmix) Gravel: 12 Sub-Base Course – 6”-Minus Uncrushed Sandy (Pitrun) Gravel: ----- 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 600X or Approved Equal): Yes Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil): Hard and Compacted TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 12 + Product Thickness Notes: 1) This design section assumes there will be infrequent truck traffic on the GrassPave area (emergency access road). 2) The use of this design section requires that the subgrade soils are dry, hard, compacted, and stable. 3) To confirm the subgrade stability, all areas should be prepared and proof-rolled with a loaded gravel/water truck. 4) For stable silt/clay subgrade, place a 315 lb. woven fabric for subgrade separation. 5) At all seams, over-lap the fabric by 12 inches (min.). DECORATIVE, LANDSCAPE PAVER SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS In lieu of exterior concrete slabs, some (or all) of the large, “patio slab”, hardscape areas in front of the building’s entryway doors (in the middle and two ends of the building) may be surfaced with decorative, landscape pavers. If pavers are used, the gravel section materials and thickness that are placed under the paver areas should follow the manufacturer’s recommendations (which will vary depending on the manufacturer). If concrete slabs are used in these areas, our recommendation is to support them on a 12-inch (min.) thick section of 1”-minus, clean crushed rock (per Table 10 in the report). The purpose of the thicker, crushed rock section is to reduce the frost heaving risk. PRODUCTS Provided in Table 18 (on the following page) is a reference guide for all products (other than foundation- related fill material) that have been recommended within this report. Listed below is the name of the product, its intended use, and where it can be obtained. The manufacturer specification sheet for each of these products is attached at the end of the report. Note: Several notes are presented under the table that describe the recommended products, where they can be obtained, and where they can be used. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 34 Table 18. Product Reference Guide PRODUCT USE SOURCE PHONE Stego 15-mil Vapor Barrier Moisture Protection Under Slab MaCon Supply – Bozeman 551-4281 Mirafi 180N Non-Woven Fabric Wet Exc. & Soft Subgrade w/ Grid Multiple Sources – Bzn/Blgd N/A Mirafi 600X Woven Fabric Road Subgrade Separation Multiple Sources – Bzn/Blgd N/A Tensar TriAx TX-190L Geogrid Road Subgrade Stabilization Core & Main – Belgrade 388-5980 Notes: 1) Use Stego 15-mil vapor barrier only. There are no approved equals for this product. 2) Stego 15-mil vapor barrier has a water transmission rate that meets national standards for vapor barriers. 3) Stego 15-mil vapor barrier is a heavy-duty vapor barrier for placement under interior slabs and in crawl spaces. 4) Use Mirafi 180N non-woven fabric or an approved equal that meets or exceeds Mirafi 180N fabric specifications. 5) Approved equals for Mirafi 180N non-woven fabric are available from multiple sources in the Bzn/Blgd area. 6) Mirafi 180N is a medium-weight, 8 oz. non-woven fabric. 7) There are three potential uses for Mirafi 180N non-woven fabric on this project site. 8) Use 1: If the bottom of the foundation excavation is wet, an initial layer of clean crushed rock will be required. 9) Following vibratory compaction, the crushed rock layer must be covered with a layer of 8 oz. non-woven fabric. 10) The purpose of the fabric-covered rock is to provide separation from the overlying granular structural fill. 11) Use 2: If the parking lot subgrade soils are soft and unstable (and cannot be dried), geogrid may be required. 12) An 8 oz. non-woven fabric must be installed for subgrade separation under the geogrid stabilization layer. 13) Use 3: We recommend stormwater detention system locations be over-excavated/re-filled with cobbles. 14) When over-sized cobbles are used as the replacement material, an 8 oz. non-woven fabric must be installed. 15) The separator fabric shall be placed between the top of the cobbles and bottom of the system bedding material. 16) Use Mirafi 600X woven fabric or an approved equal that meets or exceeds Mirafi 600X fabric specifications. 17) Approved equals for Mirafi 600X woven fabric are available from multiple sources in the Bzn/Blgd area. 18) Mirafi 600X is a 315 lb. (grad tensile strength) woven fabric. 19) Mirafi 600X woven fabric shall be placed for subgrade separation under pavement section materials. 20) The use of Mirafi 600X woven fabric requires that the subgrade soils are dry, hard, compacted, and stable. 21) In addition, Mirafi 600X woven fabric shall be placed for subgrade separation under asphalt paths. 22) In addition, Mirafi 600X woven fabric shall be placed for subgrade separation under grass-covered access roads. 23) Use Tensar TriAx TX-190L geogrid only. There are no approved equals for this product. 24) If subgrade soils under pavement section materials are soft and unstable, use Tensar TriAx TX-190L geogrid. 25) Tensar TriAx TX-190L geogrid will provide subgrade stabilization and requires the use of 8 oz. non-woven fabric. 26) Tensar TriAx TX-190L geogrid is a large aperture-opening geogrid that can be used with 6”-minus pitrun gravel. 27) Tensar TriAx TX-190L geogrid is a special order item and is not commonly stocked at Core & Main. 28) The use of small aperture-opening geogrids is not acceptable when using the large 6”-minus pitrun gravel. 29) The small aperture-opening geogrids do not provide the required aggregate interlock with the 6”-minus gravel. ON-SITE GRAVEL MINING OPTION, COSTS, AND CONCERNS There is some consideration to mining gravel on-site from under the parking lot areas for use as on-site- generated, granular structural fill for placement under the building. As part of this possible plan, the upper gravel materials would be removed and stockpiled; and the deep borrow pit areas would then be “re-filled” with native silt/clay that was excavated from out of the building footprint area. The short answer is the native sandy gravels would be acceptable for use as granular structural fill (due to their smaller size); but the cost for mining/re-filling will likely outweigh the cost of 3”-minus gravel import. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 35 The costs that we foresee that would need to be factored into the plan are as follows: • An extensive groundwater dewatering system would be required to ensure that the “mined” gravels are in a dry condition and at a moisture content that will allow for proper compaction. The gravels cannot be mined in a “wet” excavation and allowed to drain in the stockpiles. • Construction sequencing of two “dig” sites (ie. the foundation excavation and the borrow area) will be challenging and time consuming. Both sites cannot be dug and re-filled at the same time. We expect that the building foundation area would need to be dug first and fully prepared to bottom of native gravel subgrade; and then as the gravel is mined, it can simply be hauled in, placed, and compacted. • Most materials (including the silt/clay and sandy gravel) will likely be “touched” multiple times (during initial excavation, stockpiling, re-loading, moving, and placement/compaction). • The largest available area for mining is the west side parking lot. In this area, 8.0 to 9.0 feet of silt/clay would need to be removed to even reach the top of the gravels. • The shallowest gravels are found under the north side and east side parking lots at depths of 4.0 to 7.0 feet. However, these areas contain two of site’s underground stormwater detention system locations. The native gravels cannot be borrowed from under the system locations and re-filled with compacted, silt/clay. • Before the borrow sites are re-filled with silt/clay, all overly moist, silt/clay will need be dried, scarified, and repeatedly worked/”farmed” to dry out the materials to allow for compaction. It should be assumed that a large amount of the overburden removal silt/clay and the foundation area silt/clay will be at moisture contents above optimum moisture. The drying of these soils will take time, effort, space, and good weather. In addition to the expected borrow pit excavation and fill-related costs, there are two other potential risks and costs that must also be included in the Owner/Contractor decision to proceed in this manner. These include: • If the silt/clay soils that are used to re-fill the borrow pit areas are “slopped-in” and not able to be well compacted (due to overly moist or wet conditions), there is a sizeable risk of future soil settlements under the new parking lot areas. This will cause vertical deflections/displacements in the asphalt surfacing and curb lines. • If the silt/clay that is used to re-fill the borrow pit areas is again overly moist and cannot be well compacted, there is a very good chance for soft/unstable, subgrade conditions. If this situation occurs, the Option 2 pavement section with thicker gravel and geogrid will likely need to be used, or perhaps thickened even more. This will be a sizable increase to the project’s budget. Final Geotechnical Report Barnard Headquarters – Bozeman, MT Project: 21-178 January 24, 2023 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 37 enc: Figure 1 – Borehole and Test Pit Locations Figure 2 – Borehole and Test Pit Locations w/ Thickness of Organic Topsoil Figure 3 – Borehole and Test Pit Locations w/ Thickness of Non-Organic Silt/Clay Figure 4 – Borehole and Test Pit Locations w/ Depth to Sandy Gravel (“Target” Bearing Material) Figure 5 – Borehole and Test Pit Locations w/ Depth to Groundwater (on 9/26/22 and 12/13/22) Figure 6 – 2018 High Groundwater Depths (throughout the Nelson Meadows Subdivision) Figure 7 – Foundation Detail – At-Grade Slab Borehole Logs for BH-1 through BH-3 Test Pit Logs for TP-1 through TP-10 Test Pit Photos for TP-1 through TP-10 – Excavation and Spoils – 3 Photos Per Pit Lab Testing Results (Atterberg Limits and Standard Proctor Data from Lots 24 - 26) Lab Testing Results (Soil Corrosivity and Atterberg Limits Data from Lots 5 - 6) Products (Vapor Barrier, Non-Woven Fabric, Woven Fabric, Geogrid) Limitations of your Geotechnical Report REFERENCES International Code Council, 2021, “International Building Code”. Montana Contractors’ Association, April 2021, “Montana Public Works Std. Specifications”, 7th Edition. P:\2021\21-178 Lots 24 - 26, Nelson Meadows Sub. - Geotech\Design\Geotech\Report\Text\Barnard Headquarters - Geotech Report.01.24.23 Figure 7 21-178 Jan. 2023 Barnard Headquarters (Lots 24 - 26, Nelson Meadows Sub.) Foundation Detail - At-Grade Slab Bozeman, Montana Damp-Proofing As Required (typ.) Foundation Wall (typ.)Approved Non-Woven Filter Fabric To Encase Bedding Gravel (typ.) Interior Floor Slab (typ.)Interior Steel Column (typ.)Interior Spread Footing (typ.) 6” Of 3/4" Minus Crushed Washed Gravel Hydraulically Connected To Sub-Drain or Existing Surface Drainage (typ.) Native Topsoil andRandom Surface Fill Imported 4-Inch Minus Sandy Pitrun Gravel Native Silt/ClayImported Flowable Fill Six Inch Diameter Sub-Drain Pipe (Graded To Drain To Sump Area) Concrete SidewalkLow Permeability Soils(Landscaped Area)LegendConcrete Wall and/or Footing Low Permeable Topsoil No Scale (Parts Of This Exhibit Have Been Exaggerated For Clarity) ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 Slope Away @ 2% In All Concrete Or Pavement Areas (typ.) Footings 6’ max. depth below existing ground Native Topsoil 6” Minus Sandy (Pitrun) Gravel 4” Minus Sandy PitrunGravel (ie. Structural Fill)4’ max fill above existing ground 4' min. 4’ Max Fill Above Existing Ground 3” (min.) Thickness Will Vary Due To Depth Of Bedbrock Strata 6” (min.) 3” (min.) 8” (min.) 4.0’ (min.) 6” (min.) Of Rock Bedding To Be Placed Around Drain Piping (typ.) Under-Slab Rock Layer To Be Hydraulically Connected To Sub-Drain System By 3” Of Rock Or 2” Sch. 80 Piping Spaced On 10’ Centers (typ.) B H (Variable; Depends On Depth To Gravel) 18” (min.) 18” (min.) 6” (min.) 6” (min.) 1’ (min.) H = 3.5’ (Based On4.0’ Footing Depth And The Depth To Gravel In TP-4) H = 5.5’ (Based On4.0’ Footing Depth And The Depth To Gravel In TP-2) D D Woven Geotextile Filter Fabric (Amoco 2004)Vapor Barrier Under Slab (typ.) 9.5’ Deep (TP-2) 7.5’ Deep (TP-4) Non-Woven Filter Fabric To Encase 1-Inch Minus Rock 6” (min.) Rock Layer (typ.) Landscape Areas To Slope Away @ 5% (min.) Within 10’ Of Wall. Upper 4” - 6” Of Backfill Should Consist Of Low Permeable Topsoil. Note: Asphalt/Concrete Surfacing Placed Adjacent To Foundation Walls Shall Slope Away @ 2% (min.). 