CC - Storm Drainage ReportProject No. 170270
Storm Drainage nage Report
for
ENTRA TA FARMS SUBDIVISION
Prepared by: John Carpenter, P.E.
March 18, 2019
Two ENGINEERS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
332 NORTH BROADMORE WAY
NAMPA, IDAHO 83687
208-442-6300 • FAX 208-466-0944
STORM DRAINAGE SUMMARY
Entrata Subdivision is located west of the intersection of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road
in Meridian, ID. The approximately 18 acre property is directly west of the Franklin at Ten Mile
apartment complex. The Kennedy Lateral defines the east boundary of the property and provides
irrigation water to this property. A spur of the Purdham drain intersects the property at the
southwest corner. Historically, runoff from the south half of the property is directed to this drain.
Entrata Subdivision Phase 1 consists of 38 multi -family lots, a clubhouse and pool, multiple park
areas, underground utilities, attached curb and gutter, and street paving. The multi -family
buildings consist of a mix of 2 and 3 story individual units. Each building cluster will have roof
drains connected to storm drainage pipe that conveys the storm water to storage facilities.
There is currently one house existing on the property near Franklin Road. Historically the property
was used as a feed lot/agriculture land.
This report details the storm drainage facilities for Phase 1 of the project. These facilities accept
drainage from 5 separate basins, which include some drainage from future Phase 2 (see attached
Basin Map). Drainage from the public right of way (Basin ACRD) will be collected and stored
separately from the private drainage system.
PUBLIC DRAINAGE
Drainage from the right-of-way will be directed to catch basins in N. Entrata Way and W. Perugia
Street. Runoff will be piped to a sand and grease trap and ultimately to a Seepage Bed ACHD,
located in the common lot south of W. Perugia Street near the West boundary. This will be the
only public drainage system in the project and will be owned and maintained by ACHD. All other
drainage systems will be private and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners'
Association.
PRIVATE DRAINAGE
The remainder of improvements, outside the public right of way will be directed to private
facilities. All seepage beds have been sized to store/infiltrate the 100 year storm. Historical runoff
will be maintained to the Purdham Drain. Landscape runoff will be collected through Nyloplast
area drains. Standard catch basins will collect road runoff, which will be pretreated through a
sand and grease trap for seepage bed facilities or treated in a swale.
Basin A contains drainage from the road, roof, and common lot area drains south of the road for
the portion of W. Chair Lift Lane east of N. Entrata Way and a portion of the property south of W.
Perugia Road and west of N. Entrata Way. Drainage from this area will be routed to Swale A,
located at the southwest corner of the property. Swale A will retain the water quality storm, any
additional runoff will overflow, through a piped outlet to the Purdham Drain Spur.
Basin B contains drainage from a portion of W. Ski Hill Lane, N. Manship Lane and portions of W.
Ski Jump Lane and N. Manship Lane located in future phase 2, as well as common lots adjacent to
these roadways. Basin B also contains roof drainage from the building south of W. Ski Hill Lane.
Drainage from this area will be routed to Seepage Bed B in the west side of the common lot north
of W. Perugia Street.
Entrata Subdivision Phase 1
Drainage Calculations
Basin C contains drainage from N. Echo Canyon Lane north of Perugia Street, W. Fresh Powder
Lane, and a portion of W. Ski Hill lane. Basin C also contains drainage from roof drains and
common lot area drains north of W. Chair Lift Lane and south of W. Perugia Street, north of W.
Perugia Street and south of W. Fresh Powder Land and W. Ski Hill Lane, North of W. Ski Hill Lane
and south of W. Ski Jump Lane (phase 2), and north of W. Ski Jump Lane (phase 2) and south of
W. Bunny Hill Lane (phase 2). Drainage from this area will be routed to Seepage Bed C in the east
side of the common lot north of W Perugia Street.
Basin D contains drainage from roof drains and common lot area drains north of W. Fresh Powder
Lane and east of N. Echo Canyon Lane. Drainage from this area will be routed to Seepage Bed C in
the common lot located north of W. Fresh Powder Lane and east of N. Echo Canyon Lane.
Flood events will be routed to the Purdham Drain Spur located at the south-west corner of the
property.
GROUNDWATER
The attached geotechnical investigation identifies several test pits that have been excavated to
determine soil conditions as well as groundwater elevation. Groundwater was encountered
throughout the site. Refer to the geotechnical report in the appendix for approximate
groundwater elevations. Contractor shall contact the project engineer for observations if
groundwater is encountered at an elevation inconsistent with the geotechnical report.
DESIGN CRITERIA
• Rational method is used for calculating the peak runoff flows: Q= C * I * A
• Runoff coefficients based on land use from Ada County Highway District Standards.
• Percolation rate at 8 in/hr maximum used in design where applicable per the geotechnical
report in the appendix. At the time of construction project engineer will observe soil
conditions for concurrence with design. Owner's geotechnical engineer will verify soils if
conditions do not appear consistent with design
APPENDICES
• A - Vicinity Map
• B - Percolation Bed Sizing Calculations
• C - Drainage Basin Map
• D - Soils Report
L:\170270\40—Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\170270 Storm Drainage Report Phase Ldoc
Entrata Subdivision Phase 1
Drainage Calculations
� , 1
LA170270\40_Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\170270 Storm Drainage Report Phase l.doc
ENTRATA FARMS
� �a-���■■■■ ■� ■11111//■/1111/1111
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1"=1000'
Entrata Subdivision Phase 1
Drainage Calculations
LA170270\40 Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\170270 Storm Drainage Report Phase I .doc
ACRD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Seepage Bed With Optional Chambers
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,
!Vote this spreadsheet pulls Information from the "Peak Q,V" tab
Steps for Seepage Beds
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 Entrata Farms Subdivision
enter numner of seepage Beds (25 maxi
3 Design Storm
4 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C
5 Area A (Acres)
6 Approved discharge rate (if applicable)
7 Is Seepage Bed In Common Lot? yes
8 Set Total Design Width of All Drain Rock
9 Set Total Design Depth of All Drain Rock
Rock Only, Do Not Include Filter Sand Depth or Cover
10 Void Ratio of Drain Rack
0.4 for 1.5"-2" drain rock and 3/4" Chips
11 Design Infiltration Rate 18 In/hr max)
1
100
0.95
1.30 acres
-- 0.n0 cis
Unk t1. 1,4V���
OV TNSS
I
V 1,268 it,
W 20 D ft
D 29ft
Voids 0.4
Pert 8.00 in/hr
12 Size of WQ Perf Pipe (Perf 18001 Dia pipe 1Y In
13 Size of Overflow Perf Pipe (Perls 3601), REDID if Q100>3.3 cfs In
14 Calculate Total Storage per Foot Spf 35.9 ft'/ft
15 Calculate Design Length
Override Value Required for Chambers
16 Variable Infiltration Window L
17 Variable Infiltration Window W
18 Time to Drain
90% volume in 48 -hours minimum
19 Length of WQ & Overflow Perf Pipes
20 Perf Pipe Checks, Qperf>= Qpeak;
where Qperf=CdxAxV(2xgxH)
This assumes chambers are organized in a
1 Type of Chambers
2 Volume to Store
L 119 126 ft
SWL 126 It
SWW 20.0 it
2.3 hours
126 117 it
1-StormTech,
SC740
V
3 Installed Chamber Width CW
Installed Chamber Depth Cd
Installed Chamber Height Ch
4 Chamber Void Factor
5 Chamber Storage Volume, Without Rock, Per Manuf
6 Chamber Storage Volume, With Rock, Per Manuf
7 Total Number of Units Required
8 Area of Infiltration Aperc
9 Volume Infiltration Vperc
10 Time to Drain
90% volume In 48 -hours minimum
0 It
4.25 ft
2.50 it
717 A
45.90 ft'/Unit
74.90 f1°/Unit
0 ea
ftz
0 ft'/hr
hours
OK Sediment
Li\170270\40 Final Design\Reports & Caics\Storm Dralnage\ACHD_SD_CALCS_02-26-2019 3/17/2019,12;09 PM
Version 10.0, May 2018
ACHD Quick Calcs for Pipe and Ditch Capacity
NOTE: This worksheet Is Intended to be a guideline to stendardlxe 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.
Quick Calculations for Pipe A, Ditch Capacity ;
User Input In yellow cells.
1 Project Name Entrata Farms - CB•ACHD3 to SDMH-ACHD1
2 PlDes
1 Enter Flow
0= 0.77 cis
2 Manning'sn
n= 9 Table on(/,V lop
3 Slope
S- 0 ITT rt/ft
4 Pipe Diameter
S, =
5 Uniform Flow Depth
Y,.' 3,4 In
6 Normal Velocity
V= 4.18 ft/s
7 Critical Flow Depth
Y, ` 4.40 in
8 Critical Velocity
V= 2.95 ft/s
8 Full Flow
0" = 4.34 cis
9 Full Flow %
13%
ij
3 Ditches
1 Flow Rate
0=
cf;
2 Mannings In
n -
3 Downstream Slope
S, =
ft/ft
4 Base Width
b =
it
5 Side Slope (H:1)
S■ H:1 -
6 Uniform How Depth
Y. =
0 O0 h
7 Velocity
V=
0.00 ft/s
Slide On Orifice Cep, Hole High Elev, at
Water Orifice
E(ev. Bottom Q
25•year
5D -year
100 -year
Set width Height
Round Rectangle Rectangle
Area A (h') Dla. (In) (In) (In)
High
Width Water
2 -Sharp Crest Weir (ft) Elev. (h) Crotch Elev. (ft) h Q
0.00 0.00
0-000 0 radians
0.607 Ce
L:\170270\40_Flnal Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\ACHD SD_CALCS_02-26-2019
Version 10.0, May 2018
3/17/2019, 12,22 PM
-PIPE '
7
_DEPTH OF FLOW
s
4
8
2
1
.e I
7 •5 4 -3 -2 111 9
1 2 3 4 5 7
2
-4
.6
12' DIAMETER
•7
0.009 MANNINGS
=LOW 0.77 CFS
0.0071 FT/FT SLOPE
2.00
-. 1.00 _DITCF
_ W SE
FLOW 4 CFS
0.005 T/FT SLOPE
•5 -4
.3 .2
.1 0
Set width Height
Round Rectangle Rectangle
Area A (h') Dla. (In) (In) (In)
High
Width Water
2 -Sharp Crest Weir (ft) Elev. (h) Crotch Elev. (ft) h Q
0.00 0.00
0-000 0 radians
0.607 Ce
L:\170270\40_Flnal Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\ACHD SD_CALCS_02-26-2019
Version 10.0, May 2018
3/17/2019, 12,22 PM
ACHD Quick Caics for Pipe and Ditch Capacity
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.
