Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC - Storm Drainage Calcs
Prepared For: Zenith Subdivision No. 1 Brighton Development, Inc. and Meridian, Idaho City of Meridian Storm Drainage Report SS\p N A L e4,0 \CENSF Digitally signed by Lachlin Kinsella,P.E. Date:2026.02.17 168 6 0 12:34:02-07'00' u,, 2/17/26 0 �C, qTF OF tiz/N C. Reviewed By: Lachlin Kinsella, P.E. Ikinsella@kmengllp.com Prepared By: Jeff Duplechain, EIT KM Engineering, LLP 5725 North Discovery Way Boise, I D 83713 208.639.6939 jduplechain@kmengllp.com Ian February 2026 Project No: 26-005 E N G I N E E R I N G TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 ProjectDescription ...................................................................................................................... 1 SiteDescription............................................................................................................................... 1 Scopeand Methods........................................................................................................................ 1 Existing Drainage Conditions .......................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Drainage Conditions and Analysis.................................................................................. 1 Inletand Gutter Capacities............................................................................................................. 2 Temporary Drainage Ponds ............................................................................................................ 2 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 2 APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Post-Development Drainage Map Figure 3 -Storm Water Improvement Plans Appendix B - Tables Table 1 - Peak Flow Rates and Runoff Volumes Appendix C - Calculations Post-Development 25-year Calculations Post-Development 100-year Calculations Inlet and Gutter Capacities Temporary Drainage Pond Calculations Appendix D - Geotechnical Engineering Report & Groundwater Data Apex Zenith Subdivision Geotechnical Investigation (Atlas, 1/22/2025) Ground Water Monitoring Report — Pinnacle Meridian 70 Project (Natural Resources Solutions, 11/6/2026) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to show that the storm drainage facilities for the proposed Zenith Subdivision No. 1 (Project) are designed to meet Ada County Highway District (ACHD), City of Meridian, and the water quality requirements of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This report has been prepared at the request of the developer, Brighton Development, Inc. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the first phase of a commercial subdivision that includes a private roadway for future access to the commercial pads on site. The proposed improvements to the site include roadways, sidewalks, and site utilities. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection between E. Lake Hazel Rd and S. Meridian Rd in Meridian, Idaho. See Appendix A, Figure 1 for a vicinity map of the project. The proposed project area is 11.11 acres. SCOPE AND METHODS The stormwater system for the Project has been designed per the 2017 ACHD Stormwater Policy. The Rational Method is the standard method for small catchments and was used to calculate post-development peak runoff rates and runoff volumes. The Rational Method provided in the ACHD calculation sheets was used to calculate the storm water volumes and flow rates for this project (see Appendix C - Calculations). Flow rates and storm volumes were established for each basin for the 25-year and 100-year storms. Refer to Appendix B, Table 1 - Peak Flow Rates and Runoff Volumes, for a summary of flow rates and runoff volumes. Calculations for the temporary drainage ponds were completed to verify capacity. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The pre-project watershed consists primarily of agricultural land that was previously irrigated mainly through open channels prior to the beginning of the Apex Zenith Roadway and Utilities Phase 1 project. There are no existing drainage facilities in place to reduce the peak runoff volumes prior to discharging off site. PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS The proposed drainage system improvements consist of roadway inlets and gutters and temporary drainage ponds on site. The post-development site was broken into five (5) basins as shown in Appendix A, Figure 2 - Post-Development Drainage Map. For land use type and runoff coefficients (0.95 — impervious) for each basin, refer to the ACHD calculations in Appendix C. Each basin was delineated according to the tributary area draining to each drainage structure or facility such as gutter, catch basin inlet, etc. For individual sub-basin peak flow calculations see Table 1 (Peak Flow Rates and Runoff Volumes). 1 The proposed drainage basins include the proposed roadways, curb and gutters, and sidewalks. Storm water runoff consists of overland sheet flow that is conveyed with curb and gutter to catch basin inlets. The storm water runoff is then conveyed from the catch basin inlets to the proposed temporary drainage ponds. INLET AND GUTTER CAPACITIES The catch basin inlets should be built per the details shown on the civil construction plans. There is a total of five (5) single inlets. Based on our calculations, all inlets will require a single sump grate or on grade grate inlet to intercept the flows. The gutter capacity of the proposed roadways was verified to ensure that overtopping of the curb would not occur in the 25-year and 100-year storm event (refer to Appendix C— Inlet and Gutter Capacities). TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PONDS The Project includes five (5)temporary ponds (Temporary Pond #1-5) that should be built per the details shown on the civil construction plans. Based on our calculations, the temporary ponds are adequately sized to ensure that no ponding should occur on the surface and the volume required to retain the 100-year storm event are met. Once the sizes of the temporary ponds were calculated, the times necessary for 90% of the 100-year storm events to be infiltrated into the ground were calculated at less than 48-hours for each of the temporary ponds. The design infiltration rate at 1 in/hr was used in the calculations and is based on the recommended rate for sandy silt sediments from the geotechnical report prepared by Atlas with a 50% reduction factor. The calculations included with this report show the volumes that are required to be retained for the 100-year storm and the drain time through the bottom of the temporary drainage ponds. Refer to Appendix B, Tables and Appendix C, Temporary Drainage Pond Calculations. SUMMARY This report determines that the Project storm water design sizing and analysis should conform to ACHD, City of Meridian, and the water quality requirements of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The post-development storm water runoff for the roadway, curb and gutters, and sidewalks should be completely retained onsite through the proposed temporary ponds. 2 APPENDIX A - FIGURES Z Q 0 w E. LAKE HAZEL RD. PROJECT 0 a a x 0 m a 0 a O 3 0 N 0 0 N Z Q S U w a C7 0 a Q Z v g 0 1000 2000 3000 N N Plan Scale: 1" = 1000' Z E N G I N E E R I N G 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY X PHONE(08)639-6939 APEX ZENITH SUBDIVISION NO. 1 o kmengllp.com MERIDIAN U � DATE: 2/10/2026 > PROJECT: 26-005 0 SHEET: VICINITY MAP E1.3 a NoiiD iSNOD �103 lON - Al IVN I W 133]d V Q Q Y to Ln Z Q a a � NO O al >- N — > rI� a 1191HX3 3J`dNlb'2�a 1N31Nd0�3/�3a-1SOd WMcr W O 00O m ° coN U LU a W N = � — � C 0 r 4 N N` lGW3W Z005 LnZ } > coo w IIVCI Alli 'ON z 0 0 m m o Z Z 'ON NOISInIa9f1S HlIN3Z Z rl z z Y sNoisin3� z L N Q w o W W = a a- _ Lu o o v o a c!I a N P7 � Lt7 Ln z comom Z Z Z Z Z O 00000 d D 0 o D o Z ry Vr Nr7Lnaaaaa D Of Of � Of N 00000 w wwwLLJLLJ CL CL a � J J J J J W W W W W Z Z Z Z Z F- F F- � NrM4Lnc0I� a00; O D I D Z Q w Z 0 W I O L C7 2 a O O W (N Q Z J Ld LJJ p Z C 5 Wp 0 O N a O a (� Z Ld W n J Q p p N p Z m Q Q Z Ld a U) V) N Ld I Z L� CD o `��� I .,• � III Ij � � � / � � � �I I / JI I I I � i i � I Id,b I � I I I II I I o0 00I I „Z s I I I I •I I � I I' � CV I II I N I I I I I I O z I , � I I I I • II \ � I r - 1 I wl w I , I I I I II MINI � I III I I. III I I IJ r � •• , I a I I I � � I I •1 I N / • N H I $II(II�`Z�® II/)�I Ie''1II II II'eII:MI j„IIII•�I~(.I.'•"``°L,lIII',II,j I iI�•'.\,�,��IIIItII III�aaa,�aI_�I�I Ia—�-�[—I—. _I—I I �_—�Id,—�N—`,-9 C�r�I_o1-/ —\�N—II*I I�II I—� 1—N/--/1 „—Om�—/OI l.S—I���L\—`ZI�I INIIpII„I—`l "��_—---II—1°T----��a--—_\--L—�—f—\)��L—zNi,I I,II—ll�—r aW�f•��1 1��+III'I—IN 3 WOp—O IiIIIII�III I I I lJ�1��\�NL II'I II\�•\�•I'i;�II�IIl� L,a a G rL f - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -d„9 ��9 Id„9 Id„9 Id„9 Id„9 Id„9 „9 am M„8 cos„8 - — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — to as ZI to coo - - -W Nv 40 ji LU CN w�18"G to cN M cN N 00 I \• yI—:►I l�\'1 I\I l� - - - - - - - - - - - - I — — — — — � — T PO ° _ �J \I�— �d„\ \ s ij --- du, -27 ............................ - 51 - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — —'Old NVIGN3W 'S — — — — — — — —� \�\— lI1II y •��'JI�I\I\—'\ — \\\C 1\1\I I�\I\• 1 II III,,II /I [Ald]I b£XZZ'£Dd'dOd 01 9M0'9ZOZ/LT/Z'Vll3SN IX NIIHJVI'9M0'39VNIVU(1 1N3 W d013A30 1SOd-3 S00-9Z\39VNIV210\S1191HX3\(JVD\IIAID\S00-9Z\:d NOIlDndiSNOD d03 ION - AdVN I W IIRld U N O > Q Q J O O R b�� Z am N . 4w CD ° C E U ° M O OS O W Q ,? (DOc U W Q ¢ o °° LL U co 31da W311 ON Z 'ON NOISI/�1a8 f1S H11 N3Z Z ^ m (CO o Lij w w sNoisln3� z �, LU Q m: < o Lil W = Q _ w Q Q U o a w O zQzw0 z ww 2 n Qa W. 0 Q�o�0 w �N Cr_ cnQ �� z .L °° Pm w z o cn O 0 0 r cn woan— <WJzm3o =o� w UUJ z ~2 z Nz wv Z Q 2 ()fQQQN�'azzQZ� �inw a�rn W Un2wLd z( N J�Zzo PO U >> O�m�p0 >OW��O o�WOWw �0N ~�=~~O� WQ QQQQQ0- w� 0Q0 Q QO�UnQ00W JQ02U/) rn0NwmW F_ J0 ~ZNQH gN Z- NQ W z Q WU ��UQQUWUW U . J� wN2Q JQ} LYUW W z�HOZ M Oj Q U ZQdL��QZO_QU Z W W Q�JW aZWw QU~W gW O_ o� Q p WmN Q WU-zW 20-zm (n mwm Qm wW>- 2(n�000� QNZQO- U U Z z 2 O-Z--QSZZO_U^ Q= �Z JW a-m MM<W HE~-z00Q � Z O Q- JQQ V'I U X� NH000WZ O 0_N JN� Z w20- UWW2 m QJO_ZJ WJ Z wJJ � Q wXN�UUQWOONw Hm 2z~NJO J0_JN �WZm�L_H Q uj<} ( > ma- 0_ mQNW W O Q ()f Q�J(�>O J QM N=wZWO_ 2%2N 0 couu_ W >O �L�QNQ Q O J �' 0_ 2 w < z w Qp<N~��NLi <cl� Q0 o~ocn_J �UnUn3 0 000 ow- �zWz0M �o = 2 ��C) 3N o cn�o Z N� UW °ZOHQNQ WQ W'v) <<m W=UJ JCE0 2 w Q ��m0(0 o_� \/ \ 2 NOHD J WOZ UJ W ZL�Z-Qb� Q N H (nU (n-Q _ X Q Q W HZ�i L1.J C� o O2 O�Zp �Q ZJO_ �W QQ�H JO(n 0_�ZOO_ J mW Q (n� /\\/ JZ w 0-� z 0f U Q O �w�3�rnWN�2�z =0- 2 WwoO F_O Q~Z2 wW W Qp �Wm WO / /• QO 0- o g Qw z o 2 2 0 awQ pQ� ~<r �� �_cn>ml� 0 M�Q o o Z \/\\/\ z� O HQ N o Zoe _ U W 2 O m 0 J 2 H 2 Q N N 0 >L�0_UnH OOf�Z OJ 02D(� wa�u oOm D2 U \ \ OI w0 Q W I jNJOONJUJ Li �W NQm I �WUQJw WH�w �p wW O2W 0Q O ~M-M _ LJ2 ///\//\//� QW W ZU) Q w O>Q Jmw2 �Q X -E DW WOW-j OW H_HQQ�w 0_ OZQ(n (n Q~ \ \ W J Q H Q (' 0_ �Q0_ U W?�Z~wJ~QWZW Wm Hw 0_ W V)p� W QZQ U��U� 00 (nZ U�Nzp� W \//////// (nW M. QZ Z O HU Q_Jza< 000Q~a Q( gw=Ld acnacn <z Z<a-ZMQW wQ <z -OQz �o \ \ \ Z ��< " Q o two w �mNN�<~wQ' o� �cwi Q o a: � ZQoo z��z��ao Z� zpwz°pQ oo \\\\\\\\\\ / a ~ao o zww 2 Q wWX Q� 0- Wz O o >2� ao J �a� c~io Qw �JOZJ /�\�/�\/j\\ \ m §E�� o �z NN z0 Q�O0 '�'��o vi Qa ~o-o�o�p o Q p a c2i ~" / wZQ pQ w �p 0 w�O�OQQti >o Nw 0�U) �QO� wa�_jz��w Jo wQzaoz wQ /\\/\\/\/ i Ow Q of w� O wwa�apLL o� J>�oa J ao w / �oZ Q wo 0 �SSaaaw w�aJ 0-z JOOHO-LL, _j SWU) g 32 Jz 20_Q-WQ Sz ��Q z�2 oz 0QHHQ QO_Z0_QQJ 0-W 000_UnQJUn <ww0_ H0_Q 0-Zw QW H0mCLMm HQ /\// 00<0_ O~(n z -L,L,0HC)LL, Q m U Q W l.L 2 - W Q \/\/ /\� OZZ �00J >_L� N-rUwQw 0: p� \/ L I�J�(ZOQ � J J J J J OWN QoOQ050N Q Q Q Q Q Q Y / QZZ W O� L W W W W Q �� LL�I / Z a �wwOW�Q QLd Q Q Q Q Q o Ld m3 c \/ m Ld - QQ0f N > / p ~ �0 �ZUSZ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0 0_ 2 Q W W W W W Un X O Q D \/ 2LLj ZHO J (nHJ H O_ 0- / Q ZQU Q zQ W W W W W Cl. Q / > Qom- WZW Q W W Z H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 Q Q Q \ Q O O Q� H ~ ZOO Q 2 Q 2 Q 2 Q 2 Q 2 z w � 0_ U Z�ZwO0 z - > > > > > Q \w / Q w w-- O J W \ \ \ \ \ Q 0 2 0- / X N 0_ li N LLl:d z (Y z (Y z � z � z m \/ W }w0wZ w (DE ZZ)Q Cl. Cl. o w 0 / Ir 00 ZH(n 0 Zp QOQ w z / w ZO_�QU L� z~ V) �� II 0 Z II 0 Z II L � II u u � II u u U _j1 // > �wp0�Qz> O �Z mao QZQ �o� QZ� �rn(D QZQ �rlL0 QZQ �'t0 QZ- Ldr(0 N io 1 D �� o woJw0Nw UJ OQ Q�� p- QNN o x QNM p^ QNN p- QNN p x QMM Q Z �— / //\ Q Q�Q� SQ z J 0cl� x 0 0-� 0 0-x o o x o o o Z g / 2 -QS-oUQ Q al,Jc, z u u 0 z u u z u u z u u 0 z u u 'y' o \\ \\ ` N o c��w�Qw Q U W 0)0 �-�� �. LO CO �• rn rn � X CO 00 J // /\ \//\ W H W W� 0_OO�0OQ0 xcp 000 QOONN900 Q OWodgQQ 0_ x O_QQ 0_ H O O_ \0_ ZW W < x W W QJ��Hw W < x W W < x W W <-j W W H Yw /\\ \/\ \\/ O Qw0Q0L� Q Zw00=z �" MM��� �OMM��� �" r) ofof �" MM��0 0OMtoO Q W ZW \ ��/ /� U >U�U 0_ Un Q> Z O CL r,r-�Q> O�r,I-�Q> CL r, �Q> r, HD> p�l�l��D Q / // z/ MQ Z w cn- 0 0 0 Cl.a a m "�' / /' QJ-Wzwo O z\ M w�NNJOO W�NNJOo in LLICY O w�NNJOO uj LLICY O _ Z /\/�0 �� I Q H >�HOHF-Z Z w� a � wo- � wo- � wo- � wo- � wo- o \ �g \ Mz � w o'zo'pZvi a J_N LL 0-o LL o o LL o o L`0 a L`0 a Cl LL- J z mU 0' F-LLI'' �w>r'Iz �wr'r'Iz �wr''r''z �wr''r''z C) / / /� ON Z Q-Z0Z�c�QLLJ JZ HIYLd HO JS J J W W JS LLIJ J W W JS J J W W JS J J W Ld JS J J W W J > \\/\\/`w�` � (%jO 0_000_OOZJ J �Q OWOW JNWLLJ JNW WZ�� JNW WZ�� JNW WZ�M JNW WZ�� J 0_W /\/\� N~ WU C�(nUC�UmWO_ LLI 2m0-0-ZZ Q �» Q �» Q 0» Q ODD Q O�� Q 0-J /\//\//� ~J O U gU)0-W(nJJ HN W W(nJJ HN W W(nJJ HN 0_WUnJJ �200W00 �200W00 �200W00 N2O0WO0 N7O0WO0 N HW //%//j//�� ZLi Z� c�i r�i (n zHHHQ» z >> z >> ZHHHQ» ZHHHQ» ? N M U) cD W 00 \� O ..I• i i 1T � � I i } i Tr -jf3 - - - - °I Z1 719. l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - — — — —— — — —— — — —— — — —— — — — — — - Id«9 Id«9 Id«9 Id„9 Id„9 Id„9 Id„9 Id„9 Id„9 Id«9 Id«9 M«8 M« M. M,8 M„8 M„8 M„8 M„8 8 M„8 M„8 M..8 M„8 M„8 M„8 M„8 M„8 a •8 nx ,M Nl Wf11N3WOW 'S ° �M, - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - °.1' — — -_ - v— N — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �°° `. z cn- _ — — — J c0 0) Q U-)04 NaON I _ - z \ 1 � ✓ �/ 0) 000 QN W 0 11 I O (OD0) N 04 UO) Q LL,2 " rn 0 I I N M N rM- ^ cn _j 0 t ~0 O N00 00 �k(n N N 2 p II (V HQN� 0 II 0 I 3 ti' I<a I JU: > � N- ()0 N I, m ZQFr(n KOo M@ I II Z I j �• I cc II I p I3 h I LC) O I ° I I I I (]S Zlffw '~• I � I I W �• � > i ° I I I I I 00 I ZLU II I I la I I O I I00LU II O I I I Q I �G Tr_ EG 03 I o O I �„8 ~ z N Z „w Lu I J _ wl ~' 103 03 I EG� I 1 00 \ \ ~ I I CO II \ \ \ \ 2 ` 1N3W3SV3 )dnilfl I I II N N \ \ \ \ INbI(]I?J3W Jo ulo <sC 100 I _ O Z 0 o 1N3W3SV3 30VNIVZ2 Cl I I `O II N CO 0 o u r i Q I h�MS GNV `S3uniin onend I �7_ O No M r N N y I `SST03/SS32JON1 I ' ) cn \\ \\\No II \ \ \ I I ro I O M N �QN� 0rn0 c00 > N \ \ J \ \ 00 II MQ�� N�� ZQO_(n ZC'JC'J 0N® N D6 11 0 \ \ \ 1 I 0 I I `I w=N 0 0 18"G 0- 11 i0 U�2 >04Z \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ QFr(n -00 \ \ ` -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I \ I -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8"w 8"w s"w 811w -as z( G / II \ � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - I — \ \ m Ic) g w00—co En l a i0 2M rn I III 2� F-0_MO N p N — J � N O Z N N 0 0 \ \ \ \ ® M N M Z® ��0- 0(n0 \ °\ Z N �E2 rN0 N. N CO I 2 O- \ \ Q Z Z Q Q (n N O \ 1 N O O Q o co > 1 1 f N " Z 1 1 I I 1 � I I I I I I III II I � I :I ICI -I I (0 I I I• 4 1 0 :I I 1 +ems 1s� 1 I _ l�d� Id„91ri _/ — —— - --•--- ---__ I I I I I I I \ II — — — — — — — — — — — — ri o I - - Ita I - - - - - - - - - - - - Iab NVI(II i3W 'S I - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' � I d3-- d3 d3 — d3 d3 d3 d3 d3— d3 _ d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 — — — — [d(]d]l b£XZZ'£JdACId 01 E)M4'9Z0Z/LL/Z'Vl13SNIX NIIHDVVE)MO*VTd01S-J 500-9Z\SNVld NOiiDn'-LSNOJ\4tlJ\lIAIJ\S00-9Z\d APPENDIX B - TABLES Table 1 - Peak Flow Rates and Runoff Volumes Post-Development Peak Flow Rates (cfs) Tc (min.) 25-yr 100-yr Basin A 10.0 0.11 0.16 Basin B 10.0 0.16 0.23 Basin C 10.0 0.14 0.19 Basin D 10.0 0.13 0.19 Basin E 10.0 0.18 0.26 Post-Development Runoff Volumes Volume (cf) Volume (cf) Required Provided Basin A-Temp Pond #1 209 265 Basin B-Temp Pond#2 305 346 Basin C-Temp Pond#3 246 265 Basin D-Temp Pond #41 243 1 265 Basin E -Temp Pond #51 337 1 346 APPENDIX C - CALCULATIONS POST-DEVELOPMENT 25-YEAR CALCULATIONS ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin A 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 25 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 2,848 Acres 0.07 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 1 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 1.85 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) Qpeak 0.11 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 154 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 134 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 15 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 139 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 