6” (min.) 6” (min.)4” PE Sub-Drain (typ.) Crawl Space Opening Must Be Properly Vented. Note: Elevation Difference Between The Top Back Of Curb And The Finished Floor Should Be Maximized. I Believe The Subdivision Covenants Call For A Minimum Separation Of 2.0’ And A Maximum Of 5.0’. Due To High Groundwater Concerns, An Elevation Difference Of More Than 2.0’ Is Recommended. This Should Be Thoroughly Considered On A Case By Case Basis. Please Refer To The Covenants For More Detail. Important Notes: The Three-Foot Wide (Min.) Over-Excavation From The Center Of The Footing Is Calculated Based On A 16-Inch Footing Width (B) And An Average Depth To Native Gravel (GD) Below The Footing Elevation Equal To Five Feet. If The Footing Is Substantially Wider Or The Depth To Gravel Substantially Deeper; The Width Of The Excavation Will Need To Be Increased. The Equation For Determining Excavation Width (EW) From The Center Of Footing Is: EW = (B + GD) / 2.0. If Caving (ie. Sloughing) Of The Excavation Side Walls Is A Problem; EW Will Need To Be Increased Accordingly. Since The Footings Are Supported On Structural Fill That Bears On Native Gravel; There Is No BenefitTo Increasing Footing Size Beyond What Is Shown On The Plans. If Groundwater Is Encountered In The Over-Excavation Above The Native Sandy Gravel Surface, We Recommend A Layer Of Crushed Rock First Be Used To Get Above The Groundwater Elevation. The Crushed Rock Should Be Placed In A Single Lift That Does Not Extend More Than Four Inches Above The Groundwater. After Placement, The Crushed Rock MUST Be Compacted By Vibratory Methods. Compactors That Are Suitable For Crushed Rock Include Walk-Behind Plate Compactors; Remote-Controlled Sheepsfoot Trench Rollers; And Self-Propelled Smooth Drum Rollers. Note: If Groundwater Is Not Encountered, The Use Of Crushed Rock Is Not Necessary. Compacted Structural Fill. Use Sandy Pitrun Gravel, Not Crushed Rock. Gravelly Materials Are Not Only Less Expensive But They Will Also Reduce The In-Flow Of Groundwater Into The Crawl Space In The Event That High Groundwater Exceeds The Crawl Space Elevation. Place The Pitun In Lifts (Six-Inch Thick Max. For Small Remote-Controlled Sheepsfoot Trench Rollers And Twelve-Inch Thick Max. For Self- Propelled Smooth Drum Rollers) And Compact To An Unyielding Condition. Note: A Material That Works Very Well For Foundation Structural FilI Is The 3” Minus Pitrun Gravel Product That Is Available From TMC In Belgrade. Pay Special Attention To Compaction Of Crushed Rock And Structural Fill Along Edges. Native Soils Could Be Soft. Rock / Fill Will Need To Be Compacted Into Side Of Excavation. Place Woven Geotextile Fabric Over The Crushed Rock. This Will Prevent Fines Migration Into The Rock After Placement Of The Structural Fill. 4” (max.) 3’ (min.) 3’ (min.) Interior Footing As A Precaution For Groundwater, Install 4” PE Slotted Drain Piping Along The Inside Of The Perimeter Footings And Grade To A Shallow Sump Chamber In The Crawl Space. If Water Becomes An Issue, Install Sump Pump And Discharge Out Of The Crawl Space. A Four-Inch Layer Of Crushed Rock Will Facilitate Rapid Drainage And Eliminate The Sight Of Standing Water. If A Vapor Barrier Is Placed Above The Crushed Rock; Ensure It Is A Material That Can Breathe (Not Polyethylene). All Interior Footings Shall Bear On Structural Fill. Finished Floor Elev. (At-Grade Slab) GD Existing Ground Surface Existing Ground 4” Slotted PE Pipe. Install Drain Piping Around Inside Perimeter Of Foundation. Piping Should Be Placed At Footing Grade Or Preferably Below The Top Of The Crushed Rock Fill (When Used). Connect Piping To Shallow Sump Chamber. If High Groundwater Is An Issue, A Pump Can Be Installed At A Later Time. 32” 48” Reviewed By: __________________ 4” To 6” (Min.) Thickness As Required 2.5’ 4’ (min.) Damp Proofing 4” Footing Drain (typ.) Min. Depth Of Cover For Frost Protection Min. Required Width Of Mass Over-Excavation Beyond Edge Of Footing 1.0’ - 17.0’ Depth To “Target” Bearing Material. Silt/Clay Below 2.5’ (+/-) Is Generally V. Moist To Wet. See TP Logs For Soil And Groundwater Conditions. 5.0’ - 13.5’ Depth To “Target” Bearing Material. Groundwater Depth Ranged From 6.0’ to 13.5’. Depending On Time Of Year, Groundwater May Be At Or Above The Sandy Gravel (“Target” Bearing Material). Therefore, Groundwater Dewatering May Be Needed. Dewatering Wells Are Recommended To Lower Water Below Gravel Surface. Strip, Remove, And Replace All Random Fill From Under The Entire Building Area, Including Under Interior House And Garage Slabs (typ.) Note: De-Watering Will Likely Not Be Required For Foundation Excavation. Based On Our Test Pits, All Evidence Suggests The Groundwater Table Stays Within The Sandy Gravel Most Of The Time. LSE, 1/19/23 Prior To The Placement Of Granular Structural Fill, The Site’s Shallow Groundwater Conditions May Require That An Initial Layer Of Clean Crushed Rock Be Placed And Compacted Up To A Height Of At Least 6 Inches Above The Level Of The Standing Water. Structural Fill: Use 4” Minus Sandy (pitrun) Gravel Due To Shallow, Seasonal High Groundwater Conditions, Footing And Crawl Space Depth Must Be Minimized Below The Existing Ground Surface. Bottom Of Footing Elevation Should Be Kept Within At Least 2.5’ To 3.0’ Of Existing Grades. As An Added Precaution Against High Groundwater In The Crawl Space (And Especially If Footing Depth Nears Or Exceeds 2.5’ To 3.0’ Below Existing Site Grades), We Strongly Encourage The Placement Of A 6” To 8” Layer Of Crushed Rock In The Crawl Space To Raise The Floor Elevation Up To The Top Of Footings. In The Event That Groundwater Ever Rises Above The Crushed Rock Layer, A Sump Chamber And Pump Can Easily Be Installed Later To Address The Problem. We Do Not Recommend Placing The Initial Layer Of Clean Crushed Rock In Standing Water Exceeding 10 Inches In Depth. Therefore, Depending On The Time Of Year, Some Groundwater De-Watering May Be Required During Foundation Earthwork. All Perimeter, Interior, And Exterior Footings Must Bear On A Minimum 2.0’ Thickness Of Granular Structural Fill That In Turn Is Supported On The Native Sandy Gravel (Which Is The ”Target” Foundation Bearing Material). Given The 4.5’ To 6.5’ Depth To Gravel, Along With The Anticipated Slab Grade, Perimeter Footings Will Likely Lie 2.0’ to 6.0’ Above The Top Of The “Target” Gravel. Mass Over-Excavate The Entire Foundation Footprint Area, Including All Exterior Footing Locations, Down To The “Target” Bearing Material (Native Sandy Gravel); Thereby, Completely Removing All Native Silt, Clay, Sand From Under The Building. Over-Dig The Excavation To The Minimum Width Dimensions As Shown On This Figure And As Stated In The Report. Important Note: Mass Over-Excavation Of The Foundation (As Illustrated By Option #2) Will Be Required If The Individual Footing Over-ExcavationsThat Are Depicted As Option #1 Will Not Stay “Open” Due To Trench Wall Collapse. Foundation Earthwork Notes: 1) Slab On Grade - Option “B” Consists Of Over-Excavating Under All Perimeter, Interior, And Exterior Footings.2) This Is Most Applicable Where The Building Is Underlain By Relatively Deep Gravels And The Foundation Contains Less Interior Footings.3) Where Present, All Random Surface Fill Material Must Be Fully Removed From Under The Entire Building Area Down To Native Soils. Foundation Excavation Recommendations: Due To The Large Number and Close Spacing Of Interior Footings (Many Of Which Are 13 To 14 Feet On-Center), We Recommend The Entire Foundation Footprint Area Of The Apartment Buildings Be Mass Over-Excavated Down to Native Sandy Gravel And Built Back Up To Footing And Slab Grades With Compacted Structural Fill. The Limits Of The Mass Excavation Must Encapsulate All Perimeter And Exterior Footings. Important Note: It Is Now COB Policy That The Foundation Earthwork Be Inspected And Certified By The Geotechnical Engineer. Suggestions: In Order To Reduce The Amount Of Required Structural Fill Under Footings And The Slab Area, The Finished Floor Elevation Should Be Minimized Above Existing Site Grades. Another Option To Reduce Fill Under Perimeter Footings Is To Use A 6’ Tall Foundation Wall. Foundation Backfill and Embankment Fill Granular Structural Fill(1.5”Minus Roadmix Gravel)Granular Structural Fill(1.5”Minus Roadmix Gravel)Sandy Gravel(”Target” Bearing Material) Low Permeable Topsoil Native Silt/Clay(Unsuitable Bearing Material) Native Silt Native Silt/Clay (Unsuitable Bearing Material) Native Topsoil Granular Structural Fill(4” Minus Sandy Gravel)Granular Structural Fill(1.5” Minus Roadmix Gravel)1” Minus CleanCrushed Rock Groundwater (on 4/19/16) Concrete Slab Exterior Foundation Wall Backfill Should Only Consist Of Excavated Soils That Are Not Overly Moist. It Must Be Placed In Multiple Lifts And Properly Compacted. Slab Grade Should Be Set Above Existing Grades. For The Mass Over- Excavation Option, There Is No Limit On Slab Height Above Existing Grades. H W = Footing Width + H; (5’ min.) All Foundation Fill Materials Should Be Placed In Uniform, Horizontal Lifts And Be Well Compacted. Granular Structural Fill Shall Be Compacted To A Dense, Unyielding Condition, While Clean Crushed Rock Or Lean Mix Concrete Must Be Compacted By Vibratory Means. In General, The “Loose” Thickness Of Each Lift Prior To Compaction Should Not Exceed 12 Inches For Large, Self- Propelled Rollers; 6 Inches For Remote-Controlled Trench Rollers And Walk-Behind Jumping Jack Compactors; And 4 Inches For Walk- Behind, Plate Compactors. Pay Special Attention To Compaction Of Structural Fill Along Edges And In Corners Of The Excavation. Place Crushed Rock As Fill Under Slab (6” min.) And Interior Wall Backfill Strip Topsoil Under Slab and Re-Compact The Subgrade Surface. Vapor Barrier Under Slab. Seal Barrier At Seams/Penetrations. Minimize New Fill Height For Settlement Reasons The Uppermost 6” Of Lean Mix Concrete Fill Can Be Replaced w/ Clean Crushed Rock For Easier Leveling Of Footing Grade. Bearing Pressure 4000 psf (max.) 6” (min.) Crushed Rock Layer Under Slab Areas (typ.) Important Note: To Stabilize The Trench Excavations And Minimize The Potential For Caving/Sloughing, Groundwater Dewatering May Be Required. Shallow Frost- Proof Foundation. Insulate As Per Applicable Codes. Interior Footing (typ.) Radon Mitigation System Should Be Considered Under Interior Slab. Important Note: If Foundation Construction Will Occur During The Cold/Winter Weather Season, The Contractor Shall Take All Necessary Precautions To Prevent The Earth- Work From Freezing And/Or From Being Contaminated With Snow. Note: At A Minimum, Use A Large, Smooth Drum Roller To Compact The Upper-Most Lift Of Structural Fill Under Footings And Slabs. Additional Thickness Of Gravel Building Pad As Req’d To Bear On “Target” Gravel. For Mass Excavation, Over-Excavation Width Beyond Perimeter Ftgs Is 5.0’ (typ.) See Fig. 6 For Over-Excavation Width Under Individual Ftg Excavations. Embankment Fill Can Be Used Below 18” Of Slab Grade. Note: No Topsoil Observed In On-Site Borings. Product Recommendation: A Stego 15-mil Vapor Barrier Is Recommended.Available From MaCon Supply In Bozeman. W = Footing Width + H; (5’ min.) Min. Width = 1/2(H); But Must Be 5’ Min. H H = 2’ Min. Important Note: If TP-3, A Clay Layer Was Observed Under The Native Sandy Gravel At A Depth Of 6.0’. It Is Recommended That All Footings Bear On A Minimum 24” Thickness Of Native Gravel Or Granular Structural Fill. This Should Be Confirmed With Test Pits Around The Perimeter Of The Building During Construction. Important Note: If The Trench Excavations Are Prone To Minor Caving, Their Width Will Have To Be Increased Accordingly To Prevent Slough From Underlying Or Being Mixed Into The Minimum Required Width Of Structural Fill. Given The 4.5’ To 6.0’ Depth To Native Sandy Gravel, We Do Not Expect That Most (If Any) Of The Perimeter Footings Will Bear Directly On Native Gravel. Most Likely, Footings Will Need To Be Supported On Structural Fill That In Turn Bears On Native Gravel (Similar To All Interior Footings). Excavation Alternative: In Lieu Of Only Excavating Footings, The Entire Foundation Footprint Area Of The Building Can Be Mass Over-Excavated Down To Native Sandy Gravel And Filled With Granular Structural Fill. Given The Gravel Depth, This Is Far Less Economical As Compared To The Above Recommendations. Prior To Granular Structural Fill Placement, The Excavated Gravel Surface (Under Entire Foundation Footprint Area) Must Be Vibratory Re-Compacted With A Large, Smooth Drum Roller In Order To Densify The Native Sandy Gravel. Due To Groundwater Depths Of 7.8’ To 9.8’, Wet Subgrade Conditions Should Not Be An Issue. Depending On Location, Groundwater Could Be At Or Above The Top Of Native Sandy Gravel During The Seasonal High Water Time Of Year. A Large, Smooth Drum Roller Must Be Used To Compact All Granular Structural Fill Whenever and Wherever Possible. Lean Mix Concrete(Flowable Fill)Embankment Fill(On-Site or Import Material) Embankment Fill (On-Site Or Import Material) 5000 psf (max.) B 5000 psf (max.) B Mass Excavate Under Entire Foundation Footprint Area Down To Native, Clean Sandy Gravel; Thereby Removing All Of The Silt/Clay Under The Interior Slab. All Footings Must Bear On Native Sandy Gravel Or On Compacted Granular Structural Fill That In Turn Is Supported On This “Target” Bearing Material. Shallow Frost-Proof Foundation Per IBC Is Also Acceptable. H H If Exc. Walls Slough, Widen Exc. To Ensure Min. Struct. Fill Width Beyond Edge Of Ftg. Bottom Of Exc. Measurement Centered Under The Footing. If Exc. Walls Slough, Widen Exc. To Ensure Min. Struct. Fill Width Beyond Edge Of Ftg. Bottom Of Exc. Measurement Centered Under The Footing. Min. Width = (B + H); But 5’ (min.) Crushed Rock Is Only Needed If Gravel Subgrade Is Wet Or Contains Standing Water. All Fill Material Placed Under Footings And Slabs To Consist Of Compacted Granular Structural Fill. No On-Site