Quick Calculations for Pipe & Ditch Capacity
User Input in yellow cells.
i Project Name Entrata Farms - CB•ACHD2 to SOMH-ACHDI
2 Pines
1 Enter Flaw
Q= 0.25 ds
2 Manning's n
n= 0.009 ToW on QV To'
3 Slope
S 0 71 ft/ft
.17m
4 Pipe Diameter
a �
5 Uniform Flow Depth
Yo = 2,0 In
6 Normal Velocity
V= 3.01 ft/s
7 Critical Flow Depth
Y, = 2,47 In
8 Critical Velocity
V= 2.15 ft/s
8 Full Flow
On,s a 4.34 ch
9 Full Flow %
6%
3 Ditches
7
THOFFLOW
1 Flow Rate
Q =
cis
2 Manning's n
n =
3 Downstream Slope
$'
ft/ft
4 Base Width
b -
ft
5 Side Slope (H!1)
S. H1-
6 Uniform Flaw Depth
•7(Dtrcu),',�v
7
7 Velocity
V=
0.00 ft/s
METER
•7 I
0.009 MANNINGS
FLOW 0.25 CFS
0.0071 FTIFT SLOPE
3 Ditches
1 Flow Rate
Q =
cis
2 Manning's n
n =
3 Downstream Slope
$'
ft/ft
4 Base Width
b -
ft
5 Side Slope (H!1)
S. H1-
6 Uniform Flaw Depth
YR `
000 h
7 Velocity
V=
0.00 ft/s
4
Slide On Orifice Cap, Hole High Elev, at
Water Orifice
Elev. Bottom Q
25 -year
50 -year
100 year
•S -4 •S •2 •1
Set Width Height
Rovnd Racta'11. Rectangle
Area A (fe) Dim. (In) (in) (in)
High
Width b Water
2 -Sharp Crest Weir (h) Elev. (h) Crotch Elev. (h) h
0.00
0.000 8 radians
0.607 Ce
0.014 k
0.00 }
2.00
1.00 -0170
-WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
0,005 FITIFT SLOPE
��Ot4�t�1G:
0
U\170270\40 Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\ACHD SD CALCS 02.26-2019 3/17/2019, 12:22 PM
Version 10.0, May 2018
ACRD Quick Calcs for Pipe and Ditch Capacity
NOTE: This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHO checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These
calculations shall establish a minimum requirement. The Engineers methodology must result In facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted.
Quick Calculations for Pipe St Ditch Capacity
User input In yellow cells.
1 Project Name EntrataFarms -SDMH•ACHD1toSDMH•ACHD2
2 Plttes
1 Enter Flow
Q= 102 05
2 Manning's n
n: ) 009
3 Slope
S= 00 ft/it
4 Pipe Diameter
D ��2 in
5 Uniform Flow Depth
Yn= 4,6 In
6 Normal Velodty
V= 3.67 it/.
7 Critical Flow Depth
w 5.09 i"
8 Critical Velocity
V= 3.21 IRA
8 Full Flow
Ct" 3,25 cis
9 Fullflow%
31%
3 Ditches
1 Flow Rate
Q -
its
2 Mannings In
n
3 Downstream Slope
5,
h/h
4 Base Width
I,
it
5 Side Slope (H:1)
S, HA
G Uniform Flow Depth
Yn =
t' 110 ft
7 Velodty
V=
0.00 ft/s
4 OriflcefWeirs
Slide On Orifice Cap, Hole High Elev. at
N-3. Water Orifice
Elr v. Bottom tl
25 y'ar
50-ye"n
100-yem
-PIPE
7 -DEPTH OF FLOW
.7 -(Dir
7
METER
.NNINGS
FLOW 1.02 CFS 0,004 FT/FT SLOPE
-- --- -�- - - 2.00
g .4 g -2 .1
set Width Height
Round Rectangle Rectangle
AreaA(ft') Dia. (in) I III,) (in)
High
Widthb Water
2 -Sharp Crest Weir (ft) Elev. (ft) Crotch Elev. (ft) h
000
0.000 0 radians
0.607 Ce
0.014 i
L:\170270\40_Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\ACHD_SD_CALCS_02.26.2019
Version 10.0, May 2018
0.00
1,00 —DITcr
_WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
0.005 FT/FT SLOPE
o 08.024%%i?1G,'
0
3/17/2019, 12:23 PM
ACRD Quick Caics for Pipe and Bitch Capacity
NOTE: This worksheet is intended to be a guldell ne 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.
Quirk Coludatlom for Pipe & Ditch Capacity 41111=16
User Input in yellow cells.
1 Project Name Entrata Farms • SDMH-ACHD2 to SDMH•ACHD3
2 PlDes
1 Enter Flow
Q=
1.02 cfs
2 Manning's n
n 0
3 Slope
5-
0 00.10 ft/ft
4 Pipe Diameter
U
11 in
5 Uniform Flow Depth
yn=
4.6 in
6 Normal Velocity
V.
3.67 ft/s
7 Critical Flow Depth
Y, "
5.09 in
8 Critical Velocity
V=
3.21 ft/s
8 Full Flow
QM =
3.25 cfs
9 Full Flow %
31%
3 Ditches
1 Flow Rate
Q f
2 Manning's n
n
3 Downstream Slope
SL ft/h
4 Base Width
b R
5 side Slope (1-1:1)
5, HA
6 Uniform Flow Depth
Y. = f r;u h
7 Velocity
V= 0.00 ft/s
4 OrIfICe/Welrs
:DITCF
�WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
FTIFT SLOPE
.044@ARrS1ilPoG1
-4 9 .2 1 0
Slide On Orifice Cap, Hole High Elev. at Set width Height
>.g^ Water OrHlce Round Rectangle Rectangle
LI, V. Bottom 11 Aw s A (ft`) Dia, (In) (in) (In)
25 -year
50 -year
100-yem
I I
High
Width Water
-
'Jiij, Crest Wvir (It) Elev.(ft) Crotch Elev.(M h Q
0.00 0.00
0 000 A radians
0.607 Ce
0014 i
L:\170270\40_Final Design\Reports & Caics\Storm Drainage\ACHD_SD_CALCS„ 02-26-2019
Version 10.0, May 2018
3/17/2019, 12:25 PM
.PIPE
7
-DEPTH CF FLOW
6
D.005
4
3'
2;
t%
A{
-7 •5 -4 -3 -2 1
1 2 3 4 5 7
•2 ,
3�
d
-a
12° DIAMETER
-7
0,009 MANNINGS
FLOW 1.02 CFS
0.004 FTIFT SLOPE
:DITCF
�WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
FTIFT SLOPE
.044@ARrS1ilPoG1
-4 9 .2 1 0
Slide On Orifice Cap, Hole High Elev. at Set width Height
>.g^ Water OrHlce Round Rectangle Rectangle
LI, V. Bottom 11 Aw s A (ft`) Dia, (In) (in) (In)
25 -year
50 -year
100-yem
I I
High
Width Water
-
'Jiij, Crest Wvir (It) Elev.(ft) Crotch Elev.(M h Q
0.00 0.00
0 000 A radians
0.607 Ce
0014 i
L:\170270\40_Final Design\Reports & Caics\Storm Drainage\ACHD_SD_CALCS„ 02-26-2019
Version 10.0, May 2018
3/17/2019, 12:25 PM
D.005
:DITCF
�WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
FTIFT SLOPE
.044@ARrS1ilPoG1
-4 9 .2 1 0
Slide On Orifice Cap, Hole High Elev. at Set width Height
>.g^ Water OrHlce Round Rectangle Rectangle
LI, V. Bottom 11 Aw s A (ft`) Dia, (In) (in) (In)
25 -year
50 -year
100-yem
I I
High
Width Water
-
'Jiij, Crest Wvir (It) Elev.(ft) Crotch Elev.(M h Q
0.00 0.00
0 000 A radians
0.607 Ce
0014 i
L:\170270\40_Final Design\Reports & Caics\Storm Drainage\ACHD_SD_CALCS„ 02-26-2019
Version 10.0, May 2018
3/17/2019, 12:25 PM
ACHD Quick Caics for Pipe and Ditch Capacity
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 minimuin requirement. The Engineer's methodology must result In facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to he accepted.
Quick Calculations for Pipe A Ditch Capacity
User input In yellow cells.
1 Project Name
1 Enter Flow
2 Manning's n
3 Slope
4 Pipe Diameter
5 Uniform Flow Depth
6 Normal Velocity
7 Critical Flow Depth
8 Critical Velocity
8 Full Flow
9 Full Flow%
Entrato Farms -CB-ACHD3 to SDMH-ACHD3
-PIPP
091 Cf I 1 7 -DEPTH OF FLOW
Ct-
S
n=
0 009 root ori Q V R>;:
S-
(17119 h/ft
D -
12 in
Y- =
3.2 In
V=
5.42 ft/s
Y =
4.80 in
V.
3.10 ft/s
C6
5,85 cfs
6 Uniform Flow Depth
16'ro
3 Ditches
1 Flov: Rate
Q
CIS
2 Manning's n
n
3 Downstream Slope
ft/ft
4 Base Width
h -
it
5 Side Slope (H:1)
S,r HA =
6 Uniform Flow Depth
ya x
000 It
7 Velocity
V.