154 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin A ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.x1sm 2/17/2026,10:51 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin B 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 25 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 4,041 Acres 0.09 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 1 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 1.85 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) Opeak 0.16 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 219 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 190 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 22 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 197 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 219 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin B ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xism 2/17/2026,10:52 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin C 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 25 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 3,350 Acres 0.08 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avgl 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 1.85 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) QpeA 0.14 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 181 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 158 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 18 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 163 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 181 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin C ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xlsm 2/17/2026,10:53 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin D 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 25 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 3,313 Acres 0.08 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avgl 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 1.85 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) Qpeak 0.13 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 179 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 156 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 18 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 162 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 179 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin D ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.x1sm 2/17/2026,10:53 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin E 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 25 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 4,581 Acres 0.11 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 1 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 1.85 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) Opeak 0.18 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 248 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 216 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 25 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 223 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 248 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin E ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xlsm 2/17/2026,10:53 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 POST-DEVELOPMENT 100-YEAR CALCULATIONS ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin A 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 2,848 Acres 0.07 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 1 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 2.58 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) QpeA 0.16 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 215 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 134 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 21 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 193 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 215 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin A ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.x1sm 2/17/2026,10:55 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin B 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 4,041 Acres 0.09 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 1 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 2.58 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) OpeA 0.23 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 305 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 190 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 30 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 274 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 305 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin B ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xism 2/17/2026,10:56 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin C 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 3,350 Acres 0.08 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avgl 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 2.58 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) QpeA 0.19 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 252 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 158 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 25 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 227 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 252 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin C ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xlsm 2/17/2026,10:56 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin D 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 3,313 Acres 0.08 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avgl 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 2.58 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) QpeA 0.19 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 250 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 156 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 25 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 225 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 250 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin D ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.x1sm 2/17/2026,10:56 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Steps for Peak Discharge Rate using the Rational M�1171ated for post-developme Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin E 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) Click to Show More Subbasins C Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 4,581 Acres 0.11 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 1 0.95 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate to Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface min - Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"( 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 2.58 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) QpeA 0.26 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 345 ft3 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=CI(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) err 216 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 35 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 311 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel 0.75 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 345 ftj Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 O. Adapted from ASCE P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin E ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xism 2/17/2026,10:56 AM Version 10.5,November 2018 INLET AND GUTTER CAPACITIES Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: 26-005 Inlet and Gutter Designer:Jeff Duplechain,EIT Project Date: February 17, 2026 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Curb and Gutter Analysis: Basin A - Curb and Gutter Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0060 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Depressed Gutter Geometry Cross-Slope of Gutter: 0.0420 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0170 Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.1600 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 3.5644 ft Gutter Depression: 0.3960 in Area of Flow: 0.1518 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.8381 Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.2514 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 0.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P- 1-1/8 Grate Width: 1.5000 ft Grate Length: 2.2700 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Effective Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Area: 2.0430 ft12 Effective Area: 2.0430 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.0468 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 2.2644 ft Flow type:Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 Curb and Gutter Analysis: Basin B - Curb and Gutter Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0060 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Depressed Gutter Geometry Cross-Slope of Gutter: 0.0420 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0170 Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.2300 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 4.2271 ft Gutter Depression: 0.3960 in Area of Flow: 0.2034 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.7632 Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.4105 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 0.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P- 1-1/8 Grate Width: 1.5000 ft Grate Length: 2.2700 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Effective Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Area: 2.0430 ft^2 Effective Area: 2.0430 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.0596 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 2.9047 ft Flow type:Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 Curb and Gutter Analysis: Basin C - Curb and Gutter Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0060 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Depressed Gutter Geometry Cross-Slope of Gutter: 0.0420 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0170 Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.1900 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 3.8693 ft Gutter Depression: 0.3960 in Area of Flow: 0.1745 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.8031 Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.3246 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: 45 degree tilt-bar w/2-1/4 in Grate Width: 1.5000 ft Grate Length: 2.2700 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Intercepted Flow: 0.1687 cfs Bypass Flow: 0.0213 cfs Approach Velocity: 1.0890 ft/s Splash-over Velocity: 5.4346 ft/s Efficiency: 0.8877 Curb and Gutter Analysis: Basin D - Curb and Gutter Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0060 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Depressed Gutter Geometry Cross-Slope of Gutter: 0.0420 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0170 Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.1900 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 3.8251 ft Gutter Depression: 0.3960 in Area of Flow: 0.1711 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.8081 Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.3140 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 0.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P- 1-1/8 Grate Width: 1.5000 ft Grate Length: 2.2700 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Effective Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Area: 2.0430 ft12 Effective Area: 2.0430 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.0525 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 2.5483 ft Flow type:Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 Curb and Gutter Analysis: Basin E - Curb and Gutter Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0060 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Depressed Gutter Geometry Cross-Slope of Gutter: 0.0420 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0170 Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.2600 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 4.4192 ft Gutter Depression: 0.3960 in Area of Flow: 0.2200 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.7426 Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.4566 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 0.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P- 1-1/8 Grate Width: 1.5000 ft Grate Length: 2.2700 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Effective Perimeter: 5.2700 ft Area: 2.0430 ft12 Effective Area: 2.0430 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.0647 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 3.1584 ft Flow type:Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 TEMPORARY POND CALCULATIONS ACHD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Basins NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology.These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin A-Temporary Pond#1 2 Enter number of Basins(25 max) 1 3 Number of Cells(Forebay+primary=2,Primary 0nly=1) 1 4 Design Storm 100 Link to:[Q,v 5 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.95 Q,vTR55 6 Area A(Acres) 0.07 acres 7 Approved Discharge Rate(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 8 1-Basin Forebay V 215 ft3 Toggle between Forebay and Primary Basin,enter data and print for each sa sl rz �` Shp ssa.ss.z A FWw A w' IV v v s�rsi�e <---- t L i %kS*Z ! L �. Side Slgea Forebay 9 Select Forebay Shape 3-Rectangle 10 Width of Forebay Bottom W 8.0 ft 11 Length of Forebay Bottom L 8.0 ft 12 Side Slopes(H:1) HA 3.00 13 Enter Bottom Elevation 2731.59 ft 14 Enter Top Bank Elevation 2733.59 ft 15 Enter Water Surface Elevation(WSE) 2733.09 ft 16 Distance Between Forebay and Primary Basin(blank if na) 0.00 ft 17 Enter Elevation Berm 0.00 ft 18 Enter High Groundwater Elevation 0.00 ft 19 Min.Freeboard Requirement 0.50 20 Freeboard Provided 21 Infiltration Area for Forebay Infiltration? 1.00 in/hr Note:infiltration required if Design Infiltration Rate,Enter 0 for no infiltration bottom slope<1%or 0 outflow 22 Infiltration Area for Forebay Asand 64 ftZ Enter 0 for no infiltration 23 Adjusted Storage Required Storm Duration !total Q Runoff Vol Perc Vol Pre-Dev Total Max Vol Discharge Discharge Regd Min Hr in/hr cfs ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 60 1 1.00 0.96 0.06 215 5 0 5 209 24 Depth-Storage Relationship: Saved Surface Basin Basin Surface Surface Area A at Volume Saved Stage Side Slope Width at Length at Area A at Area A at Stage(ft) Below Stage (ft) New Stage(ft) (H:V) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) OVERIDE (ft') 2731.59 2731.59 3.000 8.0 8.0 64 0 2733.09 3.000 17.0 17.0 289 265 1.50 ft depth for storage STORAGE OK 25 Does Forebay have capacity? 26 Time to drain forebay 36.2 hours 90%volume in 48-hours minimum - P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin A ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xlsm 2/17/2026,12:14 PM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Basins NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology.These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin B-Temporary Pond#2 2 Enter number of Basins(25 max) 1 3 Number of Cells(Forebay+primary=2,Primary Only=1) 1 4 Design Storm 100 Link to:[Q,v 5 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.95 Q,vTR55 6 Area A(Acres) 0.09 acres 7 Approved Discharge Rate(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 8 1-Basin Forebay V 305 ft Toggle between Forebay and Primary Basin,enter data and print for each sa sl ee �` `Z sst.si.z A FWw A w' IV v v siksi�e <---- t L i %kS*Z ! L �. Side Sla�ea Forebay 9 Select Forebay Shape 3-Rectangle 10 Width of Forebay Bottom W 10.0 ft 11 Length of Forebay Bottom L 10.0 ft 12 Side Slopes(H:1) HA 3.00 13 Enter Bottom Elevation 2731.61 ft 14 Enter Top Bank Elevation 2733.61 ft 15 Enter Water Surface Elevation(WSE) 2733.11 ft 16 Distance Between Forebay and Primary Basin(blank if na) 0.00 ft 17 Enter Elevation Berm 0.00 ft 18 Enter High Groundwater Elevation 0.00 ft 19 Min.Freeboard Requirement 0.50 20 Freeboard Provided 21 Infiltration Area for Forebay Infiltration? 1.00 in/hr Note:infiltration required if Design Infiltration Rate,Enter 0 for no infiltration bottom slope<1%or 0 outflow 22 Infiltration Area for Forebay Asand 100 ftZ Enter 0 for no infiltration 23 Adjusted Storage Required Storm Duration !total Q Runoff Vol Perc Vol Pre-Dev Total Max Vol Discharge Discharge Regd Min Hr in/hr cfs ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft 60 1.00 0.96 0.08 305 8 0 8 296 24 Depth-Storage Relationship: Saved Surface Basin Basin Surface Surface Area A at Volume Saved Stage Side Slope Width at Length at Area A at Area A at Stage(ft) Below Stage (ft) New Stage(ft) (H:V) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) OVERIDE (ft) 2731.61 2731.61 3.000 10.0 10.0 100 0 2733.11 3.000 19.0 19.0 361 346 1.50 ft depth for storage STORAGE OK 25 Does Forebay have capacity? 