Soils Are To Be Used As Embankment Fill Under Slabs. Do Not Place Granular Structural Fill Materials Over Wet Subgrade Or In Shallow Standing Water. De-Water The Excavation If Required. If Bottom Of Excavation Is Wet, Place An Initial, Thin Layer Of Clean Crushed Rock Under The Structural Fill. The Crushed Rock Should Extend A Minimum Of About 4” Above The Wet Conditions. Vibratory Compact The Crushed Rock And Then Cover With A Medium-Weight, Non-Woven Fabric Prior To Structural Fill Placement. Overlap Seams Of Fabric By 12” Minimum. Over-Excavate Under All Perimeter, Interior, And Exterior Footings Down To Native, Clean Sandy Gravel; Thereby Removing All Silt/Clay Under Footings. All Footings Must Bear On Native Sandy Gravel Or On Compacted Granular Structural Fill That In Turn Is Supported On This “Target” Bearing Material. Embankment Fill Under Structural Fill Layer Must Be Compacted To Project Specifications. See Figure 7 For Recommendations For Foundation Fill Material Placement And Compaction. See Figure 7 For Recommendations For Ext. Foundation Wall Backfill Material And Compaction. For Basements, Additional SubsurfaceDrainage And Moisture Protection Recommendations Will Need To BeIncorporated That Are Not Shown On This Exhibit. See Report For More Details. No Scale (Parts Of This Exhibit Have Been Exaggerated For Clarity) Geotechnical Notes: 1) Figure 7 Illustrates A Slab-On-Grade Foundation With Perimeter Frost Walls And Footings. Interior Footings Are Shown Directly Under The Slab. All Footings Shall Bear On Native Sandy Gravel Or On Granular Structural Fill That In Turn Is Supported On The “Target” Gravel. We Recommend A “Bathtub” Excavation (Down To Gravel) And Gran. Struct. Fill Bldg Pad (Up To Ftg/Slab Grades). Granular Structural Under Footings And Slabs Can Consist Of4”-Minus Sandy Pitrun Gravel Or 1.5”-Minus Roadmix Gravel. Based On Test Pits, Depth To “Target” Bearing Material Is 4’ To 5’ On Downhill Side And 3’ On Uphill Side Of The Lot. Legend Random Fill (Unsuitable Bearing Material) Random Fill (Unsuitable Bearing Material) Low Permeable Topsoil Granular Structural Fill(4”-Minus Sandy Gravel) Granular Structural Fill (*) 1” Minus CleanCrushed Rock 1” Minus Clean Crushed Rock 1” Minus CleanCrushed RockExisting Grade (Ground Surface) Native Topsoil Topsoil or Asphalt/GravelSurfacing Materials Native Topsoil Floor Joist Exterior Foundation Backfill Native Sandy Gravel (“Target” Bearing Material) Native “Dirty” Sandy Gravel(Unsuitable Bearing Material) Native Topsoil Interior Wall Backfill (3”-Minus Sandy Gravel Granular Structural Fill) “Target” Bearing Material Is The Glacial Till. It Is Identifiable Based On Its Clean Sandy Composition, Abundance Of 6”-Minus, Sub-Rounded Gravels, And Dense Configuration. It Looks Like “Clean Pitrun Gravel” w/ Large Cobbles And Boulders. All Footings Shall Bear On A Minimum Of 1’ Of Granular Structural Fill That In Turn Bears On “Target” Glacial Till (typ). Additional Structural Fill Thickness Will Be Required Under Some Footings In Order To Reach “Target” Bearing Material. Recompact Subgrade Prior To Fill Placement (typ). All Foundation Fill Materials Should Be Placed In Uniform, Horizontal Lifts And Be Well Compacted. Granular Structural Fill, Embankment Fill, And Wall Backfill Shall Be Compacted To A Dense, Unyielding Condition, While Clean Crushed Rock Must Be Compacted By Vibratory Means. In General, The “Loose” Thickness Of Each Lift Prior To Compaction Should Not Exceed 12 Inches For Large, Self-Propelled Rollers; 6 Inches For Remote-Controlled Trench Rollers And Walk-Behind Jumping Jack Compactors; And 4 Inches For Walk-Behind, Plate Compactors. Pay Special Attention To Compaction Of Fill Materials Along Edges And In Corners Of The Excavation; And Along Foundation Walls. Daylight Footing And Sub-Slab Drains (typ.) See Figures 8 And 9 For Note On Exterior Foundation Wall Backfill. Granular Structural Fill Should Be Used For Interior Wall Backfill Under Slabs. See Figures 8 And 9 For Note On Foundation Fill Material Placement And Compaction. All Excavated Soils Can Be Re-Used For Exterior Wall Backfill Or Embankment Fill Provided They Are Not Organic Or Overly Moist. All Fill Must Be Placed In Thin, Level Lifts And Properly Compacted. H = 1’ or 2’ (Depending On Ftg Width) H = 1.0’ (min.) H H = 1.0’ (min.) 15-mil Vapor Barrier Under Slab (Above Rock Layer). Seal Barrier At Seams, Penetrations, And Footings. Vapor Barrier Not Typ. Under Garage Slabs. Note: Due To Unheated/Non-Insulated Buildings, Consider Insulating Under Interior Slabs To Minimize Frost Heaving Potential Of Silt/Clay. (*) Granular Structural Fill Can Consist Of 3”-Minus Sandy (Pitrun) Gravel Or 1.5”-Minus Crushed (Roadmix) Gravel Note: Near The Middle Of The Bldg Footprint, High Groundwater Was Observed In MW-8 On April 27, 2018 At A Depth Of 7.1’. The Native Gravel Depth In This General Area Is About 7.0’. Note: Depending On Time Of Year, Groundwater Levels Could Be Near Or Above The Top Of Native Sandy Gravel. 4’ (min.) For Frost Protection No Ftg Drains Req’d Strip Topsoil And Bench Subgrade Level Prior To Placing Fill (typ.) About 6” Of Dirty Gravel Overlies The Clean Gravel.It Is Important To Vibratory Re-Compact The Excavated “Target” Gravel Subgrade Surface Prior To Pouring Ftgs Or Placing Struct. Fill. Where Possible, Enlarge The Excavation To Allow For Use Of Large, Smooth Drum Roller. Product Recommendation: A Stego 15-mil Vapor Barrier Is Recommended. Perimeter Footing Drain To Wrap Around The Exterior Of Home (typ.) Over-Excavate Under All Perimeter, Interior, And Exterior Footings Such That They Bear On A Minimum Of 1’ Of Compacted Granular Structural Fill That In Turn Bears On “Target” Glacial Till. Min. Width Is B+H, But It Shall Not Be Less Than 5’. Use Light-Weight Fabric Around Footing Drains (typ.). Over-Excavation Width Must Be Centered On The Footings (typ.) More Than 1.0’ Of Structural Fill Is Expected (typ.) Min. Width = (B + H); But Shall Be 5.0’ (min.) This Is A Bottom Of Exc. Dimension. Assumes No Sloughing Of Exc. Side Walls. Min. Width = (B + H); But Shall Be 5.0’ (min.) This Is A Bottom Of Exc. Dimension. Assumes No Sloughing Of Exc. Side Walls. A Large, Smooth Drum Roller Should Be Used To Vibratory Compact Subgrade Soils And Granular Structural Fill Wherever Possible. Concrete Slab The Excavated Gravel Surface (Under All Footings) Must Consist Of Dense, Clean, Native Sandy Gravel. Use A Smooth Foundation Bucket To Prevent Unnecessary Disturbance To The Native Gravel Subgrade. Do Not Stop Excavation In Lowermost Silt/Clay, Which Does Contain Some Scattered Gravels. The Silt/Clay w/ Gravels (Which Looks Like A “Dirty Gravel”) Does Not Constitute The Clean, Native Sandy Gravel (“Target” Bearing Material). Vibratory Re-Compact Subgrade Surface Whenever Possible. Re-Compact Subgrade Prior To Fill Placement. Additional Structural Fill Thickness As Required. For Strip Footings With Width Of 2.0’ Or Less, Min. Structural Fill Thickness (H) Is 1.0’. For Larger Pad Footings With Width Of 3.0’ To 6.0’, Min. Structural Fill Thickness (H) Is 2.0’. Exterior Wall Backfill Can Consist Of Any Non-Organic Soil. Suggest Removing Cobbles Over 6” Directly Next To Walls. Strip Topsoil/Surfacing Material And Cut To A Min. Depth Of 18 Inches Below Bottom Of Slab Grade. For Easier Compaction, Consider Using Only High Quality Granular Material Or Clean Crushed Rock For Interior Backfill. Place In Lifts / Vibratory Compact. “Target” Clean Gravel Surface. Re-Compact Prior To Placing Fill. Pad Footing Over-Excavation On Individual Basis “Target” Clean Gravel Surface. Re-Compact Prior To Pouring Ftgs Or Placing Struct. Fill. “Target” Clean Gravel Surface. Re-Compact Prior To Pouring Ftgs Or Placing Struct. Fill. All Footings Must Bear On “Target” Sandy Gravel Or On Granular Structural Fill That In Turn Bears On “Target” Gravel. All Excavations And Structural Fill Under Footings Must Be Centered Under The Footing. Note: If Native Gravel Is Wet, Place An Initial Thin Layer Of Clean Crushed Rock Covered By Non-Woven Fabric Prior To Structural Fill. Vibratory Compact The Rock. Excavations Should Be Wide Enough To Permit The Use Of A Large, Smooth Drum Roller For Compaction Of Gravel Subgrade And Granular Structural Fill. Footing Subgrade Will Consist Of Native Silt/Clay. Dig With Smooth- Edged Bucket To Prevent Disturbance. Vibratory Compact To Re-Tighten Soils And Induce Consolidation/Settlement. Due To Dry Soils, Construction Water May Need To Be Added To Facilitate Better Compaction. (Typ. All Locations) Over-Excavation And Structural Fill To Be Centered Under Footing And Extend A Minimum Of 2.0’ Beyond Outside Edge Of Ftg In All Directions. Over-Excavation And Structural Fill To Be Centered Under Footing And Extend A Minimum Of 2.0’ Beyond Outside Edge Of Ftg In All Directions. Strip Topsoil Before Placing Fill Material. Strip Gravel. Depending On The Number/Spacing Of Interior Footings. Consideration Should Be Given To Mass Excavating Down To “Target” Gravel Throughout Foundation Footprint And Increasing Thickness Of The 12-Inch Structural Fill Layer. By Doing This, Over-Excavation (On An Individual Basis) Under Interior Footings Could Be Avoided. H Min. Width = H / 2 Min. Width = H / 2 Existing Ground If Required, Damp Proofing Per Bldg Code Perimeter Footing And Foundation Wall (typ.) Depth To “Target” Sandy Gravel Is 4.0’ To 9.0’ (typ.). (See Fig. 4 For The Gravel Depth In The Bldg Area.) Note: Some Perimeter Footing Locations May Bear In The “Target” Clean Gravel. Strip All Topsoil Prior To Filling. Most Likely, Perimeter Footings Will Readily Bear In Or Near “Target” Gravel (Meaning Either No Req’d Structural Fill Or Only A Relatively Thin Amount). The Benefit Of Mass Over-Excavation And Replacement Is That Interior Footings Now Do Not Have To Be Over- Excavated On An Individual Basis. “Target” Clean Gravel Must Be Exposed Throughout The Bottom Of Excavation. Re-Compact Subgrade Prior To Structural Fill Placement. See Figure 5 For An Illustration That ShowsA Crawl Space Foundation Configuration. We Recommend Mass Over-Excavation Under Slab-On-Grade Foundations Down To “Target” Bearing (In Lieu Of Trench Excavating Under All Perimeter, Interior, And Exterior Footings On An Individual Basis). This Excavation Approach Is Faster; But It Requires In-Filling/Backfilling Inside The Foundation Walls With Granular Structural Fill Back Up To Interior Footing Grade. For Figure 6, We Have Shown A Deep Native Gravel Surface To Purposely Illustrate The Need For The Placement Of A Structural Fill Building Pad Back Up To Perimeter Footing Grade. Due To Shallow Gravels, Most Perimeter Footings Should Readily Bear In/Near The “Target” Gravels. Due To The Complexity Of Most Foundation Plans (Many/Closely Spaced Interior Footings),Individual Footing Over-Excavation Is Time Consuming, Difficult, And Not Recommended. Due To The Shallow Gravels, Assumed Complexity Of The Foundation Plan (Number And Spacing Of Interior Footings), And Need To Fully Remove All Fill Material (That Was Found In The NE Corner), The Best Approach Will Likely Be Mass Over-Excavation Of The Entire Foundation Footprint Area. Some Perimeter Ftgs May Require Some Struct. Fill. No Underslab Drains Req’d. Due To Shallow Gravels And Likely Complexity Of The Foundation Plan (Many/Closely Spaced Interior Footings), We Assume Most Building Foundations Will Be Mass Over-Excavated Down To “Target” Gravel And Re-Filled With Structural Fill Up To Interior Footing Grade. Interior Footings Will Most Likely Require Struct. Fill. Min. Exc. Width = H / 2; 5.0’ (min.) Given The Shallow Gravel Depth In Most Areas, Footing Grade Should Be Close To “Target” Gravel. H As Required To Build Up To Footing Grade From “Target” Gravel Surface. Granular Structural Fill In-Fill To 18” Below Slab. Use Large Smooth Drum Roller For Compaction Of Native Gravel Subgrade And Granular Structural Fill. “Target” Clean Gravel Surface At Bottom Of Mass Excavation. If The Surface Is Dry, Vibratory Re-Compact Prior To Pouring Footings Or Placing Granular Structural Fill. Dig Foundation Exc. With Smooth-Edged Bucket To Prevent Disturbance To Native Gravel Subgrade. “Target” Clean Gravel Surface At Bottom Of Mass Excavation. If The Surface Is Wet, Track-Pack With Excavator And Static Roll With Roller Prior To Placing Crushed Rock. Note: This Figure Illustrates A Deep Gravel Surface And Need For Struct. Fill Under Perimeter Ftgs. And Possible Need For Fabric-Covered, Clean Crushed Rock To Get Above Wet Conditions. If Groundwater Is Above The Native Gravel, Lower Groundwater By De-Watering. If The Gravel Subgrade Is Wet Or Contains Areas Of Shallow Standing Water, Place And Vibratory Compact An Initial Layer Of 1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock To Get Above The Wet Conditions. Cover The Crushed Rock Layer With A Layer Of 8 oz. Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric Prior To Placing The Granular Structural Fill. 12” (min.) Structural Fill Layer Under Slab Areas (typ.) FIELD LOG OF BORING PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters JOB #: 21-178 DATE: 12/13/22 BORING: BH-1 PAGE: 1 of 1 LOCATION: W. Side of Building Site ELEV: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 30.5’ DEPTH TO GW: 15.0’ (+/-) DRILL TYPE: Truck-Mounted CASING/HAMMER/SAMPLER: 4.25” Hollow Stem Auger w/ 140 lb Hammer DEPTH (FT)SAMPLE IDN (UNCORR)BLOWS/1.0 FOOTMOISTURECONTENTSAMPLER PENETRATIONGEOLOGYBottom of borehole @ 12.00 m N/A 6 18 4 3 5 2 8 3 100/11” 4” 0.5” 18 11 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 2.