000 h/,
4 Orifice/Weirs
Silde On Orifice Cep, Hole High Elev. at
x3" Water Orifice
Elev. Bottom Cl
25 -year
50 year
100 -yea,
5
4
2
2
1
•7 6 »I •3 •R <h 1 2 3 4 5 7
'2
•E
12" DIAMETER
•7 0.009 MANNINGS
FLOW 0.91 CFS 0.0129 FT1FT SLOPE
5 •4 -9 .2
Set Width Height
Round Rectangle Rectan,,h,
Area A (ft') DI (in) (In)
Y
HI`h
Width Water
2 -Sharp Crest weir (ft) Elev. (ft) Crotch Eiev. (ft) h
000
0.000 0 radians
0 607 Ce
11,117 I
L:\170270\40_Final Design\Reports & Cala\Storm Drain age\ACHD_50_CALCS_02.26.2019
Version 10.0, May 2018
i
... - ;�... i —DITCF
_WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
0.005 FTlFT SLOPE
�.6r14�1�t��1G1
-1 0
0.00
3/17/2019, 12:26 PM
ACHD Quick Calcs for Pipe and Ditch Capacity
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.
Quick Calculations for Pipe & Ditch Capacity
User input In yellow cells.
1 Project Name Entrata Farms - C13-ACHD4 to SOMH-ACH03
2 PIDes
1 Enter Flaw
q= 0.35 cis
2 Manning's n
n-- 00
3 Slope
S=eft/ft
4 Pipe Diameter
0 12 III
5 Uniform Flow Depth
Y. = 1.2 In
6 Normal Velocity
V= ---432 ft/s
7 Critical Flow Depth
Y" ` 2193 In
8 Critical Velocity
V= 2.36 ft/s
8 Full Flow
Qna ° 16.04 ifs
9 Full Flow %
2%
3 bitches
1 Flow Rate
O=
rf••
2 Manning's n
n =
3 Downstream Slope
Sc"
ft/ft
4 Base Width
b =
It
5 Side Slope (f1:1)
S H:1=
6 Uniform Flow Oepth
y„=
0.00 ft
7 Velocity
v=
0.00 ft/s
4 Orifice/Weirs
--PIPE
7 — CEFTH OF fI1':: I
-7(D�
7
ETER
0.09 MANNINGS
i FLOW 0.35 CFS 0.0072 FT/FT SLOPE
- - --- ---`-'T— _ -2.00
.5 •4 -3 .2 .1
Slide 0n Orifice Cap, Hole High Elev. at Set Width Height
> 3, Water Orifice Round Rectangle Rectangle
EI,•:. Bottom cl Area A(fts) Dip. (in) (in) (in)
I
High
Width b Water
2 -Sharp Crest Weir (ft) Elev. (ft) Crotch r Irv. (ft) It q
O.fx] 0.00
O.D00 0 radians
0 607 Ce
t)nit k
Loll —DITa
`WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
0.005 HT/FT SLOPE
0
L:\170270\40_Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Oral nage\ACHD SD_CALCS 02.26.2019 3/17/2019,12:27 PM
Version 10.0, May 2018
ACRD Quick Caics for Pipe and Ditch Capacity
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.
Quick Calculations for Pipe & Ditch Capacity
User Input in yellow cells.
1 Project Name Entrata Farms - SDMH•ACHD3 to SGT-ACHDi
1 Enter Flow
2 Mannings n
3 Slope
4 Pipe Diameter
5 Uniform Flow Depth
6 Normal Velocity
7 Critical Flow Depth
8 Critical Velocity
8 Full Flow
9 Foil Flow%
3 Ditches
I FlmvRaty
0=
cis
2 Manning's n
n =
6{
3 Downstream Slope
S s
It/ft
4 Base Width
b •
it
5 Side Slope (1-1:1)
Sx H:1
—V
6 Uniform Flow Depth
yx ■
0.110 it
7 Velocity
V:3
000 h/;
4 Orifice/Welrs
PIPE
- -
7
DEPTH OF FLOW
6{
-4
4
3'
Hole High
2
Set Width
.77
—V
Water
Orifice
QJ12"
Round
Rectangle
Rectanylr
LI, V.
Bottom
ETER
.7
0.009 MANNINGS
FLOW 2.28 CFS
0.004 FT/FT SLOPE
4 Orifice/Welrs
-9
-4
Slide On Orifice Cap,
Hole High
Eley, at
Set Width
Height
—V
Water
Orifice
Round
Rectangle
Rectanylr
LI, V.
Bottom
Q Area A (it')
Dla. (in)
(In)
(in)
u
50 -ye u
IDO-ye,v
High
Width b
Water
2.5harp Crest Weir
(it)
Elev. (ft) Crotch Elev. (ft)
h
Q
0.00
0.00
0.000 El radians
0.607 Ce
01,14 1
.3 •2
2.00
1.00.i -DITO
—WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
0.005 FT/FT SLOPE
0.08 0240hHAtM G:
1 0
L:\170270\40 Final Design\Reports & Caics\Storm Drainage\ACHD SD CALCS_02.26.2019 3/17/2019, 12:34 PM
Version 10.0, May 2018
ACHD Quick Calm for Pipe and Ditch Capacity
NOTE: This worksheet Is Intended to he 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.
Quick Calculations for Pipe & Ditch Capacity
User input in yellow cells.
1 Project Name Entrate Farms - SGT-ACHD1 to SDMH-ACHD4
2 pipes
D
1 Enter Flow
Q= 2.28 cis
2 Manning's n
m OAU
3 Slope
ti 0 0040 ft/It
4 Pipe Diameter
D _ =in
5 Uniform Flow Depth
Y� = 7,4 In
6 Normal Velocity
V. 4.49 ft/s
7 Critical Flow Depth
Y, - 7.75 In
8 Critical Velocity
V= 4.25 ft/s
8 Full Flow
Ona 9.25 cfs
9 Full Flow%
70%
R nitches
1 Flow Rate
D
cf,;
2 Manning's n
n
3 Downstream Slope
S:
Wit
4 Base Width
b
it
5 Side Slope (Ha)
5; H.1
6 Uniform Flow Depth
Y. `_
i0 ft
7 Velocity
V=
0.00 ft/5
4 Orifice[Welrs
—PIPE
7 OEPTHOFFLOW
'00L
5 i
4
3
2
,o
.7 .9 .4 -3 •2 .11 9 1 2 3 4 5 7
-2
-3 I
.4
•a
12" DIAMETER
.7 0.009 MANNINGS
FLOW 2.28 CFS 0.004 FT/FT SLOPE
—. -
I —r
5 -4 •9 .2 -1
slide On Driflce Cap, Hole High Elev. at Set Width Height
Water Orifice Round Rectangle Rectangle
Eley, Bottom Q Area A (ftr) Dia. (In) (In) (In)
25 -year
SO -year
High
Width h Water
2 -Sharp Crest Weir (ft) Elev, (ft) Crotch Biev. (ft) h Q
000 0.00
O.D00 E! radians
0 607 Ce
0 014 a
_tom I--DITU
-WSE
FLOW 4 CFS
0.005 fITlFT SLOPE
_ fi12M>ki5}AG
0
L:\170270\40 -Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\ACHD_SD_CALCS_02-26-2019 3/17/2019, 12:30 PM
Version 10.0, May 2018
r-
O
H
n. -< d
to \ N Q
N o
o Q,
o 4A
3 3
3' 3'
Ln
C
97
C7
w
_N
3'
O
l -1
a
IA
z
m
m
3
In
(ND
C
Dl
p(Dj ap
lD
O
(D N
O O
C
d
7
h�3��q
O
LA
:E
m N F'a
o
p. <
W
00 U9 O
N (D
(�/l
fD
.p 00 O
.p O
7
D
-o
D
3
(D
7
rt
n. -< d
to \ N Q
N o
o Q,
o 4A
3 3
3' 3'
Ln
C
97
C7
w
_N
3'
O
l -1
a
IA
z
m
m
3
In
uj
H
ti
o
rD C
� o
w as o �
D (D N N N
O Oo C 7
O -5
h � 3 v m D
v
0
N
o W
In P N F N G
U7 O .p (D
co m 00 O 00 O 7
-o W
3
7
n 5, G W
(D n
S
N
3 3
3' 3'
V
v
O c• v
T
7 rD =
on
(D _ d
0 7 N O C 3
3 v o v
O
o W
Vl 00 N F -a Ln G
6) Ln O 0O m
n O 00 O vi 0 7
� n
3
D
(D n
N O
o Ln
O J
3 3
7 7
A
w
D
a
Hn
fD
C:L
_
*
rt
m
rD
=
(It
D3
:2oa
N
m
cn
�
•
7q'
s
fD
�
m
CL
n
O
O
O
O
O
Ul
N
l0
w
V
v
in
v,
vi
O
N
O
O
N
'
N
vn
:0.
Cn
O
O
L9
01
O
w
00
w
00
0
0
•
r0
V
v
O c• v
T
7 rD =
on
(D _ d
0 7 N O C 3
3 v o v
O
o W
Vl 00 N F -a Ln G
6) Ln O 0O m
n O 00 O vi 0 7
� n
3
D
(D n
N O
o Ln
O J
3 3
7 7
A
w
O
H
c
0
m
A�
!D
3
x
�
D �
�• N
N
-0 fD
_ L
C
0q
�
v
(D � rD
0
d
O O N G
3
O
h 3 v F
o
O
o
W
N O N F O<
W
w
119 V, O W ,
O N w O N p
�.
3
h (D
•-< w
CD
ou
v 3 m
c N N
0 0 CL n n n
�
P o
m m
O Z1 N
3 3
7• 7*
1
m
Z
m
Z
m
m
m
In
�
c
o
h
O
1
m
Z
m
Z
m
m
m
In
Swale A
f Create New Storage Facility
General
Facility ID:
Swale A
Detention/Retention:
Detention
Facility description:
Storage for Basin A water quality
Design storm:
100 year
Contributing subbasin ID:
Basin A
Tributary area:
4.14 acres
Runoff coefficient:
0.64
Percolation
Soil test ID:
TP -1
Measured perc rate:
8 in/hr
Perc rate safety factor:
8
Design perc rate:
1 in/hr
Groundwater elevation:
2552 ft
Free -draining elevation:
2552.0 ft
Percolation area:
899 sf
T -O ENGINEERS
Design Criteria
Min. freeboard:
0.0 ft
Max drain time:
48 hrs
Water quality depth:
0.2 in
Water quality volume:
1924 cf
Increase for sedimentation:
0%
Increase for carryover storm:
0%
Min. separation to groundwater:
3 ft
Outlet
Outlet device ID:
AD -A16
Overflow elevation:
2556.55 ft
Release rate chosen for design:
3.30 cfs
Allowable release:
7.25 cfs
Modified Rational method runoff catcuiarions
Release
Perc
Net
Duration
(min) Intensity
10
(in/hr)
2,58
Area (acres)
4.14
Q=CIA
(cfs)
6.84
Flowrate
(cfs)
3.3
Flowrate
(cfs)
0.02
Flowrate
(cfs)
3.52
Runoff Vol.