26 Time to drain forebay 32.9 hours 90%volume in 48-hours minimum - P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin B ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xlsm 2/17/2026,12:17 PM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Basins NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology.These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin C-Temporary Pond ft3 2 Enter number of Basins(25 max) 1 3 Number of Cells(Forebay+primary=2,Primary Only=1) 1 4 Design Storm 100 Link to:[Q,v 5 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.95 Q,vTR55 6 Area A(Acres) 0.08 acres 7 Approved Discharge Rate(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 8 1-Basin Forebay V 252 ft3 Toggle between Forebay and Primary Basin,enter data and print for each sa sl ee �` `Z sst.si.z A nP.[ FWw A w' IV v v siEsi�e <---- t L i %kS*Z ! L �. Side Slgea Forebay 9 Select Forebay Shape 3-Rectangle 10 Width of Forebay Bottom W 8.0 ft 11 Length of Forebay Bottom L 8.0 ft 12 Side Slopes(H:1) HA 3.00 13 Enter Bottom Elevation 2732.25 ft 14 Enter Top Bank Elevation 2734.25 ft 15 Enter Water Surface Elevation(WSE) 2733.75 ft 16 Distance Between Forebay and Primary Basin(blank if na) 0.00 ft 17 Enter Elevation Berm 0.00 ft 18 Enter High Groundwater Elevation 0.00 ft 19 Min.Freeboard Requirement 0.50 20 Freeboard Provided 21 Infiltration Area for Forebay Infiltration? 1.00 in/hr Note:infiltration required if Design Infiltration Rate,Enter 0 for no infiltration bottom slope<1%or 0 outflow 22 Infiltration Area for Forebay As.M 64 ftZ Enter 0 for no infiltration 23 Adjusted Storage Required Storm Duration !total Q Runoff Vol Perc Vol Pre-Dev Total Max Vol Discharge Discharge Regd Min Hr in/hr cfs ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 60 1.00 0.96 0.07 252 5 0 5 247 24 Depth-Storage Relationship: Saved Surface Basin Basin Surface Surface Area A at Volume Saved Stage Side Slope Width at Length at Area A at Area A at Stage(ft) Below Stage (ft) New Stage(ft) (H:V) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) OVERIDE (ft) 2732.25 2732.25 3.000 8.0 8.0 64 0 2733.75 2733.75 3.000 17.0 17.0 289 265 1.50 ft depth for storage STORAGE OK 25 Does Forebay have capacity? 26 Time to drain forebay 42.6 hours 90%volume in 48-hours minimum - P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin C ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xlsm 2/17/2026,12:18 PM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Basins NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology.These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin D-Temporary Pond#4 2 Enter number of Basins(25 max) 1 3 Number of Cells(Forebay+primary=2,Primary Only=1) 1 4 Design Storm 100 Link to:[Q,v 5 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.95 QV TR55 6 Area A(Acres) 0.08 acres 7 Approved Discharge Rate(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 8 1-Basin Forebay V 250 ft3 Toggle between Forebay and Primary Basin,enter data and print for each sasl ez saeswdez sst. A nP.[ FtTY ' A w' w, v v s�rsi�e t --------L 'i %kS*Z ! L �. Side Slgea Forebay 9 Select Forebay Shape 3-Rectangle 10 Width of Forebay Bottom W 8.0 ft 11 Length of Forebay Bottom L 8.0 ft 12 Side Slopes(H:1) HA 3.00 13 Enter Bottom Elevation 2732.05 ft 14 Enter Top Bank Elevation 2734.05 ft 15 Enter Water Surface Elevation(WSE) 2733.55 ft 16 Distance Between Forebay and Primary Basin(blank if na) 0.00 ft 17 Enter Elevation Berm 0.00 ft 18 Enter High Groundwater Elevation 0.00 ft 19 Min.Freeboard Requirement 0.50 20 Freeboard Provided 21 Infiltration Area for Forebay Infiltration? 1.00 in/hr Note:infiltration required if Design Infiltration Rate,Enter 0 for no infiltration bottom slope<1%or 0 outflow 22 Infiltration Area for Forebay As.M 64 ftZ Enter 0 for no infiltration 23 Adjusted Storage Required Storm Duration !total Q Runoff Vol Perc Vol Pre-Dev Total Max Vol Discharge Discharge Regd Min Hr in/hr cfs ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 60 1 1.00 0.96 0.07 250 5 0 5 244 24 Depth-Storage Relationship: Saved Surface Basin Basin Surface Surface Area A at Volume Saved Stage Side Slope Width at Length at Area A at Area A at Stage(ft) Below Stage (ft) New Stage(ft) (H:V) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) OVERIDE (ft') 2732.05 2732.05 3.000 8.0 8.0 64 0 2733.55 3.000 17.0 17.0 289 265 1.50 ft depth for storage STORAGE OK 25 Does Forebay have capacity? 26 Time to drain forebay 42.1 hours 90%volume in 48-hours minimum - P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin D ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xism 2/17/2026,12:19 PM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Basins NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology.These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name 26-005 Zenith Subdivision No.1-Basin E-Temporary Pond#5 2 Enter number of Basins(25 max) 1 3 Number of Cells(Forebay+primary=2,Primary Only=1) 1 4 Design Storm 100 Link to:[Q,v 5 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.95 QV 1R55 6 Area A(Acres) 0.11 acres 7 Approved Discharge Rate(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 8 1-Basin Forebay V 345 ft3 Toggle between Forebay and Primary Basin,enter data and print for each sa sl ee �` `Z sst.si.z A FLOW A w' IV v v siksi�e <---- t L i %kS*Z ! L �. Side Sla�ea Forebay 9 Select Forebay Shape 3-Rectangle 10 Width of Forebay Bottom W 10.0 ft 11 Length of Forebay Bottom L 10.0 ft 12 Side Slopes(H:1) HA 3.00 13 Enter Bottom Elevation 2732.05 ft 14 Enter Top Bank Elevation 2734.08 ft 15 Enter Water Surface Elevation(WSE) 2733.55 ft 16 Distance Between Forebay and Primary Basin(blank if na) 0.00 ft 17 Enter Elevation Berm 0.00 ft 18 Enter High Groundwater Elevation 0.00 ft 19 Min.Freeboard Requirement 0.50 20 Freeboard Provided 21 Infiltration Area for Forebay Infiltration? 1.00 in/hr Note:infiltration required if Design Infiltration Rate,Enter 0 for no infiltration bottom slope<1%or 0 outflow 22 Infiltration Area for Forebay Asand 100 ftZ Enter 0 for no infiltration 23 Adjusted Storage Required Storm Duration !total Q Runoff Vol Perc Vol Pre-Dev Total Max Vol Discharge Discharge Regd Min Hr in/hr cfs ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 60 1 1.00 0.96 0.10 345 8 0 8 337 24 Depth-Storage Relationship: Saved Surface Basin Basin Surface Surface Area A at Volume Saved Stage Side Slope Width at Length at Area A at Area A at Stage(ft) Below Stage (ft) New Stage(ft) (H:V) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) Stage(ft) OVERIDE (ft3) 2732.05 2732.05 3.000 10.0 10.0 100 0 2733.55 3.000 19.0 19.0 361 346 1.50 ft depth for storage STORAGE OK 25 Does Forebay have capacity? 26 Time to drain forebay 37.3 hours 90%volume in 48-hours minimum - P:\26-005\Civil\Calculations&Reports\Drainage\Calcs\Basin E ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018.xlsm 2/17/2026,12:19 PM Version 10.5,November 2018 APPENDIX D - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT & GROUNDWATER DATA APEX ZENITH SUBDIVISION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION (ATLAS, 1/22/2025) yJV v y k F` GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION APEX ZENITH SUBDIVISION SEC of Meridian Rd and Lake Hazel Rd Meridian, ID PREPARED FOR: Tyler Gardner Brighton Development, Inc. 2929 Navigator Drive, Suite 400 Meridian, ID 83642 PREPARED BY: Atlas Technical Consultants, LLC 2791 South Victory View Way January 22, 2025 Boise, ID 83709 B242146g January 22, 2025 Atlas No. B242146g Tyler Gardner Brighton Development, Inc. 2929 Navigator Drive, Suite 400 Meridian, ID 83642 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Apex Zenith Subdivision SEC of Meridian Rd and Lake Hazel Rd Meridian, ID Dear Tyler Gardner: In compliance with your instructions, Atlas has conducted a soils exploration and foundation evaluation for the above referenced development. Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on June 7, 2022 and January 7, 2025. Data have been analyzed to evaluate pertinent geotechnical conditions. Results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We have provided a PDF copy for your review and distribution. Atlas previously conducted a geotechnical investigation for this project in June 2022. Since the time of the original investigation, the site has been expanded from 80 acres to 117 acres. Data from the previous investigation has been incorporated into this report. Often, questions arise concerning soil conditions because of design and construction details that occur on a project. Atlas would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical engineers during project implementation. If you have any questions, please call us at (208) 376-4748. Respectfully submitted, �SS�pNAL FNc ENS 0 /yF � �C 13 � 14898 Colby Meyer, PG Eli Brown, P 1/22/2025 s� �o Staff Geologist National Practice q&ovG ical Z4 BET H gR� Clinton Wyllie, PG Senior Geologist Atlas No. 13242146g Page I i Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Scope of Investigation................................................................................................ 2 2. SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Regional Geology....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 General Site Characteristics....................................................................................... 3 3. SEISMIC SITE EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 4 3.1 Geoseismic Setting .................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Seismic Design Parameter Values............................................................................. 4 4. SOILS EXPLORATION....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Exploration and Sampling Procedures........................................................................ 4 4.2 Laboratory Testing Program....................................................................................... 5 4.3 Soil and Sediment Profile........................................................................................... 5 4.4 Volatile Organic Scan................................................................................................. 5 5. SITE HYDROLOGY............................................................................................................ 6 5.1 Groundwater.............................................................................................................. 6 5.2 Soil Infiltration Rates .................................................................................................. 6 5.3 Infiltration Testing....................................................................................................... 7 6. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................- 6.1 Foundation Loading Information................................................................................. 8 6.2 Foundation Design Recommendations....................................................................... 8 6.3 Foundation Drain Recommendations ......................................................................... 9 6.4 Crawl Space Recommendations ................................................................................ 9 6.5 Floor, Patio, and Garage Slab-on-Grade.................................................................... 9 7. PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................10 7.1 Flexible Pavement Sections......................................................................................11 7.2 Rigid Pavement Section ............................................................................................12 7.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ..............................................................................12 7.4 Common Pavement Section Construction Issues......................................................13 8. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................13 8.1 Earthwork..................................................................................................................13 8.2 Grading .....................................................................................................................14 8.3 Dry Weather..............................................................................................................14 8.4 Wet Weather.............................................................................................................14 8.5 Soft Subgrade Soils...................................................................................................15 8.6 Frozen Subgrade Soils..............................................................................................15 8.7 Structural Fill .............................................................................................................16 Atlas No. 13242146g Page I ii Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants �1Mom I1 J� 8.8 Fill Placement and Compaction.................................................................................16 8.9 Backfill of Walls.........................................................................................................18 8.10 Excavations.............................................................................................................18 8.11 Groundwater Control...............................................................................................19 9. GENERAL COMMENTS....................................................................................................19 10. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................20 TABLES Table 1 — Seismic Design Values................................................................................................4 Table 2 — Typical Soil Profiles.....................................................................................................5 Table 3 — Groundwater Data.......................................................................................................6 Table 4 — Generalized Soil Infiltration Rates ...............................................................................7 Table 5 — Infiltration Test Results................................................................................................7 Table 6 — Soil Bearing Capacity..................................................................................................8 Table 7 — Gravel Equivalent Method Flexible Pavement Specifications ....................................11 Table 8 — Gravel Equivalent Method Flexible Pavement Specifications ....................................11 Table 9 —AASHTO Rigid Pavement Specifications...................................................................12 Table 10 — Fill Material Criteria .................................................................................................16 Table 11 — Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements........................................................16 APPENDICES Appendix I Warranty and Limiting Conditions Appendix 11 Vicinity Map Appendix III Site Map Appendix IV Geotechnical Investigation Test Pit Log Appendix V Geotechnical General Notes Appendix VI R-value Laboratory Test Data Appendix VI Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report Atlas No. B242146g Page I iii Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents results of a geotechnical investigation and analysis in support of data utilized in design of structures as defined in the 2018 International Building Code (IBC). Information in support of groundwater and stormwater issues pertinent to the practice of Civil Engineering is included. Observations and recommendations relevant to the earthwork phase of the project are also presented. Revisions in plans or drawings for the proposed development from those enumerated in this report should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer to determine whether changes in the provided recommendations are required. Deviations from noted subsurface conditions, if encountered during construction, should also be brought to the attention of the soils engineer. 1.1 Project Description The proposed development is in the City of Meridian, Ada County, ID, and occupies a portion of the NW'/4 of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian. Atlas previously conducted a geotechnical investigation for this project in June 2022. However, since the time of the original investigation the site has been expanded from 80 acres to 117 acres. Site maps included in the Appendix show the project location. This project is expected to consist of a residential subdivision with an unknown number of lots and associated streets. Drainage is expected to be directed to onsite infiltration facilities. Location of the infiltration facilities are unknown at this time. Atlas has not been informed of the proposed grading plan. 1.2 Scope of Investigation Our scope of work was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated December 16, 2024 and authorized on December 23, 2024. Said authorization is subject to terms, conditions, and limitations described in the Professional Services Contract entered into between Brighton Development, Inc. and Atlas. Atlas' scope of services included the following: Subsurface exploration via test pits. Field and laboratory testing of materials encountered and collected. Preparation of this report, which includes project description, site conditions, and our engineering analysis and evaluation for the project. The scope of work did not include design recommendations specific to individual residences. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 12 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 2. SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Regional Geology The project site is located within the western Snake River Plain of southwestern Idaho. The plain is a northwest trending rift basin, about 45 miles wide and 200 miles long, that developed about 14 million years ago (Ma) and has since been occupied sporadically by large inland lakes. Geologic materials found within and along the plain's margins reflect volcanic and fluvial/lacustrine sedimentary processes that have led to an accumulation of approximately 1 to 2 km of interbedded volcanic and sedimentary deposits within the plain. Along the margins of the plain, streams that drained the highlands to the north and south provided coarse to fine-grained sediments eroded from granitic and volcanic rocks, respectively. About 2 million years ago the last of the lakes was drained and since that time fluvial erosion and deposition has dominated the evolution of the landscape. The project site is underlain by "Basalt Flows of Indian Creek, Undivided" as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). This volcanic deposit is composed of multiple flows of medium to dark gray olivine basalt. These flows erupted from numerous vents found south of the Boise River and north of the Snake River, southeast of the City of Boise, Idaho. At the time of eruption lavas flowed into and down ancestral Indian Creek and Boise River valleys. Northwest-trending, gently sloping escarpments suggest faulting of the basalt. These basalts are mantled with loess 2-12 feet thick that contains about 35% pedogenic clay and a duripan that can be 3 feet thick. 2.2 General Site Characteristics The following details regarding site conditions are based on visual observations and review of available geologic and topographic maps and imagery: • Current Site Conditions: The site is approximately 117 acres in size and consists primarily of agricultural fields. A residential structure and bare land are present in the southern portion of the site. The surrounding properties consist of agricultural land and rural residential developments. The Rawson Canal is present in the northeast corner of the site. Meridian Road runs along the western site boundary, and Lake Hazel Road runs along the northern site boundary. • Vegetation: Vegetation on the site consists primarily of agricultural crop remnants. Mature trees and native grasses were noted adjacent to the structure. Vegetation on the remainder of the site consists of native weeds and grasses. • Topography: The site is relatively flat and level. • Drainage: Stormwater drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surficial soils. The site is situated so that it is unlikely that it will receive any drainage from off-site sources. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 13 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 3. SEISMIC SITE EVALUATION 3.1 Geoseismic Setting Soils on site are classed as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 20 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publication ASCE/SEI 7-16. Structures constructed on this site should be designed per IBC requirements for such a seismic classification. Our investigation revealed low hazard potential resulting from potential earthquake motions including: slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture caused by faulting or lateral spreading. 3.2 Seismic Design Parameter Value:; The ASCE 7-16 seismic design parameter values have been provided below. Table 1 — Seismic Design Values Seismic Design Parameter Design Value Site Class D "Default' Site Modified Peak Ground 0.193 Acceleration, PGAm Ss 0.282 (g) S1 0.103 (g) Fa 1.574 F" 2.393 Sms 0.445 Sm1 0.247 Sos 0.296 SD1 0.165 4. SOILS EXPLORATION 4.1 Exploration and Sampling Procedures Field exploration conducted to determine engineering characteristics of subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and investigation by test pit. A site map with test pit locations was provided to Atlas by Tyler Gardner of Brighton Development, Inc. Test pit sites were located in the field by means of a Global Positioning System (GPS)device and are reportedly accurate to within ten feet. Upon completion of investigation, each test pit was backfilled with loose excavated materials. Re-excavation and compaction of these test pit areas are required prior to construction. Samples obtained have been visually classified in the field, identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in sealed containers, and transported to our laboratory for additional testing. Subsurface materials have been described in detail on logs provided in the Appendix. Results of field and laboratory tests are also presented in the Appendix. Atlas recommends that these logs not be used to estimate fill material quantities. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 14 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 4.2 Laboratory Testing Program Along with our field investigation, a supplemental laboratory testing program was conducted to determine additional pertinent engineering characteristics of subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with current specifications. The laboratory testing program for this report included: Atterberg Limits Testing —ASTM D4318 Grain Size Analysis —ASTM C117/C136 Resistance Value (R-value) and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils — Idaho T-8 4.3 Soil and Sediment Profile The profile below represents a generalized interpretation for the project site. Note that on site soils strata, encountered between test pit locations, may vary from the individual soil profiles presented in the logs. Table 2 —Typical Soil Profiles IF Approximate Cons istency/Relative Soil Horizons Depths low Soil TypesDensity J Materials' 0 to 0.5 foot Fat Clay Fill Stiff to Very Stiff Surficial Soils 0 to 2 feet Fat Clay, Fat Clay with Sand, Lean Clay Soft to Very Stiff with Sand Intermediate SoiIS2 1 to 10 feet Sandy Silt Stiff to Hard Deeper Soils2 5 to 15 feet Silty Sand Medium Dense to Very Dense At Depth 3.5 to >15 feet Basalt N/A 'Fills were only encountered in test pit 16. 2Calcium carbonate cementation was noted within portions of these horizons. During excavation, test pit sidewalls were generally stable. However, moisture contents will affect wall competency with saturated soils having a tendency to readily slough when under load and unsupported. 4.4 Volatile Organic Scan Soils obtained during on-site activities were not assessed for volatile organic compounds by portable photoionization detector. Samples obtained during our exploration activities exhibited no apparent odors or discoloration typically associated with this type of contamination. No groundwater was encountered. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 15 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 5. SITE HYDROLOGY Existing surface drainage conditions are defined in the General Site Characteristics section. Information provided in this section is limited to observations made at the time of the investigation. Either regional or local ordinances may require information beyond the scope of this report. 5.1 Groundwater During this field investigation groundwater was not encountered in test pits advanced to a maximum depth of 15.2 feet bgs. Atlas has previously performed 8 geotechnical investigations within 0.50 mile of the project site. Information from these investigations has been provided in the table below. Table 3 — Groundwater Data Approximate Distance Groundwater Depth from Site (mile) Direction from Site (feet bgs) June 2022 Onsite Onsite Not Encountered to 15.3 July 2022 0.04 North Not Encountered to 21.5 August 2024 0.45 East Not Encountered to 15.6 December 2020 0.10 South Not Encountered to 10.7 March 2020 0.17 North Not Encountered to 10.1 April 2008 0.18 West Not Encountered to 17.2 October 2020 0.40 West Not Encountered to 13.1 January 2021 0.45 East Not Encountered to 16.5 Furthermore, according to United States Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring well data within approximately '/2-mile of the project site, groundwater was measured at depths ranging between 105 and 108 feet bgs. For construction purposes, groundwater depth can be assumed to remain greater than 20 feet bgs throughout the year, or below surface of basalt formations. 3.2 Soil Infiltration Rates Soil permeability, which is a measure of the ability of a soil to transmit a fluid, was tested in the field. For this report, an estimation of infiltration is also presented using generally recognized values. Typical infiltration rates comprising the generalized soil profile for this study have been provided in the table below. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 16 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants Table 4—Generalized Soil Infiltration Rates Typical Infiltrationj Soil Type Rate (inches per hour) Basalt 0 to 6* Lean Clay Fat Clay <2 Fat Clay with Sand Sandy Silt 2 to 4** Silty Sand 4 to 8** *Movement of water through the basalt may be more characteristic of fracture flow. **The presence of cementation may reduce infiltration rates to near zero. 5.3 Infiltration Testing Infiltration testing was conducted in general accordance with the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Policy Manual. Test locations were presoaked prior to testing. Pre-soaking increases soil moistures, which allows the tested soils to reach a saturated condition more readily during testing. Saturation of the tested soils is desirable in order to isolate the vertical component of infiltration by inhibiting horizontal seepage during testing. Testing was conducted on June 8, 2022. Details and results of testing are as follows: Table 5— Infiltration Test Results Test Test Depth '1 wrabilized Infiltration Design Infiltratiorl Location (feet . . L ir (inches/hour) (inches per hour) TIP-1 8.5 Cemented Silty Sand 2.88 1.44 TP-2 10.6 Cemented Silty Sand 3.0 1.5 TP-3 10.7 Cemented Silty Sand 2.4 1.2 TP-4 7.8 Cemented Silty Sand 1.92 0.96 TP-5 11.7 Basalt 1.0 0.5 TP-6 6.1 Cemented Silty Sand 2.44 1.22 TP-7 13.6 Basalt 1.08 0.54 TP-8 9.6 Basalt 1.08 0.54 TP-9 12.2 Basalt 1.20 0.60 In accordance with the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Policy Manual, a factor of safety of 2 has been applied to the stabilized infiltration rates achieved during testing to obtain the design infiltration rates listed above. The reason for the decreased infiltration rate is to account for long term saturation of the soils and the potential for less permeable soils to settle into the bottom of the infiltration facilities. Atlas recommends that all infiltration facilities be constructed in accordance with the local municipality requirements. Atlas No. B242146g Page 17 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 6. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Various foundation types have been considered for support of the proposed structures. Two requirements must be met in the design of foundations. First, the applied bearing stress must be less than the ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soils to maintain stability. Second, total and differential settlement must not exceed an amount that will produce an adverse behavior of the superstructure. Allowable settlement is usually exceeded before bearing capacity considerations become important; thus, allowable bearing pressure is normally controlled by settlement considerations. 6.1 Foundation Loading Information Loads of up to 4,000 pounds per lineal foot for wall footings, and column loads of up to 50,000 pounds were assumed for settlement calculations. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch and differential settlement should be limited to approximately '/2 inch, provided the following design and construction recommendations are observed. 6.2 Foundation Design Recommendations Considering subsurface conditions and the proposed construction, it is recommended that the structures be founded upon conventional spread footings and continuous wall footings. The following recommendations are not specific to the individual structures, but rather should be viewed as guidelines for the subdivision-wide development. Based on data obtained from the site and test results from various laboratory tests performed, Atlas recommends the following guidelines for the net allowable soil bearing capacity: Table 6— Soil Bearing Capacity Footing Footings must bear on competent, undisturbed, native sandy silt soils or compacted granular Not Required for Native structural fill. Existing fill materials, fat clay soils, fat Soil clay with sand soils, lean clay with sand soils, and 2,000 Ibs/ft2 organics must be completely removed from below 95% for Granular foundation elements.' Excavation depths ranging Structural Fill from roughly 0.8 to 1.9 feet bgs should be anticipated to expose proper bearing soils.2 'It will be required for Atlas personnel to verify the bearing soil suitability for each structure at the time of construction. 2Depending on the time of year construction takes place,the subgrade soils may be unstable because of high moisture contents. If unstable conditions are encountered,over-excavation and replacement with granular structural fill and/or use of geotextiles may be required. The following sliding frictional coefficient values should be used: 1) 0.35 for footings bearing on native sandy silt soils and 2) 0.45 for footings bearing on granular structural fill. A passive lateral earth pressure of 337 pounds per square foot per foot (psf/ft) should be used for sandy silt soils. For granular structural fill, a passive lateral earth pressure of 496 psf/ft should be used. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 18 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants ter T T7- � Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2018 IBC minimum requirements. Foundation over-excavation must be replaced with granular structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footings subgrade will require over- excavation and backfilling with granular structural fill. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in the character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, Atlas recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection, the bottom of external footings should be 24 inches below finished grade. Foundations must be backfilled in accordance with the Backfill of Walls section. 6.3 Foundation Drain Recommendations Considering the presence of shallow cemented soils across the site, Atlas recommends that foundation drains be installed. The drains should be placed at the footing elevation, sloped at least 2 percent, and be directed to suitable discharge points at least 10 feet away from the structures. Discharge points should be protected to prevent erosion. 6.4 Crawl Space Recommendations Crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in the crawl spaces. Atlas recommends that roof drains carry stormwater at least 10 feet away from each residence. Grades should be at least 5 percent for a distance of 10 feet away from all residences. In addition, rain gutters should be placed around all sides of residences, and backfill around stem walls should be placed and compacted in a controlled manner. 6.5 Floor, Patio, and Garage Slab-on-Grade Uncontrolled fill, which contained debris, was encountered in test pit 16. Atlas recommends that these fill materials be completely removed. Once final grades have been determined, Atlas is available to provide additional recommendations. Plow zones with organic materials were encountered in portions of the site. Atlas recommends that the organic materials be removed. Atlas personnel must be present during excavation to identify these materials. Native clay soils are moderately plastic and will be susceptible to shrink/swell movements associated with moisture changes. The clay soils (if exposed) should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and compacted between 92 to 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The moisture content should be within 2 percent of optimum. Structural fill should be placed as soon as possible after compaction of clay soils in order to limit moisture loss within the upper clays. Ground surfaces should be sloped away from structures at a minimum of 5 percent for a distance of 10 feet to provide positive drainage of surface water away from buildings. Grading must be provided and maintained following construction. Atlas No. B242146g Page 19 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants Organic, loose, or obviously compressive materials must be removed prior to placement of concrete floors or floor-supporting fill. In addition, the remaining subgrade should be treated in accordance with guidelines presented in the Earthwork section. Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with granular structural fill or suitable structural fill. Fill used to increase the elevation of the floor slab should consist of granular structural fill and suitable structural fill meeting the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section. Fill materials must be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. A free-draining granular mat should be provided below slabs-on-grade to provide drainage and a uniform and stable bearing surface. This should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. The mat must consist of aggregate base material as specified in the Structural Fill section. A moisture-retarder should be placed beneath floor slabs to minimize potential ground moisture effects on moisture-sensitive floor coverings. The moisture-retarder should be at least 15-mil in thickness and have a permeance of less than 0.01 US perms as determined by ASTM E96. Placement of the moisture-retarder will require special consideration with regard to effects on the slab-on-grade and should adhere to recommendations outlined in the ACI 302.1 R and ASTM E1745 publications. Upon request, Atlas can provide further consultation regarding installation. 7. PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS As required by Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Atlas has used traffic indexes of 6 and 8 to determine the necessary pavement cross-sections for the site. Atlas has made assumptions for traffic loading variables based on the character of the proposed construction. The Client should review these assumptions to make sure they reflect intended use and loading of pavements both now and in the future. Atlas collected a sample of near-surface soils for Resistance Value (R- value) testing representative of soils to depths of 0.5 to 1.0 foot below existing ground surface. This sample, consisting of fat clay with sand collected from test pit 2, yielded a R-value of less than 5. Cemented sandy silts were encountered beneath the surficial clay soils. Because of the presence of cementation within this horizon, R-value testing was unable to be performed on the sandy silts. A design R-value of 4 was used for the onsite clay soils, and an assumed R-value of 15 was used for the sandy silt soils based on our experience with similar soils in the area. The following are minimum thickness requirements for assured pavement function. Depending on site conditions, additional work, e.g. soil preparation, may be required to support construction equipment. These have been listed within the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Results of the test are graphically depicted in the Appendix. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 110 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 7.1 Flexible Pavement Sections Atlas was informed that 3 inches of asphalt and 4 inches of base materials will be used for the collector roads. The Gravel Equivalent Method, as defined in Section 500 of the State of Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD) Materials Manual, was used to develop the pavement sections. ACHD parameters for traffic index and substitution ratios, which were obtained from the ACHD Policy Manual, were also used in the design. Atlas recommends that materials used in the construction of asphaltic concrete pavements meet the requirements of the ISPWC Standard Specification for Highway Construction. Construction of the pavement section should be in accordance with these specifications and should adhere to guidelines recommended in the section on Construction Considerations. Table 7— Gravel Equivalent Method Flexible Pavement Specifications RoadsPavement Section Component Roadway Section �Ir Roadway Sectio LocalRoads Local Asphaltic Concrete 2.5 Inches 2.5 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 4.0 Inches 4.0 Inches Structural Subbase 14.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Subgrade Soils Lean Clay with Sand/Fat Clay with Cemented Sandy Silt Sand Compacted Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade Preparation Section Preparation Section 'It will be required for Atlas personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Structural Subbase: Granular structural fill material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness. Gradation and suitability requirements shall be per ISPWC Section 801, Table 1. Table 8 — Gravel Equivalent Method Flexible Pavement Specifications ComponentPavement Section RoadsCollector Roads Collector Asphaltic Concrete 3.0 Inches 3.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 4.0 Inches 4.0 Inches Structural Subbase 20.0 Inches 16.0 Inches Subgrade Soils Lean Clay with Sand/Fat Clay with Cemented Sandy Silt Sand Compacted Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade Preparation Section Preparation Section 'It will be required for Atlas personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. Atlas No. 13242146g Page l 11 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Structural Subbase: Granular structural fill material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness. Gradation and suitability requirements shall be per ISPWC Section 801, Table 1. 7.2 Rigid Pavement Section The AASHTO pavement design method was used to develop the following rigid concrete pavement section. Concrete pavement shall be batched and constructed in accordance with the most current American Concrete Institute Standards and in accordance with Idaho Transportation Department Standard Drawings 411-1 and 409-1. Native subgrade soils on the site are frost susceptible, and therefore, require joint sealers or under-drains. Table 9 —AASHTO Rigid Pavement Specifications Pavement Section Component-T Concrete Alleyways Portland Cement Concrete 5.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 6.0 Inches Structural Subbase Not Required Compacted Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade Preparation Section 'It will be required for Atlas personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. Portland Cement Concrete: 4,000 psi concrete with a modulus of rupture greater than 650 psi generally complying with ITD requirement for Urban Concrete. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction Sections 303 and 703 for aggregates. Structural Subbase: Granular structural fill material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness. Gradation and suitability requirements shall be per ISPWC Section 801, Table 1. 7.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Plow zones with organic materials were encountered in portions of the site. Atlas recommends that the organic materials be removed. If plow zones remain after organic materials have been removed, the exposed subgrade must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 for flexible pavements and ASTM D1557 for rigid pavements. Atlas personnel must be present during excavation to identify these materials. Atlas No. B242146g Page 112 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants Native clay soils are moderately plastic and will be susceptible to shrink/swell movements associated with moisture changes. The clay soils (if exposed) should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and compacted between 92 to 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The moisture content should be within 2 percent of optimum. Structural fill should be placed as soon as possible after compaction of clay soils in order to limit moisture loss within the upper clays. 7.4 Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly stripped, compacted (if indicated), inspected, and proof-rolled. Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using a heavy rubber-tired, fully loaded, tandem-axle dump truck or equivalent. Verification of subgrade competence by Atlas personnel at the time of construction is required. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. Atlas anticipated that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic. Subgrade clayey and silty soils near and above optimum moisture contents may pump during compaction. Pumping or soft areas must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Fill material and aggregates, as well as compacted native subgrade soils, in support of the pavement section must be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 for flexible pavements and by ASTM D1557 for rigid pavements. If a material placed as a pavement section component cannot be tested by usual compaction testing methods, then compaction of that material must be approved by observed proof rolling. Minor deflections from proof rolling for flexible pavements are allowable. Deflections from proof rolling of rigid pavement support courses should not be visually detectable. 8. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 Earthwork Excessively organic soils, deleterious materials, or disturbed soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads, which is detrimental to subgrade behavior in the area of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills, and foundations. Mature trees and agricultural crop remnants with associated root systems were noted at the time of our investigation. It is recommended that organic or disturbed soils, if encountered, be removed to depths of 0.5 foot (minimum), and wasted or stockpiled for later use. However, in areas where trees are/were present, deeper excavation depths should be anticipated. Atlas No. B242146g Page 113 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants Stripping depths should be adjusted in the field to assure that the entire root zone or disturbed zone (plow depths) or topsoil are removed prior to placement and compaction of fill materials. Exact removal depths should be determined during grading operations by Atlas personnel, and should be based upon subgrade soil type, composition, and firmness or soil stability. If underground storage tanks, underground utilities, wells, or septic systems are discovered during construction activities, they must be decommissioned then removed or abandoned in accordance with governing Federal, State, and local agencies. Excavations developed as the result of such removal must be backfilled with fill materials as defined in the Structural Fill section. Atlas should oversee subgrade conditions (i.e., moisture content) as well as placement and compaction of new fill (if required) after native soils are excavated to design grade. Recommendations for structural fill presented in this report can be used to minimize volume changes and differential settlements that are detrimental to the behavior of footings, pavements, and floor slabs. Sufficient density tests should be performed to properly monitor compaction. 8.2 Grading Positive grades must be maintained surrounding structures and pavements, including exterior slabs. The interface of plant bedding materials and underlying soils should be graded to provide drainage away from site elements. Otherwise, bedding materials may direct water to underlying fine-grained soils, which increases the potential for localized heave. Excessive watering of landscaping should be avoided. 8.3 Dry Weather If construction is to be conducted during dry seasonal conditions, many problems associated with soft soils may be avoided. However, some rutting of subgrade soils may be induced by shallow groundwater conditions related to springtime runoff or irrigation activities during late summer through early fall. Solutions to problems associated with soft subgrade soils are outlined in the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Problems may also arise because of lack of moisture in native soils and fill materials at time of placement. This will require the addition of water to achieve near- optimum moisture levels. Low-cohesion soils exposed in excavations may become friable, increasing chances of sloughing or caving. Measures to control excessive dust should be considered as part of the overall health and safety management plan. 8.4 Wet Weather If construction is to be conducted during wet seasonal conditions (commonly from mid-November through May), problems associated with soft soils must be considered as part of the construction plan. During this time of year, fine-grained soils such as silts and clays will become unstable with increased moisture content, and eventually deform or rut. Additionally, constant low temperatures reduce the possibility of drying soils to near optimum conditions. Atlas No. B242146g Page 114 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 8.5 Soft Subgrade Soils Shallow fine-grained subgrade soils that are high in moisture content should be expected to pump and rut under construction traffic. During periods of wet weather, construction may become very difficult if not impossible. The following recommendations and options have been included for dealing with soft subgrade conditions: • Track-mounted vehicles should be used to strip the subgrade of root matter and other deleterious debris. Heavy rubber-tired equipment should be prohibited from operating directly on the native subgrade and areas in which fill materials have been placed. Construction traffic should be restricted to designated roadways that do not cross, or cross on a limited basis, proposed roadway or parking areas. • Soft areas can be over-excavated and replaced with granular structural fill. • Construction roadways on soft subgrade soils should consist of a minimum 2-foot thickness of large cobbles of 4 to 6 inches in diameter with sufficient sand and fines to fill voids. Construction entrances should consist of a 6-inch thickness of clean, 2-inch minimum, angular drain-rock and must be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 30 to 50 feet long. During the construction process, top dressing of the entrance may be required for maintenance. • Scarification and aeration of subgrade soils can be employed to reduce the moisture content of wet subgrade soils. After stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be ripped or disked to a depth of 1'/2 feet and allowed to air dry for 2 to 4 weeks. Further disking should be performed on a weekly basis to aid the aeration process. • Alternative soil stabilization methods include use of geotextiles, lime, and cement stabilization. Atlas is available to provide recommendations and guidelines at your request. 8.6 Frozen Subgrade Soils Prior to placement of fill materials or foundation elements, frozen subgrade soils must either be allowed to thaw or be stripped to depths that expose non-frozen soils and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stockpiled materials must be allowed to thaw and return to near-optimal conditions prior to use as fill. The onsite shallow clayey and silty soils are susceptible to frost heave during freezing temperatures. For exterior flatwork and other structural elements, adequate drainage away from subgrades is critical. Compaction and use of granular structural fill will also help to mitigate the potential for frost heave. Complete removal of frost susceptible soils for the full frost depth, followed by replacement with a non-frost susceptible granular structural fill, can also be used to mitigate the potential for frost heave. Atlas is available to provide further guidance/assistance upon request. Atlas No. B242146g Page 115 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 8.7 Structural Fill The following table defines the types of fill material that is suitable for use on the project. Refer to the Fill Placement and Compaction section for recommended placement locations for each fill type listed below. Table 10— Fill Material Criteria Fill Type Material Maximum Lift im Thickness* ISPWC Section 801 for 1-inch, 3-inch, or 6- Granular Structural Fill inch Uncrushed Aggregate and 12 inches ISPWC Section 802 Aggregate Base Aggregate Base ISPWC Section 802 for Type 1 Crushed 12 inches Aggregate Base Structural Subbase ISPWC Section 801 for 3-inch or 6-inch 12 inches Uncrushed Aggregate Suitable Structural Fill** Onsite/imported ML, SM, and GM soils that 6 inches are free of organics and debris *Initial loose thickness, prior to compaction. **Onsite CH and CL soils are unsuitable for use as fill material. 