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 3.5’ Blow Counts: 1 / 2 / 1 Start Depth of Sampler: 0.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 1.5’ Blow Counts: 3 / 2 / 3 Start Depth of Sampler: 14.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 14.3’ Blow Counts: 50 for 3” Start Depth of Sampler: 16.5’ End Depth of Sampler: 16.8’ Blow Counts: 50 for 4” Start Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ Blow Counts: 50 for 0.5” From 0.0’ to 2.0’: Some grinding noise during drilling (indicating gravels). From 2.0’ to 5.0’: Smooth and fast drill action. No gravels. From 5.0’ to 15.0’: Extensive grinding noise and very slow drilling rate. 50/4” 50/0.5” 50/5” 81/11” 50 for 101.6 mm N/A 50 for 127.0 mm N/A 50 for 50.8 mm N/A 50 for 25.4 mm 50 for 50.8 mm 30.5% N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NES** N/A 5.6% 7.1% 1.8% 00.0%00.0% 18.9% 20.5% 18.6% 22.1% Wet Wet N/T = Not Tested00.0% 23.5% 5.4% 3.8% 4.6% 7.2% 2.8% 1.9% 4.8% 6.5% 14.1% 11.8% 2.9% 16.4% S1-A(1) @ 0.33’ (SSS**) S1-A(2) @ 0.58’ (SSS**) S1-B @ 2.0’ (SSS) S1-A @ 0.0’ (SSS) 9” 50/3” 50/4” 50/5” 50/4” 50/5” 7.8% 64 64 84 91/11” 50/5” 50/5” 50/3” 18” 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 4.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 5.5’ Blow Counts: 1 / 2 / 2 Start Depth of Sampler: 12.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 12.4’ Blow Counts: 50 for 5” Start Depth of Sampler: 14.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 14.3’ Blow Counts: 50 for 4” Start Depth of Sampler: 29.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 30.5’ Blow Counts: 27 / 41 / 43 Wet S1-C @ 4.0’ (SSS) S1-F @ 12.0’ (SSS) S1-G @ 14.0’ (SSS) 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 9.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 10.5’ Blow Counts: 23 / 28 / 36 Start Depth of Sampler: 7.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 8.5’ Blow Counts: 2 / 1 / 1 S1-D @ 7.0’ (SSS) S1-E @ 9.0’ (SSS) Start Depth of Sampler: 19.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 19.8’ Blow Counts: 12 / 50 for 4” 50/4” 18” 10” 18” 11” Start Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 18.5’ Blow Counts: 12 / 29 / 35 S1-H @ 17.0’ (SSS) S1-I @ 19.0’ (SSS) 50/5” 11” Start Depth of Sampler: 29.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 29.9’ Blow Counts: 32 / 50 for 5” Wet S8-M @ 29.0’ (SSS) S1-K @ 29.0’ (SSS) 4” 5” S1-M @ 34.0’ (SSS) Wet 50/3” Start Depth of Sampler: 34.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 34.8’ Blow Counts: 21 / 50 for 3” 9” S1-M @ 34.0’ (SSS) 50/3” Start Depth of Sampler: 24.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 24.9’ Blow Counts: 22 / 50 for 5” Wet S1-J @ 24.0’ (SSS) 50/2” 71/11” Start Depth of Sampler: 26.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 26.2’ Blow Counts: 50 for 2” Wet S2B-L @ 26.0’ (SSS*) 2” 3” Start Depth of Sampler: 12.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 12.3’ Blow Counts: 50 for 4” 50/4” 50/3” 4.7% S1-J @ 22.0’ (NSC**) S1-K @ 24.5’ (NSC**) S1-H @ 16.5’ (SSS*) S1-I @ 17.0’ (SSS*) S9-F(1) @ 5.94 m (SSS) S9-F(2) @ 5.49 m to 6.71 m (SACK) S9-G(1) @ 7.47 m (SSS) S9-G(2) @ 7.01 m to 8.23 m (SACK) DRILLER: Bridger O’Keefe, O’Keefe Drilling (Butte, MT) FIELD ENGINEER: Lee Evans, AESI ALLIEDENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 1 2 3 4 5 Laboratory test results for CS-9 (Includes: S9-A, S9-B, and S9-C) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 14.0 % = 52.0 % = 34.0 % = 22.0 % = 18.1 % = 3.9 % = CL-ML Laboratory test results for CS-6/9 (Includes: S6-F, S9-F(2), and S9-I) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 14.2 % = 46.9 % = 38.9 % = 36.0 % = 17.0 % = 19.0 % = CL Laboratory test results for S9-D(2) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 11.6 % = 50.1 % = 38.3 % = 27.0 % = 14.0 % = 13.0 % = CL Bottom of borehole @ 30.5’ Very dense to hard; burnt red; weathered siltstone or sandstone BEDROCK; dry. Drill cuttings are clayey SAND to sandy SILT with abundant bedrock fragments. Fragments are platey and layered in appearance, but non-friable and intact. Occasional layers of less dense (more weathered) bedrock were encountered in lower half of this layer. Bottom of weathered bedrock layer @ 8.84 m From 2.74 to 6.10 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling slowed; however, it was smooth. Minimal grinding noise could be heard. From 1.52 to 2.74 m (approximate), grinding noises were obvious. From 6.10 to 8.84 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling was non-uniform. It was slow in upper half of layer, but got noticeably faster in lower half. By bot- tom of the layer, the drill rate was very slow. From 8.84 to 12.00 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling was very, very slow. Loud grinding noises were heard; and the auger bit was jumping excessively. Ground vibrations were widespread. It took 1.0 hour to penetrate bottom 1.50 m of borehole. {0.0’ - 0.33’}: Asphalt (4.0”) {0.33’ - 0.58’}: Base Course Gravel (3.0”) Dense; brown; 1.5”-minus, sandy GRAVEL; slightly moist. Clean, imported sand and gravel. {1.17’ - 2.0’}: Sub-Base: Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel Brown; clayey SAND w/ gravel to clayey, sandy, GRAVEL; moist to very moist. Somewhat sticky and plastic. Predominately sands and gravels, but significant clay content. “Dirty” sand and gravel. Note: Could be more silty/clayey in some areas. Borehole Elevation Datum: * NGVD #29 (Converted to COB) 8 4 20 16 12 24 30 and 2” O.D. Standard Split Spoon Samplers OTHER FIELD OR SAMPLE INFORMATION Reviewed By: __________ Reviewed By: __________ Valley Center Rd - Bozeman (See Figs. 1, 2, & 3 for Location) B-61 Drill Rig Laboratory Testing of Composite Sample A (from BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7, & BH-8) Percent Silt/Clay: Percent Sand/Gravel: Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: Unified Soil Classification: Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture: pH: Marble pH: Sulfate: Conductivity: = 81 % = 19 % = 31 % = 18 % = 13 % = CL = 111.8 pcf = 15.8 % = 0.0 s.u. = 0.0 s.u. = 0.000 % = 0.00 mmhos/cm Laboratory Testing of Composite Sample B (from BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7, & BH-8) pH: Marble pH: Sulfate: Conductivity: = 0.0 s.u. = 0.0 s.u. = 0.000 % = 0.00 mmhos/cm Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) Groundwater Observation Note: * The groundwater depth that was measured does not represent seasonal high conditions. Groundwater is expected to rise in April, May, and June. Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) ** Modified California Sampler (Dimensions: 3” o.d. and 2.5” i.d.) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS Important Note: The beginning and ending depths of the individual soil layers are approximate. Bozeman, MT Drill Action Observations and Notes: 1) From 0.5’ to 1.8’: Loud grinding w/ vibrations. 2) From 1.8’ to 16.0’: Smooth, easy, and fast drill w/ minimal grinding noise. 3) At 16.0’: Hit gravel - Start of grinding/vibrations. 4) From 16.0’ to 29.9’: Grinding noise and auger vibrations. Generally pretty slow, but faster and less grinding in some areas (likely indicating more sands and/or smaller gravels). Louder and more vibrations in other areas (likely indicating larger and/or abundant gravels). 5) Below 23.0’: Slower drill action w/ grinding. Note: Groundwater monitoring well installed in BH-8 {8.5’ - 30.5’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense to very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels & cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - Start of significant grinding at 8.5’ (+/-). - Loud grinding and auger vibrations. - Top of native sandy gravel is at 8.5’ (+/-). - Pretty “clean” sandy gravel. - No noticeable silt/clay seams in SSS samples. - Based on blow counts, dense to very dense soils. - Blow counts = 10 - 30: Medium dense. - Blow counts = 30 - 50: Dense. - Blow counts > 50: Very dense. - “Target” foundation bearing at 8.5’ and below. {21.0’ - 25.5’}: Very Weathered Bedrock Very stiff to dense; brown to orangish brown; sandy SILT to silty fine SAND to gravelly coarse SAND; very moist to wet. Notes: - Smooth drill action beginning at 21.0’. - Start of Tertiary bedrock strata (silt/sand). - Gravelly coarse sand below 24.0’. {1.0’ - 8.5’}: Native Silt/Clay Soft to medium stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist to moist. Notes: - Smooth and easy drill action entire depth. - No apparent intermixed gravels (no grinding). - Some expected gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Hit top of native sandy gravel at 8.5’ (+/-). - Based on start of loud/consistent grinding. - Based on blow counts, soft to medium stiff soils. - Blow counts = 2 - 4: Soft. - Blow counts = 4 - 8: Medium stiff. - Blow counts = 8 - 15: Stiff - Blow counts = 15 - 30: Very stiff. - Based on test pits: - Upper soils are expected to be stiffer/less moist. - Pocket penetrometer measurements were higher and indicated stiffer soil conditions as compared to the low blow counts. - With depth, silt/clay is more moist and less stiff. - Soils are slightly moist to moist; not overly moist. - Lower blow counts may be due to “looser” soil conditions as opposed to “softer” soil conditions. - No orange discolorations (mottling). - Unsuitable foundation bearing material. {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil (12”) Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.25’ - 5.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Medium stiff to stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY w/ some small gravels around 3.5’; slightly moist to moist. Notes: - Lower 1.0’ (+/-) likely contains some scattered gravels. This is a transitional zone and does not constitute clean sandy gravel. - Unsuitable foundation bearing material. LSE, 1/7/23 Composite Sample A @ 2.0’ - 10.0’ Note: No lab testing conducted. = 36.0 % = 17.0 % = 19.0 % = CL = 000.0 pcf = 00.0 % FIELD LOG OF BORING PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters JOB #: 21-178 DATE: 12/13/22 BORING: BH-2 PAGE: 1 of 1 LOCATION: Middle of Building Site ELEV: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 29.0’ DEPTH TO GW: 14.0’ (+/-) DRILL TYPE: Truck-Mounted CASING/HAMMER/SAMPLER: 4.25” Hollow Stem Auger w/ 140 lb Hammer DEPTH (FT)SAMPLE IDN (UNCORR)BLOWS/1.0 FOOTMOISTURECONTENTSAMPLER PENETRATIONGEOLOGYBottom of borehole @ 12.00 m N/A 6 18 3 4 6 8 3 100/11” 4” 0.5” 18 11 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 2.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 3.5’ Blow Counts: 3 / 3 / 1 Start Depth of Sampler: 0.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 1.5’ Blow Counts: 5 / 3 / 3 Start Depth of Sampler: 14.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 14.3’ Blow Counts: 50 for 3” Start Depth of Sampler: 16.5’ End Depth of Sampler: 16.8’ Blow Counts: 50 for 4” Start Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ Blow Counts: 50 for 0.5” From 0.0’ to 2.0’: Some grinding noise during drilling (indicating gravels). From 2.0’ to 5.0’: Smooth and fast drill action. No gravels. From 5.0’ to 15.0’: Extensive grinding noise and very slow drilling rate. 50/4” 50/0.5” 50/5” 81/11” 50 for 101.6 mm N/A 50 for 127.0 mm N/A 50 for 50.8 mm N/A 50 for 25.4 mm 50 for 50.8 mm 30.5% N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NES** N/A 5.6% 7.1% 1.8% 00.0%00.0% 18.3% 19.5% 18.8% Wet Wet Wet N/T = Not Tested00.0% 23.5% 5.4% 3.5% 3.5% 6.2% 2.8% 1.9% 4.8% 6.5% 14.1% 11.8% 2.9% 16.4% S1-A(1) @ 0.33’ (SSS**) S1-A(2) @ 0.58’ (SSS**) S2-B @ 2.0’ (SSS) S2-A @ 0.0’ (SSS) 9” 50/3” 50/3” 91/10” 50/3” 7.8% 99 92 86 57 84 91/11” 50/5” 50/5” 50/3” 18” 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 4.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 5.5’ Blow Counts: 3 / 1 / 2 Start Depth of Sampler: 12.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 13.5’ Blow Counts: 47 / 47 / 45 Start Depth of Sampler: 14.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 15.5’ Blow Counts: 30 / 36 / 50 No Sample Due to Un-Retrievable Drill Bit at Bottom of Hole. S2-C @ 4.0’ (SSS) S2-F @ 12.0’ (SSS) S2-G @ 14.0’ (SSS) 18” 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 9.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 9.8’ Blow Counts: 16 / 50 for 3” Start Depth of Sampler: 7.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 8.5’ Blow Counts: 19 / 24 / 33 S2-D @ 7.0’ (SSS) S2-E @ 9.0’ (SSS) Start Depth of Sampler: 19.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 20.3’ Blow Counts: 11 / 41 / 50 for 4” 50/4” 18” 16” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 18.5’ Blow Counts: 25 / 49 / 50 S2-H @ 17.0’ (SSS) S2-I @ 19.0’ (SSS) 50/5” 11” Start Depth of Sampler: 29.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 29.9’ Blow Counts: 32 / 50 for 5” Wet S8-M @ 29.0’ (SSS) S2-K @ 29.0’ (SSS) 9” 9” S1-M @ 34.0’ (SSS) Wet 50/3” Start Depth of Sampler: 34.