(cf)
2112
Total ..
Storage (cf)
2112
Time to
Perc (hr)
29.3
15
2.18
4.14
5.78
3.3
0.02
2.46
2214
2214
30.8
20
1.81
4.14
4.80
3.3
0.02
1.48
1776
1776
24.7
25
1.58
4,14
4.19
3.3
0.02
0.87
1305
1305
18.1
30
1.51
4.14
4.00
3.3
0.02
0.68
1224
1224
17.0
35
1.25
4.14
3.31
3.3
0.02
-0.01
-21
-21
-0.3
40
1.15
4.14
3.05
3.3
0.02
-0.27
-648
-648
-9.0
45
1.07
4.14
2.84
3.3
0.02
-0.48
-1296
-1296
-18.0
50
1.00
4.14
2.65
3.3
0.02
-0.67
-2010
-2010
-27.9
55
0.96
4.14
2.54
3.3
0.02
-0.78
-2574
-2574
-35.8
60
0.96
4.14
2.54
3.3
0.02
-0.78
-2808
-2808
-39.0
120
0.54
4.14
1.43
3.3
0.02
-1.89
-13608
-13608
-189.0
180
0.40
4.14
1.06
3.3
0.02
-2.26
-24408
-24408
-339.0
360
0.25
4.14
0.66
3.3
0.02
-2.66
-57456
-57456
-798.0
720
0.16
4.14
0.42
3.3
0.02
-2.90
-125280
-125280
-1740.0
1440
0.10
4.14
0.26
3.3
0.02
-3.06
-264384
-264384
-3672.0
L:�170270140 Final Design�Reports & Calcs�Storm Drainage �1 702 70 Storm Calcs Fresh 3/18/2019
Swale A
T -O ENGINEERS
Storage
899
Design Checks
Total depth:
1.6 ft
Freeboard: 0.0' provided, min. 0.0'req'd OK
Total storage:
2253 cf
Drain time: 30.8 hrs provided, max 48 hrs allowed OK
Max 100 -year WSE:
2556.55
Groundwater separation: 3.0' provided, min. 3.0'req'd OK
Freeboard:
0.0 ft
First -flush: 2253 CF retained, min. 1924 CF req'd OK
Volume retained:
2253 cf
100%
Percent retained:
100%
Outlet
table
2555.00
899
0
0%
0
0
Bottom
2556.55
2090
1.55
100%
2253
2253
WSEL
2556.55
2090
1.55
100%
0
2253
Outlet
2556.57
2262
1.57
0%
0
2253
Top
L: �170270140 Final Design�Reports & Calcs�Storm Drainage j170270 Storm Calcs Fresh 3/18/2019
w
H
N
3 3
3' 3'
A
5
a) (D
C
DA
O �
ID
fu
O
(D n
30 vi O
IA
-G 3
7
W (D
M
C
CL
(TD B
0 _
< rt
�
(D
0
(Nit
O
-u �.
3 cu
N
m
N
to
(D
N
n
rD
V,
3 3
3' 3'
Create New Storage Facility
General
Facility ID:
Detention/Retention:
Facility description:
Design storm:
Contributing subbasin ID:
Tributary area:
Runoff coefficient:
Percolation
Soil test ID:
Measured perc rate:
Perc rate safety factor:
Design perc rate:
Groundwater elevation:
Free -draining elevation:
Percolation area:
SB -B
Retention
Storage for Basin B
100 year
Basin B
2.48 acres
0.65
TP -2
8 in/hr
1
8 in/hr
2552 ft
2557.0 ft
2546 sf
Desien Criteria
Min. freeboard:
Max drain time:
Water quality depth:
Water quality volume:
Increase for sedimentation:
Increase for carryover storm:
Min. separation to groundwater:
outlet
Outlet device ID:
Overflow elevation:
Release from outlet device:
Allowable release:
T -O ENGINEERS
0.0 ft
48 h rs
0.2 in
1170.312 cf
0%
0%
3 ft
ft
cfs
cfs
Modified Rational Method runoff ca►cu►ar►ons
Release
Perc
Net
Duration
(min) Intensity
10
(in/hr)
2.58
Area (acres)
2.48
Q=CIA
(cfs)
4.16
Flowrate
(Cfs)
0.0
Flowrate
(cfs)
0.47
Flowrate
(cfs)
3.69
Runoff Vol.
(cf)
2214
Total ..
Storage (cf)
2214
Time to
Perc (hr)
1.3
15
2.18
2.48
3.51
0.0
0.47
3.04
2736
2736
1.6
20
1.81
2.48
2.92
0.0
0.47
2.45
2940
2940
1.7
25
1.58
2.48
2.55
0.0
0.47
2.08
3120
3120
1.8
30
1.51
2.48
2.43
0.0
0.47
1.96
3528
3528
2.1
35
1.25
2.48
2.02
0.0
0.47
1.55
3255
3255
1.9
40
1.15
2.48
1.85
0.0
0.47
1.38
3312
3312
2.0
45
1.07
2.48
1.72
0.0
0.47
1.25
3375
3375
2.0
50
1.00
2.48
1.61
0.0
0.47
1.14
3420
3420
2.0
55
0.96
2.48
1.55
0.0
0.47
1.08
3564
3564
2.1
60
0.96
2.48
1.55
0.0
0.47
1.08
$888
3888
2.3
120
0.54
2.48
0.87
0.0
0.47
0.40
2880
2880
1.7
180
0.40
2.48
0.64
0.0
0.47
0.17
1836
1836
1.1
360
0.25
2.48
0.40
0.0
0.47
-0.07
-1512
-1512
-0.9
720
0.16
2.48
0.26
0.0
0.47
-0.21
-9072
-9072
-5.4
1440
0.10
2.48
0.16
0.0
0.47
-0.31
-26784
-26784
-15.8
L: 17027040 Final Design � Reports & Caics\Storm Drainage�170270 Storm Coics Fresh 3/18/2019
9 am T -O ENGINEERS
Storage Design Checks
Total depth:
3.8 ft
Freeboard: 0.0' provided, min. 0.0'req'd OK
Total storage:
3890 cf
Drain time: 2.3 hrs provided, max 48 hrs allowed OK
Max 100 -year WSE:
2559.31
Groundwater separation: 3.5' provided, min. 3.0'req'd OK
Freeboard:
0.0 ft
First -flush: 3890 CF retained, min. 1170.312 CF req'( OK
Volume retained:
3890 cf
2559.31
Percent retained:
100%
0%
table
2555.49
2546
0
0%
0
0
Bottom
2559.31
2546
3.82
40%
3890
3890
WSEL
2559.31
2546
3.82
0%
0
3890
Top
2560.95
2546
5.46
0%
0
3890
Outlet
L: 17027040 Final Design�Reports & Calcs�Storm DrainageV70270 Storm Calcs Fresh 3/18/2019
SB -C
Create New Storage Facility
General
Facility ID:
Detention/Retention:
Facility description:
Design storm:
Contributing subbasin ID:
Tributary area:
Runoff coefficient:
Percolation
SB -C
Retention
Storage for Basin C
100 year
Basin C
5.85 acres
0.57
MT -O ENGINEERS
Desien Criteria
Min. freeboard:
0.0 ft
Max drain time:
48 hrs
Water quality depth:
0.2 in
Water quality volume:
2420.847 cf
Increase for sedimentation:
0%
Increase for carryover storm:
0%
Min. separation to groundwater:
3 ft
Outlet
Soil test ID:
TP -2
Outlet device ID:
Measured perc rate:
8 in/hr
Overflow elevation: ft
Perc rate safety factor:
1
Release from outlet device: cfs
Design perc rate:
8 in/hr
Allowable release: cfs
Groundwater elevation:
2552 ft
0.0
Free -draining elevation:
2557.0 ft
5841
Percolation area:
4200 sf
20
Modified Rational Method runoff calculations
i Release Perc Net
(min) Intensity
10
(in/hr)
2.58
Area (acres)
5.85
(cf s)
8.60
(cf S)
0.0
(cf S)
0.78
(cfs)
7.82
(cf)
4692
Storage (cf)
4692
Perc (hr)
1.7
15
2.18
5.85
7.27
0.0
0.78
6.49
5841
5841
2.1
20
1.81
5.85
6.04
0.0
0.78
5.26
6312
6312
2.2
25
1.58
5.85
5.27
0.0
0.78
4.49
6735
6735
2.4
30
1.51
5.85
5.04
0.0
0.78
4.26
7668
7668
2.7
35
1.25
5.85
4.17
0.0
0.78
3.39
7119
7119
2.5
40
1.15
5.85
3.83
0.0
0.78
3.05
7320
7320
2.6
45
1.07
5.85
3.57
0.0
0.78
2.79
7533
7533
2.7
50
1.00
5.85
3.33
0.0
0.78
2.55
7650
7650
2.7
55
0.96
5.85
3.20
0.0
0.78
2.42
7986
7986
2.8
60
0.96
5.85
3.20
0.0
0.78
2.42
8712
8712
3.1
120
0.54
5.85
1.80
0.0
0.78
1.02
7344
7344
2.6
180
0.40
5.85
1.33
0.0
0.78
0.55
5940
5940
2.1
360
0.25
5.85
0.83
0.0
0.78
0.05
1080
1080
0.4
720
0.16
5.85
0.53
0.0
0.78
-0.25
-10800
-10800
-3.8
1440
0.10
5.85
0.33
0.0
0.78
-0.45
-38880
-38880
-13.8
L: 17027040 Final Design�Reports & Calcs�Storm Drainage �1 702 70 Storm Calcs Fresh 3/18/2019
SB -C
EmT -O ENGINEERS
Storage
4200
Design Checks
Total depth:
5.3 ft
Freeboard: 0.0' provided, min. 0.0' req'd OK
Total storage:
8820 cf
Drain time: 3.1 hrs provided, max 48 hrs allowed OK
Max 100 -year WSE:
2560.25
Groundwater separation: 3.0' provided, min. 3.0'req'd OK
Freeboard:
0.0 ft
First -flush: 8820 CF retained, min. 2420.847 CF req'( OK
Volume retained:
8820 cf
0%
Percent retained:
100%
To
table
2555.00
4200
0
0%
0
0
Bottom
2560.25
4200
5.25
40%
8820
8820
WSEL
2560.25
4200
5.25
0%
0
8820
To
2561.75
4200
6.75
0%
0
8820
Outlet
L: �170270�40 Final Design�Reports & Calcs�Storm DrainageO70270 storm Calcs Fresh 3/18/2019
Create New Storage Facility
General
Facility ID:
Detention/Retention:
Facility description:
Design storm:
Contributing subbasin ID:
Tributary area:
Runoff coefficient:
Percolation
SB -D
Retention
Storage for Basin -D
100 year
Basin -D
0.35 acres
0.61
T -O ENGINEERS
Design Criteria
Min. freeboard:
0.0 ft
Max drain time:
24 hrs
Water quality depth:
0.2 in
Water quality volume:
155.001 cf
increase for sedimentation:
0%
increase for carryover storm:
0%
Min. separation to groundwater:
3 ft
Outlet
Soil test ID:
TP -2
Outlet device ID:
Measured perc rate:
8 in/hr
Overflow elevation: ft
Perc rate safety factor:
1
Release from outlet device: cfs
Design perc rate:
8 in/hr
Allowable release: cfs
Groundwater elevation:
2552 ft
0.0
Free -draining elevation:
2557.0 ft
387
Percolation area:
240 sf
20
Modified Rational Method runoff calculations
Duration
(min) Intensity
10
(in/hr)
2.58
Area (acres)
0.35
•
(cfs)
0.55
Release
(cf S)
0.0
Perc
(cf S)
0.04
0.