8.8 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements for fill material type and compaction effort are dependent on the planned use of the material. The following table specifies material type and compaction requirements based on the placement location of the fill material. Table 11 — Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements Fill Location Material Type Lomp�action Foundations Granular Structural Fill 95% of ASTM D1557 Interior Slab-on-Grade Granular Structural Fill or 95% of ASTM D1557 Suitable Structural Fill Top 4 Inches of Interior and Exterior Aggregate Base Material 95% of ASTM D1557 Slab-on-Grade Below Flexible Pavement Subgrade Granular Structural Fill or 95% of ASTM D698 or and Exterior Flatwork Areas Suitable Structural Fill 92% of ASTM D1557 Foundation and Wall Backfill* Granular Structural Fill or 95% of ASTM D1557 Suitable Structural Fill Utility Trench Backfill Granular Structural Fill or Per ISPWC Section 306 Suitable Structural Fill *Wall backfill material cannot exceed a maximum particle size of 4-inches. Atlas No. 13242146g PageJ16 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants �1Mom I1 J� Prior to placement of fill materials, surfaces must be prepared as outlined in the Earthwork section. Fill material must be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6-inches in thickness for fine-grained soils and 12-inches in thickness for granular structural fill, aggregate base material, and subbase material. All fill material must be moisture-conditioned to achieve optimum moisture content prior to compaction. During placement all fill materials must be monitored and tested to confirm compaction requirements have been achieved, as specified above, prior to placement of subsequent lifts. In addition, compacted surfaces must be in a firm and unyielding condition. Atlas personnel should be onsite to verify suitability of subgrade soil conditions, identify whether further work is necessary, and perform in-place moisture density testing. Sufficient density tests should be performed to properly monitor compaction. At a minimum, Atlas recommends one test per lift as follows: • Structures— 1 test every 5,000 square feet • Pavement and Exterior Flatwork Areas — 1 test every 10,000 square feet • Foundation Backfill — 1 test every 500 square feet • Utility Trench Backfill — 1 test every 100 linear feet Silty soils require very high moisture contents for compaction, require a long time to dry out if natural moisture contents are too high, and may also be susceptible to frost heave under certain conditions. Therefore, these materials can be quite difficult to work with as moisture content, lift thickness, and compactive effort becomes difficult to control. If silty soil is used for fill, lift thicknesses should not exceed 6 inches (loose), and fill material moisture must be closely monitored at both the working elevation and the elevations of materials already placed. Following placement, the exposed surface must be protected from degradation resulting from construction traffic or subsequent construction. It is anticipated that fine-grained soils will not be suitable for reuse during the wet season. Use of silty soils (GM, SM, and ML) as structural fill below footings is prohibited. For structural fill below footings, areas of compacted backfill must extend outside the perimeter of the footings for a distance equal to the thickness of fill between the bottom of foundation and underlying soils, or 5 feet, whichever is less. If material contains more than 40 percent but less than 50 percent oversize (greater than 3/4-inch) particles, compaction of fill must be confirmed per ISPWC Section 202.3.8.C.3. Material should contain sufficient fines to fill void spaces and must not contain more than 50 percent oversize particles. Atlas No. B242146g Page117 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants ter T T7- � 8.9 Backfill of Walls Backfill materials must conform to the requirements of structural fill, as defined in this report. For wall heights greater than 2.5 feet, the maximum material size should not exceed 4 inches in diameter. Placing oversized material against rigid surfaces interferes with proper compaction and can induce excessive point loads on walls. Backfill shall not commence until the wall has gained sufficient strength to resist placement and compaction forces. Further, retaining walls above 2.5 feet in height shall be backfilled in a manner that will limit the potential for damage from compaction methods and/or equipment. It is recommended that only small hand-operated compaction equipment be used for compaction of backfill within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, measured from the back face of the wall. Backfill should be compacted in accordance with the specifications in the Fill Placement and Compaction section, except in those areas where it is determined that future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas. In nonstructural areas, backfill must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Atlas recommends in these areas that the top 12 inches must consist of a low permeability (clay or silt) soil to limit surface water infiltration. Proper grading away from structures is critical. The surface must be graded away from the structure. In addition, Atlas recommends that roof drains carry stormwater at least 10 feet away from the structure. 8.10 Excavations Shallow excavations that do not exceed 4 feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth, it is recommended that slopes be constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, Section 1926, Subpart P. Based on these regulations, on-site soils are classified as type "C" soil, and as such, excavations within these soils should be constructed at a maximum slope of 1'/2 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (1'/2:1) for excavations up to 20 feet in height. Excavations in excess of 20 feet will require additional analysis. Note that these slope angles are considered stable for short-term conditions only, and will not be stable for long-term conditions. During the subsurface exploration,test pit sidewalls generally exhibited little indication of collapse. For deep excavations, native granular sediments cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials are prone to failure and may collapse, thereby undermining upper soil layers. This is especially true when excavations approach depths near the water table. Care must be taken to ensure that excavations are properly backfilled in accordance with procedures outlined in this report. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 118 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 8.11 Groundwater Control Special precautions may be required for control of surface runoff and subsurface seepage. It is recommended that runoff be directed away from open excavations. Silty and clayey soils may become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic during time of surface runoff. Ponded water in construction areas should be drained through methods such as trenching, sloping, crowning grades, nightly smooth drum rolling, or installing a French drain system. Additionally, temporary or permanent driveway sections should be constructed if extended wet weather is forecasted. 9. GENERAL COMMENTS Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation and available information regarding the proposed development, the site is adequate for the planned construction. When plans and specifications are complete, and if significant changes are made in the character or location of the proposed development, consultation with Atlas must be arranged as supplementary recommendations may be required. Suitability of subgrade soils and compaction of fill materials must be verified by Atlas personnel prior to placement of structural elements. Additionally, monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for fill and that proper placement and compaction techniques are utilized. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 119 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants 10. REFERENCES Ada County Highway District(ACHD) (2017). Ada County Highway District Policy Manual. Garden City, ID: Author. American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2015). Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction: ACI 302.1 R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. American Society of Civil Engineers (2021). ASCE 7 Hazards Tool: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <https://asce7hazardtool.online/> (2023). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures: ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-um (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing: ASTM C117. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2019). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates: ASTM C136. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2018). Standard Test Methods for Resistance Value (R-Value) and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils: ASTM D2844. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes(Unified Soil Classification System):ASTM D2487.West Conshohocken, PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D4318. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs: ASTM E1745. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. International Building Code Council (2018). International Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL: Author. Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2020). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction. Boise, ID: Author. Othberg, K. L. and Stanford, L. A., Idaho Geologic Society (1993). Geologic Map of the Boise Valley and Adloining Area, Western Snake River Plain, Idaho. (scale 1:100,000). Boise, ID: Joslyn and Morris. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2020 . CFR 29, Part 1926, Subpart P Appendix A: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Excavations. Washington D.C.: OSHA. U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis> (2024). Atlas No. B242146g Page 120 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants APPENDIX I WARRANTY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Atlas warrants that findings and conclusions contained herein have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics, and engineering geology only for the site and project described in this report. These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding apparent or potential engineering conditions relating to the site within the scope cited above and are necessarily limited to conditions observed at the time of the site visit and research. Field observations and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above. Limitations One test pit location in the southeastern portion of the site was unable to be accessed during Atlas' field investigation due to fences and soft soils. Exclusive Use This report was prepared for exclusive use of the property owner(s), at the time of the report, and their retained design consultants ("Client"). Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in this report together with the Contract for Professional Services between the Client and Atlas Technical Consultants ("Consultant"). Use or misuse of this report, or reliance upon findings hereof, by parties other than the Client is at their own risk. Neither Client nor Consultant make representation of warranty to such other parties as to accuracy or completeness of this report or suitability of its use by such other parties for purposes whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client nor Consultant. Neither Client nor Consultant shall have liability to indemnify or hold harmless third parties for losses incurred by actual or purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed. Report Recommendations are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist that could not be identified within the scope of the investigation or that were not apparent during our site investigation. Findings of this report are limited to data collected from noted explorations advanced and do not account for unidentified fill zones, unsuitable soil types or conditions, and variability in soil moisture and groundwater conditions. To avoid possible misinterpretations of findings, conclusions, and implications of this report, Atlas should be retained to explain the report contents to other design professionals as well as construction professionals. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 121 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants �1Mom I1 J� Since actual subsurface conditions on the site can only be verified by earthwork, note that construction recommendations are based on general assumptions from selective observations and selective field exploratory sampling. Upon commencement of construction, such conditions may be identified that require corrective actions, and these required corrective actions may impact the project budget. Therefore, construction recommendations in this report should be considered preliminary, and Atlas should be retained to observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed. Since geotechnical reports are subject to misinterpretation, do not separate the soil logs from the report. Rather, provide a copy of, or authorize for their use, the complete report to other design professionals or contractors. Locations of exploratory sites referenced within this report should be considered approximate locations only. For more accurate locations, services of a professional land surveyor are recommended. This report is also limited to information available at the time it was prepared. In the event additional information is provided to Atlas following publication of our report, it will be forwarded to the client for evaluation in the form received. Environmental Concerns Comments in this report concerning either onsite conditions or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. These comments are not intended to describe, quantify, or evaluate environmental concerns or situations. Since personnel, skills, procedures, standards, and equipment differ, a geotechnical investigation report is not intended to substitute for a geoenviron mental investigation or a Phase II/III Environmental Site Assessment. If environmental services are needed, Atlas can provide, via a separate contract, those personnel who are trained to investigate and delineate soil and water contamination. Atlas No. B242146g Page 122 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants CD } � Em CY) ° ƒ o \ \ }\\ 20 o _ wICO U) \ m \ } % 3 § $ In \ tea= /m E / .0 � k / ® - k � � CL p\ Cl§ o � \ /\ - « U) / 36 \j � � ` E ! } . . . { \ 2 ■ < ! > | �� g | \ §) : ; r |§\ | _ < \ $ : O ® cc ) ` cn m,mN _gym � ~ ■ } | ; & 8 _ ■ N co r S- Ur o N M N N mLL C c6 H N H N C cn O N O N J _ _ d O Q .N Q N ccd CO L N >. m CD 0 (n N N f) C U N N F 3 N O O N 3 N 3 CO N v ~ O0 C7 Q 0c C • �C a0 m U) W W0 X U U — Nu O O O > cO_J J CD U a N O W O- co CD-�. +_ C W N O �Z oomO d Z J Q W' Qd Qd QU) �.o N 0 comaim / a _ ® d-® oo— Lo if \ \ (D \ / (cc co I \ � / \ I \ 3 \ p \ UL 1 N I \ 1 { (Do CL p `\ M y�, —\ O p l LAKE HAZEL ROAD APPENDIX IV GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TIP-1 Latitude: 43.545334 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.392529 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 13.2 feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil anM ample =ample - . . . . . Fat Clay with Sand (CH): Brown, dry to slightly 0.0-0.8 moist, soft to stiff, with fine-grained sand. 0.5-1.5 --Organics noted to 0.5 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry, hard, with fine- 0.8-6.6 grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 6.6-13.2 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent weak cementation encountered throughout. Below 13.2 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 13.2 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 8.5 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 125 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-2 Latitude: 43.544828 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.389325 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 15.1 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay with Sand (CH): Brown, dry to slightly moist, medium stiff to very stiff, with fine- 0.0-1.4 grained sand. Bulk 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 R-value --Organics noted to 0.7 foot bgs. --Plow zone noted to 1.0 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry, hard, with fine- 1.4-10.2 grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 10.2-15.1 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent weak cementation encountered throughout. Notes: See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 15.1 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 10.6 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 126 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TIP-3 Latitude: 43.544209 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.393597 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 12.3 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay with Sand (CH): Brown, dry to slightly 0.0-1.8 moist, stiff to very stiff, with fine-grained sand. 1.5-2.0 --Organics noted to 0.7 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry, hard, with fine- 1.8-6.3 grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 6.3-12.3 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent weak cementation encountered throughout. Below 12.3 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 12.3 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 10.7 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 127 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-4 Latitude: 43.543418 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.392481 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 15.3 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) Test ID Fat Clay with Sand(CH): Brown,slightly moist, 0.0-1.4 stiff to very stiff, with fine-grained sand. GS 0.8-1.3 1.5-2.0 A --Organics noted to 0.8 foot bgs. --Plow zone noted to 1.0 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, hard, with 1.4-4.9 fine-grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, medium dense to dense, with fine to coarse-grained 4.9-15.3 sand. --Intermittent weak cementation encountered throughout. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 15.3 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 7.8 feet bgs. Passing)Lab Test ID oisture LL Pi Sieve Analysis (% 1 #40 #100 #200 A 23.8 51 33 100 1 100 99 93 84.2 Atlas No. 13242146g Page 128 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-5 Latitude: 43.542756 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.389338 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 11.7 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth 7Qp . . .. ITest ID Lean Clay with Sand (CL): Brown, dry to slightly moist, soft to stiff, with fine-grained 0.0-1.9 sand. 0.5-1.5 --Organics noted to 0.6 foot bgs. --Plow zone noted to 1.0 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, hard, with fine-grained sand. 1.9-5.5 --Moderate to strong cementation GS 2.0-2.5 B encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry to slightly 5.5-11.7 moist,dense,with fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent weak cementation encountered throughout. Below 11.7 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 11.7 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 11.7 feet bgs. Sieve Analysis (% Passing or- Lab Test ID Moisture #4 1 #40 #100 B 21.7 NP NP 95 81 52 40 31.4 'Sieve results skewed due to cementation Atlas No. 13242146g Page 129 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TIP-6 Latitude: 43.541863 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.393495 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 14.4 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay with Sand(CH): Brown,slightly moist, 0.0-1.4 medium stiff to very stiff, with fine-grained 1.0-2.0 sand. --Organics noted to 0.5 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry to slightly moist, 1.4-5.3 hard, with fine-grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, dense, with fine 5.3-14.4 to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent weak to moderate cementation encountered throughout. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 14.4 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 6.1 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 130 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TIP-7 Latitude: 43.540379 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.391831 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 13.6 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) Test ID Lean Clay with Sand (CL): Brown, dry to 0.0-1.2 slightly moist, stiff to very stiff, with fine- GS 0.7-1.2 1.5-2.0 C grained sand. --Organics noted to 0.6 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, hard, with 1.2-5.3 fine-grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 5.3-13.6 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Weak cementation encountered throughout. Below 13.6 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 13.6 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 13.6 bgs. . • Test ID oisture LL P1 Sieve Analysis (% Passing) 1 #40 #100 #200 C 12.8 41 23 100 1 100 98 93 79.5 Atlas No. 13242146g Page 131 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-8 Latitude: 43.539256 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.393390 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 9.6 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth 7Qp . . .. ITest ID Lean Clay with Sand (CL): Brown, dry to 0.0-1.3 slightly moist, medium stiff to very stiff, with 1.0-2.0 fine-grained sand. --Organics noted to 0.6 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, hard, with 1.3-5.7 fine-grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, medium dense to dense, with fine to medium-grained 5.7-9.6 sand. --Intermittent weak cementation encountered throughout. Below 9.6 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 9.6 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 9.6 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 132 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-9 Latitude: 43.539639 Date Advanced: June 7, 2022 Longitude: -116.389698 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Mason Allen Total Depth: 12.2 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth 7Qp . . .. ITest ID Lean Clay with Sand (CL): Brown, dry to 0.0-1.0 slightly moist, medium stiff to very stiff, with 1.0-2.0 fine-grained sand. --Organics noted to 0.3 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, hard, with 1.0-5.5 fine-grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, medium dense to dense, with fine to medium-grained 5.5-12.2 sand. --Intermittent weak cementation encountered throughout. Below 12.2 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 12.2 feet bgs. Infiltration testing conducted at a depth of 12.2 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 133 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-10 Latitude: 43.545802 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.392935 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 15.2 feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sample Sample Depth Lab . . .. 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.2 0.75-1.5 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.8 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist to moist, stiff to hard, with fine to coarse-grained 1.2-7.4 sand. GS 2.0-3.0 2.0-4.5+ D --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 7.4-15.2 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent weak to moderate cementation encountered throughout. Notes: See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 15.2 feet bgs. to M L #4.AL #1 0.AL#4oAL#1 11A[L#200 D 42.0% NP NP 97 90 77 65 51.0 *Sieve results skewed due to cementation. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 134 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-11 Latitude: 43.545273 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.392187 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 7.2 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to very stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.8 0.75-2.0 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.8 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist to moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 1.8-5.7 grained sand. 2.5-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 5.7-7.2 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent weak to moderate cementation encountered throughout. Below 7.2 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 7.2 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 135 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNIC,AL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-12 Latitude: 43.541605 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.392207 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 14.4 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to very stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.1 1.0-2.0 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.8 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse-grained 1.1-7.9 sand. 2.5-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 7.9-14.4 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Notes: See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 14.4 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 136 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNIC,AL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-13 Latitude: 43.541257 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.390561 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 11.0 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to very stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.5 1.0-2.0 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.8 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse-grained 1.5-7.1 sand. 3.0-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand. 7.1-11.0 --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. --Refusal on strong cementation at 11.0 feet bgs. Notes: See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 11.0 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 137 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-14 Latitude: 43.541151 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.388592 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 11.3 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) Test ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to very stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.9 0.75-2.0 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 1.0 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse-grained 1.9-6.6 sand. 2.5-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand. 6.6-11.3 --Intermittent weak to moderate cementation encountered throughout. --8-inch minus basalt cobbles encountered from 10.0 to 11.3 feet bgs. Below 11.3 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 11.3 feet bgs. Atlas No. B242146g Page 138 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-15 Latitude: 43.540053 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.385244 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 14.0 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) Test ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.6 0.75-1.5 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.8 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 1.6-7.5 grained sand. 2.5-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand. 7.5-14.0 --Intermittent moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. --Refusal on strong cementation at 14.0 feet bgs. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 14.0 feet bgs. Atlas No. B242146g Page 139 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-16 Latitude: 43.539438 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.389779 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 8.7 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) Test ID Fat Clay Fill (CH-FILL): Brown, slightly moist, stiff to very stiff. 0.0-0.5 --Wood debris noted throughout. 1.5-2.0 --Organic material noted throughout. 0.5-1.5 Fat Clay (CH): Brown, slightly moist, stiff to 1.5-2.0 very stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 1.5-5.6 grained sand. GS 3.0-4.0 3.0-4.5+ E --Weak to moderate cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand and intermittent 8- 5.E-8.7 inch minus basalt cobbles. --Weak to moderate cementation encountered throughout. Below 8.7 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 8.7 feet bgs. . . Test ID Moisture LL P1 Sieve Analysis (% Passing)* 1 #40 #10011 E 18.7 N P N P 95 80 54 43 33.8 *Sieve results skewed due to cementation. Atlas No. B242146g Page J 40 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-17 Latitude: 43.539427 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.391472 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 3.5 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, slightly moist, medium 0.0-1.0 stiff to very stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 1.0-2.0 --Organic material noted to 0.4 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 1.0-3.5 grained sand and 12-inch minus basalt cobbles. --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Below 3.5 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 3.5 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 141 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNIC,AL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-18 Latitude: 43.539209 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.393081 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 8.4 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . .. Fat Clay (CH): Brown, slightly moist, medium 0.0-1.3 stiff to stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.75-1.5 --Organic material noted to 0.4 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 1.3-5.9 grained sand. 2.5-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand and intermittent 8- 5.9-8.4 inch minus basalt cobbles. --Intermittent moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Below 8.4 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 8.4 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 142 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-19 Latitude: 43.543197 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.387850 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 10.5 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth 7Qp . . .. ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.4 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.8 GS 0.5-1.0 0.75-1.5 F foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 1.4-6.5 grained sand. 3.0-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 6.5-10.5 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Below 10.5 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 10.5 feet bgs. Sieve Analysis (% Passing) dw • 1 • � 1 1 1 1 1 F 31.3 52 28 100 99 97 93 86.3 Atlas No. 13242146g Page 143 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNIC,AL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-20 Latitude: 43.545389 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.388161 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 8.3 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.4 1.0-1.5 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.8 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 1.4-6.0 grained sand. 3.0-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 6.0-8.3 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Below 8.3 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 8.3 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 144 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-21 Latitude: 43.544343 Date Advanced: January 7, 2025 Longitude: -116.387001 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Sydney Shockley Total Depth: 6.6 feet bgs Depth Field Description Sample Depth . . bgs) 7Qp ITest ID Fat Clay (CH): Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff, with minor fine-grained sand. 0.0-1.3 0.75-1.0 --Plow zone and organic material noted to 0.5 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, stiff to hard, with fine to coarse-grained 1.3-5.5 sand. 2.0-4.5+ --Moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, dense, with 5.5-6.6 fine to coarse-grained sand. --Intermittent moderate to strong cementation encountered throughout. Below 6.6 Basalt: Dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, moderately strong. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 6.6 feet bgs. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 145 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants APPENDIX V GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES Unified Soil Classification System Major Divisions Symbol Soil Descriptions Gravel & GW Well-graded ravels; ravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Coarse- Gravelly Soils GP Poorly-graded ravels; ravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Grained < 50% GM Silty gravels; poorly-graded ravel/sand/silt mixtures Soils < coarse GC Clayey gravels; poorly-graded gravel/sand/clay mixtures 50% Sand & Sandy SW Well-graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines passes Soils > 50% SP Poorly-graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines No.200 coarse SM Silty sands; poorly-graded sand/gravel/silt mixtures sieve fraction Sc Clayey sands; poorly-graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures Fine- ML Inorganic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey silts Grained Silts & Clays CL Lean clays; inorganic, gravelly, sandy, or silty, low to medium- Soils > LL < 50 lasticit cla s 50% OL Organic, low-plasticity clays and silts passes MH Inorganic, elastic silts; sandy, gravellyor clayey elastic silts No.200 Silts & Clays CH Fat clays; high-plasticity, inorganic clays sieve LL> 50 OH Organic, medium to high-plasticity clays and silts Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, humus, h dric soils with high organic content LRelative Density and Consistency Moisture Content and Cementation Coarse-Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts N Description Field Test Very Loose: < 4 Dry Absence of moisture, dry to touch Loose: 4-10 Slightly Moist Damp, but no visible moisture Medium Dense: 10-30 Moist Visible moisture Dense: 30-50 Wet Visible free water Very Dense: > 50 Saturated Soil is usually below water table Fine-Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts N Description Field Test Very Soft: < 2 Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or Soft: 2-4 slight finger pressure Medium Stiff: 4-8 Moderate Crumbles or breaks with Stiff: 8-15 considerable finger pressure Very Stiff: 15-30 Strong Will not crumble or break with finger Hard: > 30 pressure Particle Size Acronym List Boulders: > 12 in. GS grab sample Cobbles: 12 to 3 in. LL Liquid Limit Gravel: 3 in. to 5 mm M moisture content Coarse-Grained Sand: 5 to 0.6 mm NIP non-plastic Medium-Grained Sand: 0.6 to 0.2 mm PI Plasticity Index Fine-Grained Sand: 0.2 to 0.075 mm QP penetrometer value, unconfined compressive Silts: 0.075 to 0.005 mm strength, tsf Clays: < 0.005 mm V vane value, ultimate shearing strength, tsf Atlas No. B242146g Page 146 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants APPENDIX VI R-VALUE LABORATORY TEST DATA Source and Description: TP-2: 0.5'-1.0', Fat Clay with Sand Date Obtained: June 7, 2022 Sample ID: 22-0777 Sampling and Preparation: ASTM D75: AASHTO T2: X ASTM AASHTO X D421: T87: Test Standard: ASTM AASHTO Idaho T8: X D2844: T190: Sample A B C Dry Density Ib/ft3 NA NA NA Moisture Content % NA NA NA Expansion Pressure (psi) NA NA NA Exudation Pressure (psi) NA NA NA R-Value NA NA NA R-Value @ 200 psi Exudation Pressure = Less than 5** ** ASTM D2844 Note 2: Occasionally, material from very plastic clay-test specimens will extrude from under the mold and around the follower ram during the loading operation. If this occurs when the 800-psi point is reached and fewer than five lights are lighted, the soil should be reported as less than 5 R-value. Atlas No. 13242146g Page 147 Copyright©2025 Atlas Technical Consultants hapoplant Infopmation ahoul ■ GeolechnicalmEnglueeping SubWhile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cost overruns, claims, and help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly different civil engineer.Because each geotechnical-engineering study a client representative—interpret and apply this is unique,each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,prepared geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as Solely for the client. possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface Likewise,geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose.For example,it is unlikely that a geotechnical- conditions at project sites and development of engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as them that, for decades, have been a principal cause one prepared for a parking garage;and a few borings drilled during of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to and disputes. If you have questions or want more develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical for a different client; engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation for a different project or purpose; techniques that can be of genuine benefit for for a different site(that may or may not include all or a portion of everyone involved with a construction project. the original site);or before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g.,man-made events like construction or environmental Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services remediation,or natural events like floods,droughts,earthquakes, Provided for this Report or groundwater fluctuations. Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection,interpretation,and analysis of exploratory data from Note,too,the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can widely spaced borings and/or test pits.Field data are combined be affected by the passage of time,because of factors like changed with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained subsurface conditions;new or modified codes,standards,or from field exploration(if applicable),observations made during site regulations;or new techniques or tools.If you are the least bit uncertain reconnaissance,and historical information to form one or more models about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site.Local geology engineer before applying the recommendations in it.A minor amount and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time-if any is proposed construction are also important considerations.Geotechnical required at all-could prevent major problems. engineers apply their engineering training,experience,and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface Read this Report in Full model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected engineering report did not read the report in its entirety.Do not rely on performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or an executive summary.Do not read selective elements only.Read and affected by construction activities. refer to the report in full. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained,a discussion About Change of the subsurface model(s),the engineering and geologic engineering Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors assessments and analyses made,and the recommendations developed when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing to satisfy the given requirements of the project.These reports may be the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. titled investigations,explorations,studies,assessments,or evaluations. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include Regardless of the title used,the geotechnical-engineering report is an those that affect: engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination,systematic • the site's size shape; c inquiry,or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. the elevation,configuration,location,orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed the desired performance criteria; for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, • the composition of the design team;or and At Specific Times • project ownership. Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project needs,goals,and risk management preferences of their clients.A or site changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical conspicuously that you've included the material for information purposes engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note that would have considered. "informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in the Most of the"Findings" Related in This Report report.Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific Are Professional Opinions project requirements,including options selected from the report,only Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's from the design drawings and specifications.Remind constructors subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures.Geotechnical that they may perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific allow enough time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in locations where sampling and testing is performed.The data derived from a position to give constructors the information available to you,while that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about stemming from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual sitewide-subsurface preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer Read Responsibility Provisions Closely to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do informed guidance quickly,whenever needed. not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.This happens in part because soil and rock on This Report's Recommendations Are project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials Confirmation-Dependent with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete.That The recommendations included in this report-including any options or lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are not resulted in disappointments,delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes. final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily To confront that risk,geotechnical engineers commonly include on judgement and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer can finalize explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations; the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' exposed during construction.If through observation your geotechnical responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, responsibilities and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions. the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming no other changes have Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations ifyou Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental This Report Could Be Misinterpreted site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform a Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-engineering engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk report does not usually provide environmental findings,conclusions,or by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground the design team,to: storage tanks or regulated contaminants.Unanticipated subsurface confer with other design-team members; environmental problems have led to project failures.If you have not help develop specifications; obtained your own environmental information about the project site, review pertinent elements of other design professionals'plans and ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find specifications;and environmental risk-management guidance. be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this Moisture Infiltration and Mold report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,the engineer's phase observations. services were not designed,conducted,or intended to prevent migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance through building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting Accordingly,proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the moisture infiltration.Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Iff:VA GEOPROFESSIONAL AFM BUSINESS - ASSOCIATION Telephone:301/565-2733 e-mail:info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with GBA's specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation. GROUND WATER MONITORING REPORT - PINNACLE MERIDIAN 70 PROJECT (NATURAL RESOURCES SOLUTIONS, 11/6/2026) NATURAL RESOURCE SLR/ LLC MIKE RAYMOND Consulting, Soil Evaluations & Data Collection _ Phone: 208.409-1505 Email:mraydirty@gmail.com November 6, 2023 Daniel Frisby Brighton Corporation 2929 Navigation Dr., Suite 400 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: 2023 final ground water monitoring report—Pinnacle Meridian 70 Project I have completed bi-weekly monitoring of ground water levels for the Pinnacle Meridian 70 project for the 2023 season(March 27 through October 20). Attached you will find worksheets and graphics showing the data recorded to date and a map showing piezometer locations on the site for reference. All nine piezometers have remained dry throughout the monitoring period. These dry piezometers have bottom elevations ranging from 2706.1 to 2723.1 feet. Bottom depths range from 112 to 178 inches (9.3 to 14.8 feet)below ground surface (bgs). With the exception of about 10 non-irrigated acres on the south end of the property, it has been used to raise surface-irrigated wheat crops this year. The wheat has been watered on a regular basis and looks very healthy. It continues to surprise me that the piezometers have remained dry. The property must be very well-drained. Additional monitoring may help further identify seasonal changes in the water table in the area. If there are any questions,please give me a call or reach me by e-mail. Thank you. transmitted via e-mail MICHAEL A. RAYMOND, M.S. Soil Scientist 5740 N. APPLEBRooK WAY BoisE,IDAHO 83713 N 0+0 LO ti co M � W) N I- Q- M 1l- M le to T Re i + + + + + + + + + 00' M I-r- co M Iq (D r i N 0+0 LO ti co+ M LO Lc) N ti CD r T 1 0+0 Lc � 0+0 M L) L O N � M I` M Iq to r i •L i ♦ ♦ + ♦ + ♦ + ♦ + N N co M M (D Q O , � 0+0 LO ti 0+0 M LC) L♦A N ti M I- ce) Iq CO T y„ = -N 00 LO ti 00 M L O L+c) N ti E _ M q I` M CO r t T T T T r T r T r �+ ten00 LC) 1l- Co M LC) LO N 1- � v O N u 00 LC) 1- 00 M LC) LC) N I- r.. O CU ` v M v ti M r w 4 0 a 00 LO I- 00 M LO LO N 1- 1 le Cl) Re ti M le CD T O O + + + + + + + + + N C ^ N ; 00 LO 1- 00 M LO LC) N 1- G N ' le M le 1- M Iq CO r Q V V 00 LO I- 00 M LO LO N 1l_ N Q a N00 1 M Iq I- CM LO le CD r L. le N � � O LO + + + + + + + + + ,Q N00 M co M LO w + ♦ ♦ ♦ + ♦ + 00 LO I- 00 M LO LO N 1- M I- M CD r M 1 r T r r r T r T r to L C) 00 Ln N 00 M Ln LO N N ,CU -0 d M !F N M 1P co IM O N N N N N N t� N M LO Cp O 11 MJ ll 11 tp O O N r N N N N N to 00 t► N co to It O O 1 N N N N N N N N N 1 V V V V V V V V V 1 1 Cl) t0 00 00 to N 1 1 1 N N N r N O r O 1-- N N h N h !� N N N N N N N N N 1 V v V V V v V v V 1 M r t0 00 00 to r N O N Cl) O tC CO C co tC er N ti � CIACN CA N N N N N N N N N v v v v v v v v v 1 i M �► t0 CO 00 LO N N M C to QO O to O 1 N N N N N N N N N i V V V V V V V V V 1 M t0 00 00 to e N d' 1 N N ; Cl) N N O O 1 N N N N N N N N N i V V V V V V V V V M r r tD 00 O N r N _ O i Cm co Q co N N N N O 0 0 M\ 1 ry 1 i '., v v v v v v v v v O O M t► r t0 00 00 to r N C to CO O CO to !F N = N N N e� N e O O \ h N N N L 0 N N N N N N N N N V v V V V V V V V M r t0 00 00 h r N m N y Clj O to 00 O Co to li O V- 0 N N N N \ y 14 N I� d N N N N N N N N •1„ V V V V V V V V V O 4- 3 to to co Co to N = co a N N N co N 00 to 1q: O Ir N r- N N 0 0 i� (Q CO N N N N N N N N N +� W Q O V V V V V V V V V I w (D M t� t0 CO 0O h e N v M N tM C to CO O CO to !t 1 N N N NCD r e O e Vl C O i N N N N N N N N N O 1 V V V V V V V V V i i M 117 V� t0 00 00 In r N (Q 00 i N M C to 00 O 00 to N � 04 04 C14 v v v v v v v v v : to co 00 LO .- N W L N M C to 00 O 00 to er O 1 N N N N N N N N N CD i V V V V V V V V V Q 1 � M V► VI O 00 0p to r N � CA N cn O to tb C co to N ; 04 04 C 04 _ _ !f 1 N N N N N N N N N v v v v v v v v vr ID y i M r t0 00 00 to r N Q/� O sty N th C to 00 C 00 6 !} li N N N N t O V 1 ti N N N I� L M V v v v V v V v V V N 1 O i M t► t0 c0 00 to V N �0 i N M C tC 00 C 00 to �! N N i ti 04 C14 C14 r0. M 1 N N N N N N N N N V V V V V V V v V d Op M to c0 00 LO N V +� N c6 CD O Cp co 1* N m W N N N N N N N N N a i _ tM0 M M 0000 co N N csi e-: of N N tci cc a> d N N N N N N Q W N N N N N N N N N ctl M M M M M M M M M ,,L N M It Lo, ao C6 Z 0 I I I I I I I I I I I � ®i (i) II (A) i (D i II i i i II N I 1 I I I II 1 1 I I I 11 I I I II a 1 1 1 I II 1 1 I I I I I I I I II H , 1 11 I I 11 I I I II I I I I 1 I ® (1)I ( W I ® I m I I I C Q I 1 1 1 I II 1 1 I I I I I I I I II 1 I 1 1 1 I II 1 1 I I I I I I I I II � 1 1 1 I II 1 1 I I I 11 I I I II M N 6 I I I I II 1 1 I I I I I I I I II a I I I I I I I I I I H = I 1 11 I 11 11 I I I II I I I II I O 1 11 I 11 11 I I I II I I I II � I � I 1 I I I 11 11 I 1I I II I I I I14 c dkb I I I N H I 1 I ' I II 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 a p t 1 1 11 I 11 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 ++ I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I O I bbI b I I I b1 I I I 1 Q � 11 1 1 I I I 11 I I I 11 N 1 11 I .�111 I co T ml (1) (Ili IN) I ® I Q I I I a O I 1 11 I 11 11 I I I II I I I II � a 1 11 I 11 11 I 1 1 11 I I I p 1 11 I 11 II I I I 11 I I I p W I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II M = N , 1 11 I II 11 I 1 1 I I I I I 11 ' � I � 11 I 11 11 I I I II I I I II 0 O � I 1 11 I 11 11 I I I II I I I II � I � �I ¢ � � I ¢ I � I I I � M •Q � i 1 li I �11 11 I I I I111 I I I �11 �D 1 � I 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 1 11 I I I 11 •i, , 1 I I I 11 1 1 I 1 1 11 I I I 11 1 N � 1 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 1 11 I I I 11 a .OQ I ¢ ¢I ( I ( I ¢ I I I Ln Q tq I I I I I I I I I I d I I 11 I 11 11 I I I II I I I II I � I I I I 11 I I I I I ®I � � I I I I I II 1 1 I I I I I I I I II a O I I II I 11 11 I I I I I I I I II � I 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 1 11 I I I 11 I O 1 1 I I I II 1 1 I I I I I I I I II � 1 h I oI � � (m I I I I C I I I I I I I I I I N a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q Q N O 00 00 1.0 N N N ei ei ei rl ei O O O Z n n n n n n n n n n n N N N N N N N N N N N IV (6 � ■�689J21 __ f co co LO E 10! la M M W co I Cy 5 "�' N N M i ! ' N M LL f„ = r �° , � fff 1 r .1 N, A' <j•y •p.. i:-Sad. 1. �V • 3. - -- W N