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 34.8’ Blow Counts: 21 / 50 for 3” 9” S1-M @ 34.0’ (SSS) 50/3” Start Depth of Sampler: 24.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 24.8’ Blow Counts: 45 / 50 for 3” Wet S2-J @ 24.0’ (SSS) 50/2” 71/11” Start Depth of Sampler: 26.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 26.2’ Blow Counts: 50 for 2” Wet S2B-L @ 26.0’ (SSS*) 2” 3” Start Depth of Sampler: 12.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 12.3’ Blow Counts: 50 for 4” 50/4” 50/3” 4.7% S1-J @ 22.0’ (NSC**) S1-K @ 24.5’ (NSC**) S1-H @ 16.5’ (SSS*) S1-I @ 17.0’ (SSS*) S9-F(1) @ 5.94 m (SSS) S9-F(2) @ 5.49 m to 6.71 m (SACK) S9-G(1) @ 7.47 m (SSS) S9-G(2) @ 7.01 m to 8.23 m (SACK) DRILLER: Bridger O’Keefe, O’Keefe Drilling (Butte, MT) FIELD ENGINEER: Lee Evans, AESI ALLIEDENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 1 2 3 4 5 Laboratory test results for CS-9 (Includes: S9-A, S9-B, and S9-C) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 14.0 % = 52.0 % = 34.0 % = 22.0 % = 18.1 % = 3.9 % = CL-ML Laboratory test results for CS-6/9 (Includes: S6-F, S9-F(2), and S9-I) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 14.2 % = 46.9 % = 38.9 % = 36.0 % = 17.0 % = 19.0 % = CL Laboratory test results for S9-D(2) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 11.6 % = 50.1 % = 38.3 % = 27.0 % = 14.0 % = 13.0 % = CL Bottom of borehole @ 29.0’ Very dense to hard; burnt red; weathered siltstone or sandstone BEDROCK; dry. Drill cuttings are clayey SAND to sandy SILT with abundant bedrock fragments. Fragments are platey and layered in appearance, but non-friable and intact. Occasional layers of less dense (more weathered) bedrock were encountered in lower half of this layer. Bottom of weathered bedrock layer @ 8.84 m From 2.74 to 6.10 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling slowed; however, it was smooth. Minimal grinding noise could be heard. From 1.52 to 2.74 m (approximate), grinding noises were obvious. From 6.10 to 8.84 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling was non-uniform. It was slow in upper half of layer, but got noticeably faster in lower half. By bot- tom of the layer, the drill rate was very slow. From 8.84 to 12.00 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling was very, very slow. Loud grinding noises were heard; and the auger bit was jumping excessively. Ground vibrations were widespread. It took 1.0 hour to penetrate bottom 1.50 m of borehole. {0.0’ - 0.33’}: Asphalt (4.0”) {0.33’ - 0.58’}: Base Course Gravel (3.0”) Dense; brown; 1.5”-minus, sandy GRAVEL; slightly moist. Clean, imported sand and gravel. {1.17’ - 2.0’}: Sub-Base: Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel Brown; clayey SAND w/ gravel to clayey, sandy, GRAVEL; moist to very moist. Somewhat sticky and plastic. Predominately sands and gravels, but significant clay content. “Dirty” sand and gravel. Note: Could be more silty/clayey in some areas. Borehole Elevation Datum: * NGVD #29 (Converted to COB) 8 4 20 16 12 24 30 and 2” O.D. Standard Split Spoon Samplers OTHER FIELD OR SAMPLE INFORMATION Reviewed By: __________ Reviewed By: __________ Valley Center Rd - Bozeman (See Figs. 1, 2, & 3 for Location) B-61 Drill Rig Laboratory Testing of Composite Sample A (from BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7, & BH-8) Percent Silt/Clay: Percent Sand/Gravel: Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: Unified Soil Classification: Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture: pH: Marble pH: Sulfate: Conductivity: = 81 % = 19 % = 31 % = 18 % = 13 % = CL = 111.8 pcf = 15.8 % = 0.0 s.u. = 0.0 s.u. = 0.000 % = 0.00 mmhos/cm Laboratory Testing of Composite Sample B (from BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7, & BH-8) pH: Marble pH: Sulfate: Conductivity: = 0.0 s.u. = 0.0 s.u. = 0.000 % = 0.00 mmhos/cm Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) Groundwater Observation Note: * The groundwater depth that was measured does not represent seasonal high conditions. Groundwater is expected to rise in April, May, and June. Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) ** Modified California Sampler (Dimensions: 3” o.d. and 2.5” i.d.) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS Important Note: The beginning and ending depths of the individual soil layers are approximate. Bozeman, MT Drill Action Observations and Notes: 1) From 0.5’ to 1.8’: Loud grinding w/ vibrations. 2) From 1.8’ to 16.0’: Smooth, easy, and fast drill w/ minimal grinding noise. 3) At 16.0’: Hit gravel - Start of grinding/vibrations. 4) From 16.0’ to 29.9’: Grinding noise and auger vibrations. Generally pretty slow, but faster and less grinding in some areas (likely indicating more sands and/or smaller gravels). Louder and more vibrations in other areas (likely indicating larger and/or abundant gravels). 5) Below 23.0’: Slower drill action w/ grinding. Note: Groundwater monitoring well installed in BH-8 {7.0’ - 29.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense to very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels & cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - Start of significant grinding at 7.0’ (+/-). - Loud grinding and auger vibrations. - Top of native sandy gravel is at 7.0’ (+/-). - Pretty “clean” sandy gravel. - No noticeable silt/clay seams in SSS samples. - Based on blow counts, dense to very dense soils. - Blow counts = 10 - 30: Medium dense. - Blow counts = 30 - 50: Dense. - Blow counts > 50: Very dense. - “Target” foundation bearing at 7.0’ and below. {21.0’ - 25.5’}: Very Weathered Bedrock Very stiff to dense; brown to orangish brown; sandy SILT to silty fine SAND to gravelly coarse SAND; very moist to wet. Notes: - Smooth drill action beginning at 21.0’. - Start of Tertiary bedrock strata (silt/sand). - Gravelly coarse sand below 24.0’. {0.8’ - 7.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Soft to medium stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist to moist. Notes: - Smooth and easy drill action entire depth. - No apparent intermixed gravels (no grinding). - Some expected gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Hit top of native sandy gravel at 7.0’ (+/-). - Based on start of loud/consistent grinding. - Based on blow counts, soft to medium stiff soils. - Blow counts = 2 - 4: Soft. - Blow counts = 4 - 8: Medium stiff. - Blow counts = 8 - 15: Stiff - Blow counts = 15 - 30: Very stiff. - Based on test pits: - Upper soils are expected to be stiffer/less moist. - Pocket penetrometer measurements were higher and indicated stiffer soil conditions as compared to the low blow counts. - With depth, silt/clay is more moist and less stiff. - Soils are slightly moist to moist; not overly moist. - Lower blow counts may be due to “looser” soil conditions as opposed to “softer” soil conditions. - No orange discolorations (mottling). - Unsuitable foundation bearing material. {0.0’ - 0.8’}: Native Topsoil (9”) Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.25’ - 5.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Medium stiff to stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY w/ some small gravels around 3.5’; slightly moist to moist. Notes: - Lower 1.0’ (+/-) likely contains some scattered gravels. This is a transitional zone and does not constitute clean sandy gravel. - Unsuitable foundation bearing material. LSE, 1/7/23 Composite Sample A @ 2.0’ - 10.0’ Note: No lab testing conducted. = 36.0 % = 17.0 % = 19.0 % = CL = 000.0 pcf = 00.0 % FIELD LOG OF BORING PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters JOB #: 21-178 DATE: 12/13/22 BORING: BH-3 PAGE: 1 of 1 LOCATION: E. Side of Building Site ELEV: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 29.9’ DEPTH TO GW: 13.0’ (+/-) DRILL TYPE: Truck-Mounted CASING/HAMMER/SAMPLER: 4.25” Hollow Stem Auger w/ 140 lb Hammer DEPTH (FT)SAMPLE IDN (UNCORR)BLOWS/1.0 FOOTMOISTURECONTENTSAMPLER PENETRATIONGEOLOGYBottom of borehole @ 12.00 m N/A 6 18 3 5 8 8 3 100/11” 4” 0.5” 18 11 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 2.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 3.5’ Blow Counts: 3 / 3 / 2 Start Depth of Sampler: 0.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 1.5’ Blow Counts: 7 / 4 / 4 Start Depth of Sampler: 14.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 14.3’ Blow Counts: 50 for 3” Start Depth of Sampler: 16.5’ End Depth of Sampler: 16.8’ Blow Counts: 50 for 4” Start Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ Blow Counts: 50 for 0.5” From 0.0’ to 2.0’: Some grinding noise during drilling (indicating gravels). From 2.0’ to 5.0’: Smooth and fast drill action. No gravels. From 5.0’ to 15.0’: Extensive grinding noise and very slow drilling rate. 50/4” 50/0.5” 50/5” 81/11” 50 for 101.6 mm N/A 50 for 127.0 mm N/A 50 for 50.8 mm N/A 50 for 25.4 mm 50 for 50.8 mm 30.5% N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NES** N/A 5.6% 7.1% 1.8% 00.0%00.0% 18.6% 19.9% 21.1% Wet Wet Wet Wet N/T = Not Tested00.0% 23.5% 5.4% 4.4% 3.7% 2.8% 1.9% 4.8% 6.5% 14.1% 11.8% 2.9% 16.4% S1-A(1) @ 0.33’ (SSS**) S1-A(2) @ 0.58’ (SSS**) S3-B @ 2.0’ (SSS) S3-A @ 0.0’ (SSS) 5” 50/3” 50/5” 50/5” 50/5” 50/5” 7.8% 76 49 58 89 91/11” 50/5” 50/5” 50/3” 18” 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 4.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 5.5’ Blow Counts: 3 / 2 / 1 Start Depth of Sampler: 12.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 13.5’ Blow Counts: 12 / 24 / 25 Start Depth of Sampler: 14.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 15.5’ Blow Counts: 10 / 21 / 37 Start Depth of Sampler: 29.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 29.9’ Blow Counts: 27 / 50 for 5” Wet S3-C @ 4.0’ (SSS) S3-F @ 12.0’ (SSS) S3-G @ 14.0’ (SSS) 18” 18” 18” 18” Start Depth of Sampler: 9.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 10.5’ Blow Counts: 27 / 31 / 45 Start Depth of Sampler: 7.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 8.5’ Blow Counts: 24 / 39 / 50 S3-D @ 7.0’ (SSS) S3-E @ 9.0’ (SSS) Start Depth of Sampler: 19.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 19.9’ Blow Counts: 35 / 50 for 5” 50/4” 11” 11” 11” Start Depth of Sampler: 17.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 17.4’ Blow Counts: 50 for 5” S3-H @ 17.0’ (SSS) S3-I @ 19.0’ (SSS) 50/5” 11” Start Depth of Sampler: 29.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 29.9’ Blow Counts: 32 / 50 for 5” Wet S8-M @ 29.0’ (SSS) S3-K @ 29.0’ (SSS) S1-M @ 34.0’ (SSS) Wet 50/3” Start Depth of Sampler: 34.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 34.8’ Blow Counts: 21 / 50 for 3” 9” S1-M @ 34.0’ (SSS) 50/3” Start Depth of Sampler: 24.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 24.9’ Blow Counts: 25 / 50 for 5” Wet S3-J @ 24.0’ (SSS) 50/2” 71/11” Start Depth of Sampler: 26.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 26.2’ Blow Counts: 50 for 2” Wet S2B-L @ 26.0’ (SSS*) 2” 3” Start Depth of Sampler: 12.0’ End Depth of Sampler: 12.3’ Blow Counts: 50 for 4” 50/4” 50/3” 4.7% S1-J @ 22.0’ (NSC**) S1-K @ 24.5’ (NSC**) S1-H @ 16.5’ (SSS*) S1-I @ 17.0’ (SSS*) S9-F(1) @ 5.94 m (SSS) S9-F(2) @ 5.49 m to 6.71 m (SACK) S9-G(1) @ 7.47 m (SSS) S9-G(2) @ 7.01 m to 8.23 m (SACK) DRILLER: Bridger O’Keefe, O’Keefe Drilling (Butte, MT) FIELD ENGINEER: Lee Evans, AESI ALLIEDENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 1 2 3 4 5 Laboratory test results for CS-9 (Includes: S9-A, S9-B, and S9-C) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 14.0 % = 52.0 % = 34.0 % = 22.0 % = 18.1 % = 3.9 % = CL-ML Laboratory test results for CS-6/9 (Includes: S6-F, S9-F(2), and S9-I) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 14.2 % = 46.9 % = 38.9 % = 36.0 % = 17.0 % = 19.0 % = CL Laboratory test results for S9-D(2) * Grain Size Distribution: Gravel Portion (> #4) Sand Portion ( #200 < X < #4) Silt/Clay Portion (< #200) * Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Plasticity Chart Symbol = 11.6 % = 50.1 % = 38.3 % = 27.0 % = 14.0 % = 13.0 % = CL Bottom of borehole @ 29.9’ Very dense to hard; burnt red; weathered siltstone or sandstone BEDROCK; dry. Drill cuttings are clayey SAND to sandy SILT with abundant bedrock fragments. Fragments are platey and layered in appearance, but non-friable and intact. Occasional layers of less dense (more weathered) bedrock were encountered in lower half of this layer. Bottom of weathered bedrock layer @ 8.84 m From 2.74 to 6.10 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling slowed; however, it was smooth. Minimal grinding noise could be heard. From 1.52 to 2.74 m (approximate), grinding noises were obvious. From 6.10 to 8.84 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling was non-uniform. It was slow in upper half of layer, but got noticeably faster in lower half. By bot- tom of the layer, the drill rate was very slow. From 8.84 to 12.00 m (approximate), the rate of the drilling was very, very slow. Loud grinding noises were heard; and the auger bit was jumping excessively. Ground vibrations were widespread. It took 1.0 hour to penetrate bottom 1.50 m of borehole. {0.0’ - 0.33’}: Asphalt (4.0”) {0.33’ - 0.58’}: Base Course Gravel (3.0”) Dense; brown; 1.5”-minus, sandy GRAVEL; slightly moist. Clean, imported sand and gravel. {1.17’ - 2.0’}: Sub-Base: Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel Brown; clayey SAND w/ gravel to clayey, sandy, GRAVEL; moist to very moist. Somewhat sticky and plastic. Predominately sands and gravels, but significant clay content. “Dirty” sand and gravel. Note: Could be more silty/clayey in some areas. Borehole Elevation Datum: * NGVD #29 (Converted to COB) 8 4 20 16 12 24 30 and 2” O.D. Standard Split Spoon Samplers OTHER FIELD OR SAMPLE INFORMATION Reviewed By: __________ Reviewed By: __________ Valley Center Rd - Bozeman (See Figs. 1, 2, & 3 for Location) B-61 Drill Rig Laboratory Testing of Composite Sample A (from BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7, & BH-8) Percent Silt/Clay: Percent Sand/Gravel: Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: Unified Soil Classification: Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture: pH: Marble pH: Sulfate: Conductivity: = 81 % = 19 % = 31 % = 18 % = 13 % = CL = 111.8 pcf = 15.8 % = 0.0 s.u. = 0.0 s.u. = 0.000 % = 0.00 mmhos/cm Laboratory Testing of Composite Sample B (from BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7, & BH-8) pH: Marble pH: Sulfate: Conductivity: = 0.0 s.u. = 0.0 s.u. = 0.000 % = 0.00 mmhos/cm Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) Groundwater Observation Note: * The groundwater depth that was measured does not represent seasonal high conditions. Groundwater is expected to rise in April, May, and June. Split Spoon Sampler Information: * Standard Penetration Test Sampler (Dimensions: 2” o.d. and 1.375” i.d.) ** Modified California Sampler (Dimensions: 3” o.d. and 2.5” i.d.) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS Important Note: The beginning and ending depths of the individual soil layers are approximate. Bozeman, MT Drill Action Observations and Notes: 1) From 0.5’ to 1.8’: Loud grinding w/ vibrations. 2) From 1.8’ to 16.0’: Smooth, easy, and fast drill w/ minimal grinding noise. 3) At 16.0’: Hit gravel - Start of grinding/vibrations. 4) From 16.0’ to 29.9’: Grinding noise and auger vibrations. Generally pretty slow, but faster and less grinding in some areas (likely indicating more sands and/or smaller gravels). Louder and more vibrations in other areas (likely indicating larger and/or abundant gravels). 5) Below 23.0’: Slower drill action w/ grinding. Note: Groundwater monitoring well installed in BH-8 {6.0’ - 29.9’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense to very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels & cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - Start of significant grinding at 6.0’ (+/-). - Loud grinding and auger vibrations. - Top of native sandy gravel is at 6.0’ (+/-). - Pretty “clean” sandy gravel. - No noticeable silt/clay seams in SSS samples. - Based on blow counts, dense to very dense soils. - Blow counts = 10 - 30: Medium dense. - Blow counts = 30 - 50: Dense. - Blow counts > 50: Very dense. - “Target” foundation bearing at 6.0’ and below. {21.0’ - 25.5’}: Very Weathered Bedrock Very stiff to dense; brown to orangish brown; sandy SILT to silty fine SAND to gravelly coarse SAND; very moist to wet. Notes: - Smooth drill action beginning at 21.0’. - Start of Tertiary bedrock strata (silt/sand). - Gravelly coarse sand below 24.0’. {0.8’ - 6.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Soft to medium stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist to moist. Notes: - Smooth and easy drill action entire depth. - No apparent intermixed gravels (no grinding). - Some expected gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Hit top of native sandy gravel at 6.0’ (+/-). - Based on start of loud/consistent grinding. - Based on blow counts, soft to medium stiff soils. - Blow counts = 2 - 4: Soft. - Blow counts = 4 - 8: Medium stiff. - Blow counts = 8 - 15: Stiff - Blow counts = 15 - 30: Very stiff. - Based on test pits: - Upper soils are expected to be stiffer/less moist. - Pocket penetrometer measurements were higher and indicated stiffer soil conditions as compared to the low blow counts. - With depth, silt/clay is more moist and less stiff. - Soils are slightly moist to moist; not overly moist. - Lower blow counts may be due to “looser” soil conditions as opposed to “softer” soil conditions. - No orange discolorations (mottling). - Unsuitable foundation bearing material. {0.0’ - 0.8’}: Native Topsoil (9”) Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.25’ - 5.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Medium stiff to stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY w/ some small gravels around 3.5’; slightly moist to moist. Notes: - Lower 1.0’ (+/-) likely contains some scattered gravels. This is a transitional zone and does not constitute clean sandy gravel. - Unsuitable foundation bearing material. LSE, 1/7/23 Composite Sample A @ 2.0’ - 10.0’ Note: No lab testing conducted. = 36.0 % = 17.0 % = 19.0 % = CL = 000.0 pcf = 00.0 % % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 14.0’ GROUNDWATER: 14.0’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-1 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 14 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: West 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S1-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S1-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 13.7% 10.9% 10.2% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S1-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-1) Casing height = 9” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 9.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist. Notes: - Stiff to very stiff throughout. - Qu = 3.5 to 4.0 tsf. - Slightly moist throughout. - No noticeable moisture break w/ moister and less stiff soils below. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. A = 17.6%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {9.0’ - 14.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-1. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and slightly moist throughout. No noticeable moisture break w/ “moister” soils and “less stiff” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. Similar to TPs 4, 6, 8, 9, & 10. Drier test pit (silt/clay). No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 9.0’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0’ GROUNDWATER: 14.5’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-2 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 15 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: West 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S2-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 15.8% 18.4% 20.3% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S2-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-2) Casing height = 8” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 0.8’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {0.8’ - 8.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Medium stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; moist to very moist. Notes: - From 0.8’ to 4.0’: stiff to very stiff. - Qu = 2.0 to 3.0 tsf. - Moist throughout upper 4.0’. - Less stiff w/ depth (higher moisture). - Below 4.0’: very moist/med. stiff. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. A = 17.6%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {8.0’ - 15.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-2. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and moist in uppermost 4.0’. Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Moister/less stiff soils below. (Very moist & medium stiff) No noticeable moisture break w/ “less stiff” soils and “more moist” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 8.0’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Moister test pit; Similar to TP-3. Moister test pit (silt/clay). Similar to TPs 3, 5, & 7. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 14.0’ GROUNDWATER: 14.0’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-3 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 14 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: West 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S3-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S3-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 14.9% 19.5% 23.9% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S3-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-3) Casing height = 11” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 9.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Medium stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; moist to very moist. Notes: - From 1.0’ to 4.0’: stiff to very stiff. - Qu = 2.0 to 4.0 tsf. - Moist throughout upper 4.0’. - Less stiff w/ depth (higher moisture). - Below 4.0’: very moist/med. stiff. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. A = 17.6%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {9.0’ - 14.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-3. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and moist in uppermost 4.0’. Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Moister/less stiff soils below. (Very moist & medium stiff) No noticeable moisture break w/ “less stiff” soils and “more moist” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 9.0’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Moister test pit; Similar to TP-2. Moister test pit (silt/clay). Similar to TPs 2, 5, & 7. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 13.0’ GROUNDWATER: 12.5’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-4 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 13 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: West 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S4-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S4-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 13.6% 15.3% 13.4% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S4-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-4) Casing height = 9” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 6.5’}: Native Silt/Clay Stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist. Notes: - Stiff to very stiff throughout. - Qu = 3.0 to 4.0 tsf. - Slightly moist throughout. - No noticeable moisture break w/ moister and less stiff soils below. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. A = 17.6%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {6.5’ - 13.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-4. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and slightly moist throughout. No noticeable moisture break w/ “moister” soils and “less stiff” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. Drier test pit; Similar to TP-1. Drier test pit (silt/clay). No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 6.5’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Similar to TPs 1, 6, 8, 9, & 10. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 13.0’ GROUNDWATER: 11.0’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-5 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 13 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: East 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S5-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. B @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) 22.0% 22.1% S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 20.3% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S5-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-5) Casing height = 8” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 0.8’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {0.8’ - 5.5’}: Native Silt/Clay Medium stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; moist to very moist. Notes: - From 0.8’ to 3.0’: stiff to very stiff. - Qu = 2.0 to 3.0 tsf. - Moist throughout upper 3.0’. - Less stiff w/ depth (higher moisture). - Below 3.0’: very moist/med. stiff. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. B = 18.5%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {5.5’ - 13.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-5. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and moist in uppermost 3.0’. Moisture break at 3.0’ (+/-). Moister/less stiff soils below. (Very moist & medium stiff) No noticeable moisture break w/ “less stiff” soils and “more moist” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 5.5’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Moister test pit; Similar to TP-3. Moister test pit (silt/clay). Similar to TPs 2, 3, & 7. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 11.0’ GROUNDWATER: 9.5’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-6 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: East 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S6-B @ 3.0’ (Sack) Comp. B @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) 14.0% 14.4% S1-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 10.2% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S6-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-6) Casing height = 8” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 4.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist. Notes: - Stiff to very stiff throughout. - Qu = 3.0 to 4.0 tsf. - Slightly moist throughout. - No noticeable moisture break w/ moister and less stiff soils below. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. B = 18.5%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {4.0’ - 11.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-6. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and slightly moist throughout. No noticeable moisture break w/ “moister” soils and “less stiff” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. Similar to TP-4. Drier test pit (silt/clay). No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 4.0’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Similar to TPs 1, 4, 8, 9, & 10. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 13.0’ GROUNDWATER: 13.0’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-7 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 13 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: East 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S7-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. B @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S7-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 18.9% 22.9% 24.7% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S7-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-7) Casing height = 8” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 8.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Medium stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; moist to very moist. Notes: - From 1.0’ to 3.0’: stiff to very stiff. - Qu = 2.0 to 3.0 tsf. - Moist throughout upper 3.0’. - Less stiff w/ depth (higher moisture). - Below 3.0’: very moist/med. stiff. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. B = 18.5%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {8.0’ - 13.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-7. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and moist in uppermost 3.0’. Moisture break at 3.0’ (+/-). Moister/less stiff soils below. (Very moist & medium stiff) No noticeable moisture break w/ “less stiff” soils and “more moist” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 8.0’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Moister test pit; Similar to TP-2. Moister test pit (silt/clay). Similar to TPs 2, 3, & 5. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 11.0’ GROUNDWATER: 11.0’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-8 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: East 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S8-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. B @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S8-C @ 5.0’ (Sack) 12.1% 13.2% 13.0% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S8-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-8) Casing height = 8” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 5.5’}: Native Silt/Clay Stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist. Notes: - Stiff to very stiff throughout. - Qu = 2.0 to 4.0 tsf. - Slightly moist throughout. - No noticeable moisture break w/ moister and less stiff soils below. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. B = 18.5%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {5.5’ - 11.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-8. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and slightly moist throughout. No noticeable moisture break w/ “moister” soils and “less stiff” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. Similar to TP-4. Drier test pit (silt/clay). No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 5.5’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Similar to TPs 1, 4, 6, 9, & 10. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 10.0’ GROUNDWATER: 9.0’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-9 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: East 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S9-B @ 3.0’ (Sack) Comp. B @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) 10.7% 10.3% S1-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 10.2% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S9-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-9) Casing height = 8” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 4.0’}: Native Silt/Clay Stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; slightly moist. Notes: - Stiff to very stiff throughout. - Qu = 3.0 to 4.0 tsf. - Slightly moist throughout. - No noticeable moisture break w/ moister and less stiff soils below. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. B = 18.5%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {4.0’ - 10.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-9. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and slightly moist throughout. No noticeable moisture break w/ “moister” soils and “less stiff” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. Similar to TP-4. Drier test pit (silt/clay). No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 4.0’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Similar to TPs 1, 4, 6, 8, & 10. % WATERCONTENTSAMPLESDEPTH (FT)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT): JOB NUMBER: 21-178 PROJECT: Barnard Headquarters DATE: September 26, 2022 BACKHOE TYPE: Volvo 160 Excavator BACKHOE OPERATOR: David - Walker Excavation LOGGED BY: Lee S. Evans - AESI SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A TOTAL DEPTH: 12.0’ GROUNDWATER: 11.5’ (on 9/26/22) TEST PIT DESIGNATION: TP-10 2 4.0’ 8.0’ 4.25’ 5.0’ 2.5’ 9.0’ 0.7’ 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 8 106 4 Nuclear Density Test at 3.5’ Dry Unit Wt. = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 13.3% Den Notes: 1. Nuclear Density Testing at 2.5’ Dry Unit Weight = 123 pcf Moisture Content = 3.6% ALLIEDENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 582-0221 Fax: (406) 582-5770 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 4 5 67 LOCATION: East 1/2 of Project Site 15.6% 21.1% 20.1% 42.4% 8.4% 7.9% N/A 8.3% 5.1% 3.4% 15.7% 24.9% 23.0% 21.4% 00.0% N/A 23.9% 2 8.5% S10-B @ 4.0’ (Sack) Comp. B @ 2.0’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S10-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) 17.3% 19.0% 17.4% 10.0% N/A 27.4% S10-A @ 2.0’ (Sack) 25.9% S1-C @ 4.0’ (Sack) 28.7% S1-D @ 5.0’ (Sack) 28.4% S1-E @ 6.0’ (Sack) 29.7% S1-F @ 7.0’ (Sack) 29.5% S1-G @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-E @ 9.0’ (Sack) 11.1% S2-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) S5-D @ 3.5’ (Sack) N/A Comp. A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ (Bucket) N/A Comp. 2 @ 1.5’ to 3.0’ (Bucket) S5-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) S2-C @ 6.0’ (Sack) S1-C @ 3.0’ (Sack) CS-2/5 @ 5.0’ (Bucket) N/A N/A S1-D @ 1.0’ to 2.0’ (Bucket) CS-1/2 @ 2.0’ (Bucket) S1-D @ 8.0’ (Sack) S2-B @ 5.3’ to 9.0’ S2-C @ 9.0’ to 10.5’ S2-D @ 10.5’ to 14.0’ S2-E @ 14.0’ to 15.0’ S-1 @ 1’ 7 Qu @ 4.0’ - 9.0’ = 0.5 - 1.5 tsf Percentage and size of shale fragments increases w/ depth. Density of layer appears to increase near a depth of 4.0’. No apparent bedding of rock fragments. Depth of roots TD = 12.0’ Assumed watertable based on seepage depth. Due to water pressure in pit walls, moderate soil caving began at depth of 6.0’. Caving was confined to the clays only. Very distinct North Natural Ground Slope South 4 5 6 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 121.0 % = 48.2 % = 72.8 % Atterberg Limits for S2-C Based on the orientation of the boundary between soil types, it appears that the soils dip toward the east at grades from 0 to 10 percent. Based on previous site grading, the test pit area is relatively flat. Soil consistency decreases w/ increased depth. 3 3 (See Figures 1, 2, & 3 for Approx. Location) Lab Testing Results: S1-C Gravel Portion Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index = 67.1% = 26.5% = 6.4% = NP = NP = NP @ 6.0’ (approx.) Soils were very moist; darker in color; and walls tended to cave. Qu > 3.5 tsf General Note: Depth to groundwater was measured about 0.5 hr after excavation. This is the “stabilized” groundwater table depth. Reviewed By: __________________ GENERAL NOTES: - Orange discoloration at 6.0’ may indicate high water - Sandy gravel below 6.0’ was silty to clayey and moist - Installed PVC monitoring well (4” diameter, 10’ long) No Samples CollectedLSE, 1/4/23GROUNDWATER MONITORING NOTE: Test pit explorations were dug before 2015 seasonal high groundwater date. If time permits, monitoring should be conducted during spring/summer of 2015 to identify high groundwater depth. Monitoring well installed (MW-10) Casing height = 9” (approx.) (*) Groundwater seepage entering pit at 13.0’ and below. If pit had been left open for longer period of time, groundwater would have risen to a depth of about 13.0’ (+/-). LAB TESTING RESULTS Composite A: S1-D, S2-D, S3-D Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture = 104.1 pcf = 17.6 % LAB TESTING RESULTS Sample: S2-B Sand Portion Silt/Clay Portion Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Classification = 2.4 % = 97.6 % = 36.5 % = 25.1 % = 11.4 % = ML “Target” foundation bearing in “clean” cobbly, sandy GRAVEL below 3.0’ depth. Orangish “banding” in gravels at 6.0’ (+/-).Could be a sign of seasonal high groundwater. General Note: From the top down, this TP was the most rocky of all four. Upon backfilling, the surface of this TP was the most difficult to clean up due to the quantity and size of the rocks. Soil profile turned dark brown and moist below 6.5’ depth, which may be an indication of seasonal high groundwater levels. 1 At 6.0’, small isolated pocket of silt/clay. Groundwater depth on 08/12/14 was 5.92’. No signs or evidence of seasonal high groundwater down to a depth of 3.0’ (+/-). Moisture break at 6.0’ (+/-). Moist to very moist and less stiff (softer) below this depth. Very moist/wet and very soft at 4.5’ (+/-). Based on saturated soil conditions, high groundwater could rise to a depth of 2.5’ (+/-). 2 POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 1.0’: Qu = 2.50, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75, 2.75 @ 2.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 @ 3.0’: Qu = >4.50, >4.50, >4.50, >4.50 Moisture break at 4.0’ (+/-). Very moist and softer below. Becomes more moist and less stiff w/ depth. Very moist/softer at 5.0’ (+/-). Orangish/reddish brown at 6.0’ (+/-). 1 2 3 {0.0’ - 1.0’}: Native Topsoil Stiff; black to dark brown; organic clayey SILT w/ roots; slightly moist. {1.0’ - 6.5’}: Native Silt/Clay Stiff to very stiff; brown to tan; sandy SILT to sandy lean CLAY; moist. Notes: - Stiff to very stiff throughout. - Qu = 2.0 to 3.0 tsf. - Moist throughout. - No noticeable moisture break w/ moister and less stiff soils below. - Some vugginess (ie. tiny pinholes). - No orange discolorations. - No caving of test pit walls. - Some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. - Based on lab testing, optimum moisture of Comp. B = 18.5%. - Unsuitable bearing material. {6.5’ - 12.0’}: Native Sandy Gravel Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL w/ abundant gravels and cobbles; slightly moist to wet. Notes: - “Clean” sandy gravel. - Smaller gravels w/ some cobbles. - Abundant 3” to 4”-minus gravels. - Scattered 6” to 8” cobbles. - No interbedded silt/clay seams. - “Target” bearing material. Very gravelly; but “dirty” w/ some intermixed silt/clay. “Clean” sandy gravel w/ abundant gravels and scattered cobbles. Smaller gravels in upper few feet; larger gravels and cobbles w/ depth. No random fill observed in TP-10. All soils are native. Very stiff to stiff throughout. Very stiff; slightly moist. Silt/clay w/ some gravels in lowermost 6 inches. Jet black topsoil; highly organic.All topsoil; no intermixed gravels.Some of the best topsoil in valley. Generally, stiff to very stiff and moist throughout. No noticeable moisture break w/ “moister” soils and “less stiff” soils below. No caving of test pit walls. Drier test pit; Similar to TP-1. Drier test pit (silt/clay). No orange discolorations. Some caving of test pit walls. Becomes less stiff and more moist w/ depth. Stiffer/drier topsoil. From 1.0’ - 2.0’: moist to verymoist; but stiffer than below. Medium stiff to soft; very moist. TP-1 is similar to TP-3, 4, & 5. In contrast, TP-2 was drier. No color change to orangish brown. All brown/tan throughout. Silt/clay was stiffer and not as moist as compared to TP-2 through TP-6. The soils in TP-1 are more similar to TP-7. Silt/clay pocket from 8.5’ to 10.0’ on south and west sides of pit. TP-1 was only pit where silt/clay pocket was found interbedded in sandy gravel. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Composite A @ 2.0’ to 4.0’ Max. Dry Density Optimum Moisture Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) pH Marble pH Conductivity Resistivity Soluble Sulfate = 106.0 pcf = 19.3 % = 36.0 % = 21.0 % = 15.0 % = 8.50 = 8.47 = 0.76 mmhos/cm3 = 690 ohm-cm = 0.0098 % POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENTS (tsf) @ 2.0’: Qu = 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00, 4.00 @ 3.0’: Qu = 2.25, 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.75 @ 4.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.75 @ 5.0’: Qu = 0.75, 0.