(cf S)
0.51
(cf)
306
..
Storage (cf)
306
Time to
Perc (hr)
2.1
15
2.18
0.35
0.47
0.0
0.04
0.43
387
387
2.7
20
1.81
0.35
0.39
0.0
0.04
0.35
420
420
2.9
25
1.58
0.35
0.34
0.0
0.04
0.30
450
450
3.1
30
1.51
0.35
0.32
0.0
0.04
0.28
504
504
3.5
35
1.25
0.35
0.27
0.0
0.04
0.23
483
483
3.4
40
1.15
0.35
0.25
0.0
0.04
0.21
504
504
3.5
45
1.07
0.35
0.23
0.0
0.04
0.19
513
513
3.6
50
1.00
0.35
0.21
0.0
0.04
0.17
510
510
3.5
55
0.96
0.35
0.20
0.0
0.04
0.16
528
528
3.7
60
0.96
0.35
0.20
0.0
0.04
0.16
576
576
4.0
120
0.54
0.35
0.12
0.0
0.04
0.08
576
576
4.0
180
0.40
0.35
0.09
0.0
0.04
0.05
540
540
3.8
360
0.25
0.35
0.05
0.0
0.04
0.01
216
216
1.5
720
0.16
0.35
0.03
0.0
0.04
-0.01
-432
-432
-3.0
1440
0.10
0.35
0.02
0.0
0.04
-0.02
-1728
-1728
-12.0
L:�170270�40 Final Design�Reports & Colcs�Storm Drainage � 1702 70 Storm Calcs Fresh 3/18/2019
a am T -O ENGINEERS
Storage
240
Design Checks
Total depth:
7.5 ft
Freeboard: 0.0' provided, min. 0.0'req'd OK
Total storage:
720 cf
Drain time: 4.0 hrs provided, max 24 hrs allowed OK
Max 100 -year WSE:
2564.90
Groundwater separation: 5.4' provided, min. 3.0'req'd OK
Freeboard:
0.0 ft
First -flush: 720 CF retained, min. 155.001 CF req'd OK
Volume retained:
720 cf
0%
Percent retained:
100%
Top
table
2557.40
240
0
0%
0
0
Bottom
2564.90
240
7.5
40%
720
720
WSEL
2564.90
240
7.5
0%
0
720
Top
2566.40
240
9
0%
0
720
Outlet
L: 17027040 Final Design � Reports& Calcs�Storm Drainage � 1702 70 Storm Calcs Fresh 3/18/2019
U) *
w
(Dd
v =�
tn
(D
Entrata Subdivision Phase 1
Drainage Calculations
APPENDIX C
LAI70270\40_Final Design\Reports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\170270 Storm Drainage Report Phase Ldoc
I� i
BASIN MAP
IlCVAIlITCC�
OA
BASIN A: 4.14 AC
OB
BASIN B: 2.48 AC
OBASIN
C: 5.85 AC
OBASIN
D: 0.35 AC
CH
BASIN ACHD: 1.30 AC
OFUTURE
BASIN E
OF
FUTURE BASIN F
W. FRANKLIN RD
ENTRATA FARMS SUBDIVISION NO.1
100 0 100 200
EXISTING W. PERUGIA ST
s
",�Wbo
Entrata Subdivision Phase 1
Drainage Calculations
L:\170270\40—Final Designaeports & Calcs\Storm Drainage\170270 Storm Drainage Report Phase l.doc
GeoTek, Inc.
320 East Corporate Drive Suite 300 Meridian, ID 83642-3511
(208) 888-7010 (208) 888-7924 www.geotekusa.com
October 25, 2017
Project No. 1905-ID3
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
4685 S. Highland Dr., Suite 202
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
Attention: Mr. James Doolin
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation for "Franklin and Ten Mile" - a 17.7+ Acre Multi -Family
Residential Located West of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W. Franklin Road,
Meridian, Idaho
In accordance with your request, GeoTek, Inc. (GTI) has completed a geotechnical evaluation of the
subject property for the construction of a multi -family residential development and associated
improvements. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the soils underlying the site and to provide
recommendations for project design and construction based on our findings. This report outlines the
geotechnical conditions of the site based on current data, and provides earthwork and construction
recommendations with respect to those conditions.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
1. Review of soils and geologic reports and maps for the site (Appendix A).
2. Site reconnaissance.
3. Review of aerial photographs.
4. Excavating and logging of five (5) exploratory test pits (Appendix B).
S. Obtaining samples of representative soils, as the exploratory test pits were advanced.
6. Performing laboratory testing on representative soil samples (Appendix D).
7. Assessment of potential geologic constraints.
8. Engineering analysis regarding foundation design/construction, foundation settlement, and site
preparation.
9. Preparation of this report.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE OCTOBER 25, 2017
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC PAGE 2
PROJECT NO. 1905-1133
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site consists of irregularly shaped parcels totaling approximately 17.7± acres that is
generally bound by W. Franklin Road to the south, the Kennedy Lateral to the north and east, and
undeveloped agricultural land to the west in the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (Figure 2).
Access to the Site is possible from W. Franklin Road. The property is mainly undeveloped agricultural
land with a single family residence with improvements and animal corrals. A roadway exists on the
Site allowing access to the animal corrals, which is located in the southern section of the property.
Irrigation laterals exist along the eastern border and an irrigation lateral running east to west bisects
the Site. From topographic maps, the site's elevation is approximately 2,555+ to 2,570+ feet above
mean sea level. Natural drainage at the Site is interpreted to be downward to the south-southwest
for the southern half of the Site, and to the north on the northern section of the Site, conforming to
the natural topography in the area. Due to ongoing irrigation practices, standing water was observed
on the Site on the date of our reconnaissance.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that site development would consist of performing typical cut and fill
earthwork to attain the desired graded configurations) for the construction of multiple one to two-
story residential structures. It is further assumed that final site grade will be within 3 feet of existing
site grade.
FIELD STUDIES
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by using a rubber -tired backhoe. Five (5) test pits
were advanced onsite. A log of each exploration is included with this report in Appendix B. Two (2)
percolation tests were also performed on the subject site (Appendix C). Two (2) ground water
measurement standpipe piezometers were installed onsite. Field studies were completed during
October of 2017 by our field personnel who conducted field excavation location mapping, logged the
excavations, and obtained samples of representative soils for laboratory testing. The approximate
locations of the explorations are indicated on the enclosed Site Exploration Plan (Figure 2). The
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Classification was used to visually classify the onsite soils
during the field evaluation.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject site is situated within the western portion of the Boise River Valley, which comprises the
northwestern portion of the Snake River Plain physiographic province. The western portion of the
Snake River Plain is aligned in a northwest -southeast direction and generally divides the Owyhee
mountains to the south from the Central Idaho mountains toward the north (Wood and Clemens,
2004). The headwaters of the Boise River are located in the Central Idaho mountains east of Boise,
Idaho. The river leaves the central mountains and enters the Snake River Plain near Barber and drains
toward the west into the Snake River near Parma. The Owyhee mountains and the Central Idaho
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE
Mountains are composed predominantly of volcanic and igneous rocks. The western portion of the
Snake River Plain is a northwest trending complex graben formed by extension and regional uplift
along the northern boundary of the basin and range province (Wood and Clemens, 2004). The graben
generally forms a basin which has been partially filled with younger sedimentary and volcanic rocks
(Malde, 1991).
The Boise River Valley is bounded on the northeast by the Boise Front, which is a northwest trending
topographic high extending generally from Boise to Emmett, Idaho. The Boise Front consists of
Cretaceous aged granitic and metamorphic rocks cut by Tertiary aged rhyolite and overlain with
Miocene aged lake sediments (Wood and Clemens, 2004). These units have been cut by northwest
trending faults which down drop these units toward the southwest. The faults also provide conduits
for Quaternary aged basalt intrusions and flows (Malde, 1991).
The depositional environment for the valley floor is dominantly lake laid deposits of sand, silt and clay.
These materials were deposited during two periods of lake activity, one during the Miocene and the
other during the Pleistocene. This valley infilling process has been subsequently truncated by down
faulting within the valley ranging in height from a few feet to over 50 feet. Younger alluvium has been,
and continues to be, transported dominantly by water and deposited on the basins gently sloping valley
floor and within low-level flood plains. Portions of the alluvial deposits are being down cut by
intermittent streams to the flood plain, and as a result stream terraces are being formed.
SITE SOILS
Artificial Fill
Based on our field studies, some spread fills were observed along the perimeter of the site and near
the interior roadway and agricultural structures. This fill is generally associated with the construction
of the roadway and nearby residential developments. This spread fill shall be considered artificial fill.
The majority of the property has been cultivated for agricultural use, the upper 12 inches of material
has been disturbed and consists of a sandy silt with a moderate amount of organics and roots, this
shall be considered artificial fill. Deeper fills may be encountered onsite. The "Artificial Fills" are soft
and contain organics/roots and are not considered suitable for support of foundations. All artificial fill
material should be removed as described in the "Removals" section of this report.
Native Alluvial Soils
Alluvial soils encountered generally consisted of surficial layers of sandy silt and silt underlain by poorly
graded sand and silts with varying amounts of sand content. The moisture content within the alluvial
materials was generally slightly moist to moist near surface and moist to saturated at depth. The
consistency of these soils ranged from soft to firm near surface and medium dense to dense/stiff at
depth. We anticipate that the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment.
Thin partially cemented lenses of soils were encountered in one of our excavations; however, we
anticipate that the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment equivalent to
CAT D9R dozers and CAT 235 excavators. Special excavation equipment and techniques may be
necessary dependent upon if harder materials are encountered during construction.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-1133
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE 4
After artificial fill is removed, the upper 12 inches of the alluvium will require, at a minimum, some
removal and/or processing efforts to be considered suitable for the support of the proposed site
improvements. Locally deeper processing/removals may be necessary. Refer to the
"Recommendations Earthwork Construction" section of this report for specific site preparation
recommendations.
SURFACE & GROUND WATER
Ground water was encountered during our field investigation at a depth of 3.8' and 13.2' below
existing ground surface in the northern portion of the property. Irrigation ditches exist adjacent to
the site and they transmit water on a periodic basis. Generally, irrigation ditches and canals will local ly
influence ground water during the irrigation season (i.e., May through October). If encountered, wet
materials should be spread out and air-dried or mixed with drier soils to reduce their moisture
content as appropriate for fill placement. Ground water is not anticipated to adversely affect planned
development, provided that earthwork construction methods comply with recommendations
contained in this report or those made subsequent to review of the improvement plan(s). GTI
assumes that the design civil engineer of record will evaluate the site for potential flooding and set
grades such that the improvements are adequately protected. These observations reflect conditions
at the time of this investigation and do not preclude changes in local ground water conditions in the
future from natural causes, damaged structures (lines, pipes etc.), or heavy irrigation. The
groundwater monitoring results obtained are depicted in a table format in Appendix C and in a
location map is presented in Figure 2.
TECTONIC FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially active tectonic faults, however no faults
were observed during our field evaluation. There are a number of faults in the regional area, which
are considered active and would have an affect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they
be the source of an earthquake. It is reasonable to assume that structures built in this area will be
subject to at least one seismic event during their life, therefore, it is recommended that all structures
be designed and constructed in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC). Based on our
experience in the general vicinity, references in our library, field evaluation of the site, a Seismic
Design Site Class Designation of `D' may be used for seismic design.
Secondary Seismic Constraints
The following list includes other potential seismic related hazards that have been evaluated with
respect to the site, but in our opinion, the potential for these seismically related constraints to affect
the site is considered negligible.
* Liquefaction
Dynamic Settlements
* Surface Fault Rupture
Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE 5
Sum
It is important to keep in perspective that if a seismic event were to occur on any major fault, intense
ground shaking could be induced to this general area. Potential damage to any settlement sensitive
structures would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of the
structures mass than that created from secondary seismic constraints. Considering the subsurface
soil conditions and local seismicity, it is estimated that the site has a low risk associated with the
potential for these phenomenon to occur and adversely affect surface improvements. These potential
risks are no greater at this site than they are for other structures and improvements developed on the
alluvial materials in this vicinity.
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to
evaluate their physical and chemical characteristics. The tests performed and the results obtained are
presented in Appendix D.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the
subject site is suited for development from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. The
recommendations presented herein should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and
construction phases of development. The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation
and the recommendations presented below, have been completed using the information provided to
us regarding site development. In the event that the information concerning proposed development is
not correct, the conclusion and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in
writing by this office.
RECOMMENDATIONS - EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
General
All grading should conform to the International Building Code (IBC) and the requirements of the City
of Meridian and/or Ada County except where specifically superseded in the text of this report.
During earthwork construction, all removals, drain systems, slopes, and the general grading
procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested.
Based on the classification of the site soils encountered, we recommend that site construction be
undertaken during the dry weather seasons. If grading is undertaken during the wet periods of the
year, pumping and rutting of the site soils is anticipated. If pumping and rutting conditions occur, and
loose saturated disturbed areas are created, the soils shall be removed to undisturbed soil or be
replaced/recompacted to structural fill requirements. If further soil stabilization techniques are
required during future grading activities, GTI can provide further recommendations at that time. If
unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE 6
if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. It is recommended that the
earthwork contractor(s) perform their own independent reconnaissance of the site to observe field
conditions first hand. If the contractor(s) should have any questions regarding site conditions, site
preparation, or the remedial recommendations provided, they should contact an engineer at GeoTek
for any necessary clarifications prior to submitting earthwork bids. All applicable requirements of local
and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act,
and the Construction Safety Act should be met.
Demolition
The following recommendations are provided as guidelines in the event a structure is encountered
that are not intended to remain.
I . All existing surface or subsurface structures (not intended to remain), within the area to be
developed, should be razed and moved off site.
2. If a septic tank (to be abandoned or below a proposed improvement) is located within the
project site, it is recommended that it be pumped out and with few exceptions likely removed.
Any leach lines, seepage pits, or other pipes associated with this structure should also be
removed or properly abandoned.
3. If any wells are encountered, an attempt should be made to identify the owner and purpose of
the well. Well abandonment should adhere to the recommendations provided by the Idaho
Department of Water Resources, the Public Health Department, or any other government
agencies. If the well is located in the area of a proposed structure, these recommendations
should be reviewed by GTI and if warranted, additional geotechnical recommendations will be
offered.
Removals/Processing - General
Presented below are removal/processing recommendations for the various soils encountered on the
project. Debris, vegetation, and other deleterious material should be stripped/removed from areas
proposed for structural improvements.
Based on a review of the exploratory logs and our site reconnaissance, after the artificial fill is
removed (upper 12 inches, where observed), a minimum removal/processing depth of 12 inches into
alluvial materials should be accomplished across the site. If the left in place soils can be scarified to
encounter a competent layer below; they may be processed in place; otherwise, they should be
removed to competent material. Locally deeper removals/processing may be necessary based on the
field conditions exposed.
Beneath the foundations, a minimum of 12 inches of compacted structural fill, meeting the
requirements of the Structural Fill and Import Soils section of this report, should be moisture
conditioned and compacted to provide a more uniform foundation support. Structural fill should
extend a minimum of 12 inches horizontally, from the edge of the footings, for each 12 inches of
thickness placed below the footings. A minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory
maximum modified density (ASTM D 1557) at moisture content of optimum or above is necessary to
generate any near surface settlements. Locally deeper removals/processing may be necessary based on
the conditions exposed. Removal bottoms should be checked by a representative of GeoTek, Inc. to
see if deeper removals are necessary.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-11133
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE 7
If very hard cemented materials are encountered during over -excavation, excavation may potentially
be terminated, but this will need to be determined on a case by case basis by a representative of GTI.
Foundations for the proposed structures may be founded on cemented material; however, in order to
avoid the potential for differential settlement, the entire foundation would need to be supported
entirely on the cemented material. If this is not possible, cemented materials should be removed to a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottom of the footing and replaced with compacted structural
fill. This can best be determined in the field based upon the conditions exposed. Termination of any
excavation on cemented soils will need to be reviewed by GTI and the owner.
If existing improvements or property line restrictions limit removals, condition specific
recommendations would be provided on a case-by-case basis. During earthwork. construction, care
should be taken by the contractor so that adverse ground movements or settlements are not
generated affecting existing improvements.
Transitional Pads
Transitional pads are defined in this report as pads which are partially cut and partially fill. To mitigate
some of the differential settlement which will occur on transitional pads, the cut side should be over-
excavated/processed to a minimum depth equal to 2 feet below the bottom of the footings or to the
depth of the fill, which ever is less. On transitional pads with more than 7.5 feet of fill, plans need to
be reviewed by GTI and site-specific recommendations will be provided.
Excavation Difficulty
We anticipate that the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional earthwork. Seasonal
conditions could cause wet soil conditions to occur onsite. Depending on the depth of cuts, it should
be expected that special excavation and fill placement measures may be necessary. Wet materials
should be spread out and air-dried or mixed with drier soils to reduce their moisture content to the
appropriate level for fill placement. Frozen soils, if encountered, should be removed and allowed to
thaw prior to any fill placement or construction. Removal bottoms should be checked by a
representative of GTI to see if deeper removals are necessary.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to completing removals/processing and ground preparation, the excavated onsite and/or
imported soils may be placed in relatively thin lifts (less than 8 inches thick), cleaned of vegetation and
debris, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
Structural Fill and Import Soils
Potentially, soils will be imported to the site for earthwork construction purposes. A sample of any
intended import material should first be submitted to GTI so that, if necessary, additional laboratory
or chemical testing can be performed to verify that the intended import material is compatible with
onsite soils. In general, structural fill and import soils should be within the following minimum
guidelines:
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE OCTOBER 25, 2017
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC PAGE 8
PROJECT NO. 1905-03
* Free of organic matter and debris.
* Maintain less than 0.2 percent sulfate content.