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 @ 6.0’: Qu = 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75, 1.00 @ 7.0’: Qu = 1.00, 1.00, 1.25, 1.25, 1.25 @ 8.0’: Qu = 1.25, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50, 1.50 Monitoring well installed (MW-1) “Clean” gravel throughout. “Target” foundation bearing in sandy GRAVEL below 6.5’ depth. Important Note: Based on 2022 groundwater monitoring from June 10 to July 29, the highest (shallowest) groundwater during this limited time frame occurred in mid-June. In TP-1, it rose to a depth of 1.9’ below the existing ground surface. Similar to TPs 1, 4, 6, 8, & 9. Tested By: TS Checked By: NG LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CL-ML CL or OL CH or OHML or OL MH or OH Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 47 SOIL DATA SYMBOL SOURCE NATURAL USCSSAMPLEDEPTHWATERPLASTICLIQUIDPLASTICITY NO.CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX (%)(%)(%)(%) Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. 106 Pronghorn Trail, Suite A - Bozeman, MT 59718 Ph. 406-388-8578 - Fax 406-388-8579 Client: Project: Project No.:Figure Allied Engineering Fairfield 22-014 Lots 24-26, Nelson Meadows G22395 2.0' - 3.0'19 34 15 Lots 24-26, Nelson G22396 2.0' - 3.0'20 34 14 Tested By: TS Checked By: NG COMPACTION TEST REPORT Dry density, pcf100.5 102 103.5 105 106.5 108 Water content, % 12 13.5 15 16.5 18 19.5 21 17.6%, 106.5 pcf ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.60 Test specification:ASTM D 698-91 Procedure B Standard 2.0' - 3.0'2.65 34 15 0.04 Composite A from TP-1 though TP-4. 22-014 Allied Engineering Specific Gravity is assumed at 2.65 10/3/2022 Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.3/8 in.No.200 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Project No.Client:Remarks: Project: Date: Source of Sample: Lots 24-26, Nelson Meadows Sample Number: G22395 Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. 106 Pronghorn Trail, Suite A - Bozeman, MT 59718 Ph. 406-388-8578 - Fax 406-388-8579 Figure Maximum dry density = 106.5 pcf Optimum moisture = 17.6 % Fairfield Tested By: TS Checked By: NG COMPACTION TEST REPORT Dry density, pcf100 101 102 103 104 105 Water content, % 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 18.5%, 104.2 pcf ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.60 Test specification:ASTM D 698-91 Procedure B Standard 2.0' - 3.0'2.65 34 14 0.07 Composite B from TP-5 through TP-10 22-014 Allied Engineering Specific Gravity is assumed at 2.65. 10/3/2022 Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.3/8 in.No.200 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Project No.Client:Remarks: Project: Date: Source of Sample: Lots 24-26, Nelson Meadows Sample Number: G22396 Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. 106 Pronghorn Trail, Suite A - Bozeman, MT 59718 Ph. 406-388-8578 - Fax 406-388-8579 Figure Maximum dry density = 104.2 pcf Optimum moisture = 18.5 % Fairfield 1315 Cherry, Helena, MT 59601 (406)449-6282 Client:Pioneer Technical Services Date Reported:25-Oct-21 Sample ID:Comp A @ 2.0-4.0 TP-1 Project ID:GT Allied Engineering Chain of Custody #:1676 Laboratory ID:03L319 Date / Time Sampled:None Given Sample Matrix:Soil Date / Time Received:21-Oct-21 @ 14:44 Method Parameter Result PQL Date/Time By Reference Soluble Sulfate, %0.0098 0.00005 22-Oct-21 @ 15:32 CE EPA 300.0 pH, s.u.8.50 0.01 22-Oct-21 @ 12:20 CE MT 232-04 Marble pH, s.u.8.47 0.01 25-Oct-21 @ 12:15 CE MT 232-04 Comments: PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit References: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, US EPA, 600/4-79-020 Method of Sampling and Testing MT232-04, Soil Corrosion Test (Montana Method). Reviewed by: Analyzed Page 1 of 3 1315 Cherry, Helena, MT 59601 (406)449-6282 Client:Pioneer Technical Services Date Reported:25-Oct-21 Sample ID:Comp E @ 2.0-4.0 TP-5 Project ID:GT Allied Engineering Chain of Custody #:1676 Laboratory ID:03L320 Date / Time Sampled:None Given Sample Matrix:Soil Date / Time Received:21-Oct-21 @ 14:44 Method Parameter Result PQL Date/Time By Reference Soluble Sulfate, %0.0036 0.00005 22-Oct-21 @ 15:42 CE EPA 300.0 pH, s.u.8.66 0.01 22-Oct-21 @ 12:20 CE MT 232-04 Marble pH, s.u.8.62 0.01 25-Oct-21 @ 12:15 CE MT 232-04 Comments: PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit References: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, US EPA, 600/4-79-020 Method of Sampling and Testing MT232-04, Soil Corrosion Test (Montana Method). Reviewed by: Analyzed Page 2 of 3 LIMITATIONS OF YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ARE PROJECT AND CLIENT SPECIFIC Geotechnical investigations, analyses, and recommendations are project and client specific. Each project and each client have individual criterion for risk, purpose, and cost of evaluation that are considered in the development of scope of geotechnical investigations, analyses and recommendations. For example, slight changes to building types or use may alter the applicability of a particular foundation type, as can a particular client’s aversion or acceptance of risk. Also, additional risk is often created by scope-of- service limitations imposed by the client and a report prepared for a particular client (say a construction contractor) may not be applicable or adequate for another client (say an architect, owner, or developer for example), and vice-versa. No one should apply a geotechnical report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consulting geotechnical engineer. Geotechnical reports should be made available to contractors and professionals for information on factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted in the exploration logs and discussed in the report. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Geotechnical conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Geotechnical reports are based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Construction operations such as cuts, fills, or drains in the vicinity of the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE The site exploration and sampling process interprets subsurface conditions using drill action, soil sampling, resistance to excavation, and other subjective observations at discrete points on the surface and in the subsurface. The data is then interpreted by the engineer, who applies professional judgment to render an opinion about over-all subsurface conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled or observed may differ from those predicted in your report. Retaining your consultant to advise you during the design process, review plans and specifications, and then to observe subsurface construction operations can minimize the risks associated with the uncertainties associated with such interpretations. The conclusions described in your geotechnical report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploration and sampling are indicative of actual Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 2 conditions throughout a site. A more complete view of subsurface conditions is often revealed during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe earthwork to confirm conditions and/or to provide revised recommendations if necessary. Allied Engineering cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report’s recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. EXPLORATIONS LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT Final explorations logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final exploration logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical reports. These final logs should not be redrawn for inclusion in Architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of exploration log misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical report and should be advised of its limitations and purpose. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with Allied Engineering and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. OWNERSHIP OF RISK AND STANDARD OF CARE Because geotechnical engineering is much less exact than other design disciplines, there is more risk associated with geotechnical parameters than with most other design issues. Given the hidden and variable character of natural soils and geologic hazards, this risk is impossible to eliminate with any amount of study and exploration. Appropriate geotechnical exploration, analysis, and recommendations can identify and lesson these risks. However, assuming an appropriate geotechnical evaluation, the remaining risk of unknown soil conditions and other geo-hazards typically belongs to the owner of a project unless specifically transferred to another party such as a contractor, insurance company, or engineer. The geotechnical engineer’s duty is to provide professional services in accordance with their stated scope and consistent with the standard of practice at the present time and in the subject geographic area. It is not to provide insurance against geo-hazards or unanticipated soil conditions. The conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are opinions based our professional judgment and the project parameters as relayed by the client. The conclusions and recommendations assume that site conditions are not substantially different than those exposed by the explorations. If during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present, Allied Engineering should be advised at once such that we may review those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. RETENTION OF SOIL SAMPLES Allied Engineering will typically retain soil samples for one month after issuing the geotechnical report. If you would like to hold the samples for a longer period of time, you should make specific arrangements to have the samples held longer or arrange to take charge of the samples yourself. APPENDIX G ADS Chamber Details Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:54:44 PMC7.3 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:55:23 PMC7.4 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION 106 East Babcock St. 106 East Babcock St. Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:55:53 PMC7.5 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:56:22 PMC7.6 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:56:56 PMC7.7 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:57:28 PMC7.8 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:58:00 PMC7.9 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:58:37 PMC7.10 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:59:07 PMC7.11 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 12:59:36 PMC7.12 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Issue Date ThinkOne Architects 101 E Main St. Studio 1 Bozeman, MT, 59715 T: 406-586-7020 Architect MEP Engineer Landscape Architect Civil Engineer Seal Project Number Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C. 3198 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 T: 303-294-9448 Associate Architect Structural Engineer Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-587-0721 Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock St. Suite L1 Bozeman, MT 59715 T: 406-522-9876 1/25/2023 1:00:05 PMC7.13 ADS DETAILS CS RPE RPE 21-723BARNARD OFFICE HQ 21-723 BOZEMAN, MT ROYAL WOLF WAY01/25/23SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BARNARD CONSTRUCTION Barnard Headquarters Project No. 22285 APPENDIX H Groundwater Monitoring Data 3/30/2018 4/6/2018 4/13/2018 4/19/2018 4/27/2018 5/4/2018 5/11/2018 5/18/2018 5/25/2018 6/1/2018 6/8/2018 6/15/2018 6/22/2018 6/29/2018 7/5/2018 7/13/2018 7/27/2018 8/16/2018 1 7.21 6.97 6.41 6.19 6.12 6.63 6.74 7.03 6.98 7.12 7.26 7.54 6.23 7.29 7.48 7.73 8.18 - 2 6.36 6.46 5.92 5.67 5.49 6.26 6.50 6.73 6.64 6.91 6.97 7.26 7.15 6.77 7.32 7.67 8.31 - 3 ------------------ 4 6.36 6.70 6.36 6.36 6.28 6.86 7.02 7.23 7.11 7.40 7.50 7.53 7.55 7.71 7.86 --- 5 5.57 5.84 5.52 5.54 5.49 5.93 5.99 6.19 6.00 6.22 6.28 6.42 6.31 6.43 6.59 6.92 7.49 - 6 5.16 5.34 4.93 4.93 4.89 5.35 5.40 5.65 5.43 5.66 5.74 5.95 5.77 5.86 6.00 6.35 6.86 - 7 6.61 6.74 6.28 6.27 6.29 6.68 6.71 6.98 6.82 6.93 7.05 7.30 6.95 6.88 7.23 7.35 7.71 - 8 ---7.89 7.09 7.81 8.04 8.22 8.19 8.35 8.43 --8.54 ---- 9 8.16 7.91 7.59 7.19 6.55 6.68 6.78 6.89 6.79 6.94 7.02 7.28 7.41 7.54 7.65 8.04 -- 10 4.55 4.55 4.16 4.09 3.93 4.15 4.17 4.32 4.10 4.28 4.35 4.47 4.38 4.43 4.67 5.03 5.57 6.00 11 ------------------ 12 ------------------ *NOTE: During the Week of 6/15/2018 to 6/23/2018 Bozeman, MT received 1.83" of rain. Red highlighted cells indicate the highest groundwater depth measured. Cells that have a value of " - " means that no water was present within the monitoring well at the time of measurement. Well Value in each cell is the measurement from the ground level at each monitoring well to the static water level in each well. Nelson Meadows - Weekly Water Levels (FT) DATES 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 7.00 7.25 7.50 7.75 8.00 8.25 8.50 8.75 3/22/2018 3/29/2018 4/5/2018 4/12/2018 4/19/2018 4/26/2018 5/3/2018 5/10/2018 5/17/2018 5/24/2018 5/31/2018 6/7/2018 6/14/2018 6/21/2018 6/28/2018 7/5/2018 7/12/2018 7/19/2018 7/26/2018 8/2/2018 8/9/2018 8/16/2018 8/23/2018 8/30/2018Groundwater depth (feet)Date Nelson Meadows Groundwater Depth Well 1 Well 2 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 Well 9 well 10 Hunt MapLayers