* Maintain less than 3.0 percent soluble material.
* Maintain less than 0.02 percent soluble chlorides.
Maintain less than 0.2 percent sodium sulfate content.
* Maintain a Plasticity Index less than 12 (i.e., low expansive).
* One hundred percent passing the six-inch screen.
* At least seventy-five percent passing a three-inch screen.
Observation and Testing
During earthwork construction all removal/processing and the general grading procedures should be
observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GTI. If unusual or unexpected
conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by GTI and if warranted, modified and/or
additional recommendations will be offered.
Ground Water
Ground water was encountered during our field investigation at a depth of 3.8' and 13.2' below
existing ground surface. Based on site conditions in the future, a transient high ground water
condition could develop over a clay or less permeable layer and this condition could generate down
gradient seepage. The possible effect these layers could have on this and adjacent sites should be
considered, and can best be evaluated in the field during grading. If warranted by exposed field
conditions, it may be recommended that a drainage system be established to collect and convey any
subsurface water to an appropriate location for drainage. Typically, potential areas of seepage are
difficult to identify prior to their occurrence; therefore, it is often best to adopt a "wait and see"
approach to determine if any seepage conditions do develop, at which time specific recommendation
to mitigate an identified condition can be provided.
Earthwork Settlements
Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression.
The total amount of settlement and time over which it occurs is dependent upon various factors,
including material type, depth of fill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place
density of subsurface materials. Compacted fills, to the heights anticipated, are not generally prone to
excessive settlement. However, some settlement of the native alluvium is expected and the majority
of this settlement is anticipated to occur during grading.
Slope Stability
No significantly high (greater than ten feet) slopes are anticipated to be constructed onsite. All slopes
should be designed at gradients of 2 to I (Horizontal to Vertical) or flatter. All slopes should be
constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the City of Meridian and/or Ada
County and the International Building Code. Cut and fill slopes are anticipated to perform adequately
in the future with respect to gross and surficial stability if the soil materials are maintained in a solid to
semi-solid state (as defined by the soils Atterberg Limits) and are limited to the heights prescribed
herein.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE 9
The importance of proper compaction to the face of a slope cannot be overemphasized. In order to
achieve proper compaction, one or more of the three following methods should be employed by the
contractor following implementation of typical slope construction guidelines: 1) track walk the slopes
at grade, 2) use a combination of cheeps foot roller and track walking, or 3) overfill the slope 3 to 5
feet laterally and cut it back to grade.
Random testing will be performed to verify compaction to the face of the slope. If the tests do not
meet the minimum recommendation of 90 percent relative compaction, the contractor will be
informed and additional compactive efforts recommended. A final evaluation of cut slopes during
grading will be necessary in order to identify any areas of adverse conditions. The need for remedial
stabilization measures should be based on observations made during grading by a representative of this
office. Based on our observations, and if warranted, specific remedial recommendations will be
offered for stabilization.
RECOMMENDATIONS — FOUNDATIONS
General
Foundation design and construction recommendations are based on preliminary laboratory testing and
engineering analysis performed on near surface soils. The proposed foundation systems should be
designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained herein and in the International
Building Code.
Based on our experience in the area, the soils onsite should have a negligible corrosive potential to
concrete and metal, materials selected for construction purposes should be resistant to corrosion.
Where permitted by building code, PVC pipe should be utilized. All concrete should be designed,
mixed, placed, finished, and cured in accordance with the guidelines presented by the Portland
Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Based on our grading recommendations, the soils beneath the foundations are anticipated to have low
expansion potential. Therefore, foundation recommendations for low expansive soil conditions are
provided below. If more expansive soils are encountered, the pad(s) will either need to be regraded
and the more expansive soils removed by the contractor or increased foundation recommendations
will need to be provided.
Conventional Foundation Recommendations
Column loads are anticipated to be 50 kips or less while wall loads are expected to be 3 kips per lineal
foot or less. The conventional recommendations provided are from a geotechnical engineering
perspective (i.e., for expansive conditions) and are not meant to supersede the design by the project's
structural engineer.
Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. The
specific criteria to be used should be verified on evaluation of the proposed buildings, structural loads,
and expansion and chemical testing performed after grading is complete.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE 10
The bearing values indicated are for the total dead plus frequently applied live loads and may be
increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.
When combining passive pressure and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be
reduced by one third. A grade beam, reinforced as below and at least 12 inches wide, should be
utilized across all large entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the
bottom of the adjacent footings. Footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below
lowest adjacent ground surface as required by local codes to extend below the frost line.
Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project's structural engineer.
For foundations systems including a crawl space, it is recommended that it be designed so that water
is not allowed to penetrate the crawl space. Proper grading and backfill for the foundations is critical
and should adhere to the "fill placement" and "drainage" recommendations of this evaluation as well as
local building codes.
The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values recommended are working values. Strip
footings should have a minimum width of one foot and spread footings should have a minimum soil to
concrete area of four square feet. Increases are allowed for the bearing capacity of the footings at a
rate of 250 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width and 250 pounds per square foot
for each additional foot of depth into the recommended bearing material, up to a maximum outlined.
If the bearing value exceeds 3,000 psf, an additional review by GTI is recommended. As mentioned
earlier, the structural fill should be moisture conditioned and compacted a minimum of 12 inches
below bottom of footings. Prior to the placement of concrete, moisture should be added to the
subgrade soils to minimize water loss of the concrete during placement and curing.
If the grading recommendations presented in this report are complied with, proposed concrete floor
slabs may be supported on a 6 -inch layer of compacted 3/4 -inch aggregate base material. A structural
engineer should evaluate the proposed loading and determine the slab thickness, concrete strength,
and the locations and size of the reinforcing steel.
Modulus of subgrade reaction (k) may be used in the design of the floor slab supporting heavy truck
traffic, forklifts, machine foundations, and heavy storage areas. Based on typical R -value test results
and the interrelationships published by the Portland Cement Association for "R" -Value (resistance
value) vs Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, an approximate k -value (modulus of subgrade reaction) of
125 pounds per square inch per inch may be utilized for slab design.
Minimum
Structural Fill
Minimum
Allowable
Passive
Maximum
Depth Below
Footing
Bearing
Coefficient
Earth
Earth
Footing Type
Footing
Depth
Pressure
of Friction
Pressure
Pressure
Bottom
(inches)
(psf)
(psf/ft)
(psf)
inches
Strip or Spread
12
241,500
0.35
250
3,000
The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values recommended are working values. Strip
footings should have a minimum width of one foot and spread footings should have a minimum soil to
concrete area of four square feet. Increases are allowed for the bearing capacity of the footings at a
rate of 250 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width and 250 pounds per square foot
for each additional foot of depth into the recommended bearing material, up to a maximum outlined.
If the bearing value exceeds 3,000 psf, an additional review by GTI is recommended. As mentioned
earlier, the structural fill should be moisture conditioned and compacted a minimum of 12 inches
below bottom of footings. Prior to the placement of concrete, moisture should be added to the
subgrade soils to minimize water loss of the concrete during placement and curing.
If the grading recommendations presented in this report are complied with, proposed concrete floor
slabs may be supported on a 6 -inch layer of compacted 3/4 -inch aggregate base material. A structural
engineer should evaluate the proposed loading and determine the slab thickness, concrete strength,
and the locations and size of the reinforcing steel.
Modulus of subgrade reaction (k) may be used in the design of the floor slab supporting heavy truck
traffic, forklifts, machine foundations, and heavy storage areas. Based on typical R -value test results
and the interrelationships published by the Portland Cement Association for "R" -Value (resistance
value) vs Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, an approximate k -value (modulus of subgrade reaction) of
125 pounds per square inch per inch may be utilized for slab design.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE I I
It is recommended that a plastic water vapor retarder be utilized below the slab. The vapor retarder
should conform to the specifications presented in ASTM E 1745-97 and should be placed as described
in ASTM E1643-98 and the Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, published by the
American Concrete Institute (ACI 302.1 R-96).
A minimum ten -mil thick vapor retarder should be placed on a minimum 6 -inch thick layer of
aggregate base material and a 2 -inch layer of select sand should be placed over the vapor retarder.
The vapor retarder should be lapped adequately to provide a continuous protection under the entire
slab.
Foundation Settlement
Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction phase of development, total settlement is estimated to be less than one inch and
differential settlement is estimated to be less than 0.75 inches for a 25 -foot span. Two-way angular
distortions due to settlements are not estimated to exceed 1/400. The structures should be loaded
uniformly so as to avoid any localized settlements.
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Pavement sections presented in the following table are based on an R -value of 22, assumed tragic
index(s) for development and estimated traffic index(s) for development. These pavement sections
are presented for planning purposes only and should be verified based on specific laboratory testing
performed subsequent to rough grading of the site.
Pavement Construction and Maintenance
All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the
preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. All
subgrade materials should be processed to a minimum depth of 12 inches and compacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent near optimum moisture content. All aggregate base
should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent at optimum moisture content.
The recommended pavement sections provided are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable
pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair should be expected. If the ADT
(average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected
by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the
pavement section.
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep
into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to
minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-11133
Het -Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAG E 12
*Subbase gradation specification requirement per the current edition of the idaho Mate runic vvori.s
Construction (ISPWC) Manual.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Improvements
As is commonly known, expansive soils are problematic with respect to the design, construction and
longterm performance of concrete flatwork. Due to the nature of concrete flatwork, it is essentially
impossible to totally mitigate the effects of soil expansion. Typical measures to control soil expansion
for structures include; low expansive soil caps, deepened foundation system, increased structural
design, and soil presaturation. As they are generally not cost effective, these measures are very
seldom utilized for flatwork because it's less costly to simply replace any damaged or distressed
sections than to "structurally" design them.
Even if "structural" design parameters are applied to flatwork construction, there would still be
relative movements between adjoining types of structures and other improvements (e.g., curb and
sidewalk). This is particularly true as the level of care during construction of flatwork. is often not as
meticulous as that for structures. Unfortunately, it is fairly common practice for flatwork to be
poured on subgrade soils, which have been allowed to dry out since site grading. Generally after
flatwork construction is completed, landscape irrigation begins, utility lines are pressurized, and
drainage systems are utilized; presenting the potential for water to enter the dry subgrade soils,
causing the soil to expand.
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon
request. If, in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations
concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements
could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement,
grading, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility
trench and retaining wall backfills.
MINIMUM
MINIMUM AGGREGATE
ASPHALT
THICKNESS (in.)
ASSUMED TRAFFIC
SUBGRADE
CONCRETE
Aggregate
Subbase*
RIGHT -OF -AWAY
R -VALUE
THICKNESS
Base (3/4"
(Uncrushed
(in.)
minus)
Aggregate)
Parking and Drives
No Truck Access
22
2.5
4.0
9.0
TI = 6.0
Truck Access
22
3.0
6.0
12.0
TI = 8.0
Heavy Truck Access
22
4.0
8.0
14.0
TI = 10.0
*Subbase gradation specification requirement per the current edition of the idaho Mate runic vvori.s
Construction (ISPWC) Manual.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Improvements
As is commonly known, expansive soils are problematic with respect to the design, construction and
longterm performance of concrete flatwork. Due to the nature of concrete flatwork, it is essentially
impossible to totally mitigate the effects of soil expansion. Typical measures to control soil expansion
for structures include; low expansive soil caps, deepened foundation system, increased structural
design, and soil presaturation. As they are generally not cost effective, these measures are very
seldom utilized for flatwork because it's less costly to simply replace any damaged or distressed
sections than to "structurally" design them.
Even if "structural" design parameters are applied to flatwork construction, there would still be
relative movements between adjoining types of structures and other improvements (e.g., curb and
sidewalk). This is particularly true as the level of care during construction of flatwork. is often not as
meticulous as that for structures. Unfortunately, it is fairly common practice for flatwork to be
poured on subgrade soils, which have been allowed to dry out since site grading. Generally after
flatwork construction is completed, landscape irrigation begins, utility lines are pressurized, and
drainage systems are utilized; presenting the potential for water to enter the dry subgrade soils,
causing the soil to expand.
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon
request. If, in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations
concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements
could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement,
grading, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility
trench and retaining wall backfills.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
OCTOBER 2S, 2017
PAGE 13
Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is
significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite
materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by
establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover as soon as possible after construction.
Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is
established. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types, which require
little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. From a geotechnical standpoint leaching
is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of
adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction.
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the
landscape areas could adversely affect proposed site improvements. We recommend that any
proposed open bottom planter areas adjacent to proposed structures, be eliminated for a minimum
distance of 5 feet and desert landscape using xeriscape technology be used outside of this buffer zone.
As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet, placed in the bottom of
the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete
flatwork. Irrigation timers should be adjusted on a monthly basis.
Soil Corrosion
Based on our experience in the area, the soils onsite should have a negligible corrosive potential to
concrete and metal, materials selected for construction purposes should be resistant to corrosion.
Where permitted by building code PVC pipe should be utilized. All concrete should be designed,
mixed, placed, finished, and cured in accordance with the guidelines presented by the Portland
Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Trench Excavation
All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing
reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations
should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site.
Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a
factor in excavations. Shoring or excavating the trench walls and slopes to the angle of repose
(typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated in non-cemented soils. All
excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to national and local safety
codes.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
PROJECT NO. 1905-1133
OCTOBER 25, 2017
PAGE 14
Onsite Utility Trench Backfill
Considering the overall nature of the soil encountered onsite, it should be anticipated that materials
will need to be imported to the site for use as pipe bedding and pipe zone material. All utility trench
backfill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Compaction testing and
observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the desired results. Sand backfill, unless
excavated from the trench, should not be used adjacent to perimeter footings or in trenches on
slopes. Compaction testing and observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the
desired results. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used adjacent to
perimeter footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction testing and observation, along with probing
should be performed to verify the desired results. Offsite utility trenches should be compacted to a
minimum of 90 relative compaction. Compaction testing and observation, along with probing should
be performed to verify the desired results.
Drainall site drainage should be maintained at all times in accordance with the IBC. Drainage should
not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations
and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the
street or other approved area. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped
away from the building at a minimum of 5 -percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured
perpendicularly to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance,
a 5 -percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternate method of diverting water away from the
foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 -percent where located
within 10 feet of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation
shall be sloped a minimum of 2 -percent away from the building. Roof gutters and down spouts should
be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet onto paved areas or a minimum of
five feet from proposed structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may
develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of
seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request.
PLAN REVIEW
Final grading, foundation, and improvement plans should be submitted to this office for review and
comment as they become available, to minimize any misunderstandings between the plans and
recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and earthwork construction
performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ
substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time.
FRANKLIN AND TEN MILE OCTOBER 25, 2017
LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC PAGE 15
PROJECT NO. 1905-ID3
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed
representative of the area; however, soil materials vary in character between excavations and
conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other
factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations
performed or provided by others. Since our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective
laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusions and recommendations are professional
opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no
warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this
report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
Tyler Lydeen, EI
Staff Professional
GeoTek, Inc.
D �
1O,684
David C. Waite, PE
Senior Engineer
f0-Z5-yl7
"
APPROXIMATETEST PIT LOCATIONS
Source: Google Earth 2017, GeoTek Field Observations, 2017.
Not to Scale
FIGURE 2
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
Franklin and Ten Mile
Meridian, Idaho
G E O T E K Prepared for: Landmark Development Partners, LLC
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Project No.: Report Date: Drawn By:
320 E. Corporate Dr, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642 1905-ID3 Oct 2017 TL
(208) 888-7010 (phone)/ (208) 888-7924 (FAX)
REFERENCES
Ada County Highway District Development Policy Manual, Revised by Resolution No. 690, October
2003
ASTM, 200, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test
methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-
4943 to highest number.
Breckinridge, R.M., Lewis, R.S., Adema, G.W., Weisz, D.W., 2003, Map of Miocene and Younger Faults
in Idaho, Idaho Geological Survey, University of Idaho
Day, Robert W., 1999, Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering — Design and Construction
Day, Robert W., 2002, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Idaho Department of Water Resources, Treasure Valley Hydrology — Geology
Idaho Department of Water Resources, Well Information, Well Driller Reports, 2015
Idaho Transportation Department CD-ROM Publications
Johnson, Bruce R. and Raines, Gary L., 1995, Digital representation of the Idaho state geologic map: a
contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. USGS Open -File
Report 95-690
Malde, H.E., 1991. Quaternary geology and structural history of the Snake River Plain, Idaho and
Oregon. In: The Geology of North America, Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous
U.S., Vol. K-2, 252-281 pp.
Othberg, K.L., 1994. Geology and geomorphology of the Boise Valley and adjoining areas, western
Snake River Plain, Idaho. Idaho Geological Survey Bulletin 29: 54 pp.
USGS, 2003, Seismic Hazard Map of Idaho, Peak Acceleration (%g) with 2% Probability of Exceedance
in 50 years.
TEST PIT LOG GENERAL NOTES
CUN,SISTENCYOF FINE GRAINED,Sflil S
Unconfined
Standard
Standard Penetration (SPT)
Compressive
Penetration or N-
Consistency
Strength, Qu,
Value (SS)
0 - 3
psf
Blows/Ft
Loose
10-29
Medium Dense
30-49
< 500
<2
Very Soft
500-1,000
2 - 3
Soft
1,001 - 2,000
4 - 7
Firm
2,001 - 4,000
8-16
Stiff
4,001 - 8,000
17-32
Very Stiff
> 8,001
32+
Hard
RELATNE :DENSITY OF CUARSi GRAINED SOiCS:;:
Major
Standard Penetration (SPT)
Relative Density
or N -Value (SS) Blows/Ft
Boulders
Over 12 inches
0 - 3
Very Loose
4 - 9
Loose
10-29
Medium Dense
30-49
Dense
50+
Very Dense
SPT penetration test using 140 pound hammer, with 30 inch free fall on 2 inch outside diameter(1-3/8 ID) sampler
For ring sampler using 140 Ib hammer, with a 30 inch free fall on 3 inch outside diameter (2-1/2 ID) sample,
use N -value x 0.7 to get Standard N -value
For fine grained soil consistency, thumb penetration used per ASTM D-2488
Descriptive Term of other Percent of Dry
constituents Weight
Trace < 15
With 15-29
Modifier > 30
:.GRAfN SIZE TERNIINQLDGY
Major
Component of
Particle Size
Sample
Boulders
Over 12 inches
Cobbles
3 inches to 12 inches
Gravel
#4 Sieve to 3 inches
Sand
#200 Sieve to #4 Sieve
Silt or Clay
Passing #200 Sieve
Description General Characteristics
Partially Cemented Granular Soil - Can be carved with a knife and broken
Very Dense to Moderately Hard
with force by hand.
Very Stiff to Moderately Hard Partially Cemented Fine -Grained Soil - Can be carved with a knife and
broken with force by hand.
Moderately Hard Moderate hammer blow required to break a sample
Hard Heavy hammer blow required to break a sample
Very Hard Repeated heavy hammer blow required to break a sample
LOG LEGEND
SAMPLING
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Pattern
USCS Symbol
USCS Classification
VL
FILL
Artificial Fill
Soft
GP or GW
Poorly/Well graded GRAVEL
L
GM
Silty GRAVEL
Firm
GC
Clayey GRAVEL
MD
GP -GM or GW -GM
Poorly/Well graded GRAVEL with Silt
Stiff
GP -GC or GW -GC
Poorly/Well graded GRAVEL with Clay
D
SP or SW
Poorly/Well graded SAND
Very Stiff
SM
Silty SAND
�M P 19 inWin P
SC
Clayey SAND
PAM
r
SP -SM or SW -SM
Poorly/Well graded SAND with Silt
#44
4 4SP-SC
or SW -SC
Poorly/Well graded SAND with Clay
SC -SM
Silty Clayey SAND
ML
SILT
MH
Elastic SILT
CL -ML
Silty CLAY
CL
Lean CLAY
CH
Fat CLAY
PCEM
PARTIALLY CEMENTED
CEM
CEMENTED
BDR
BEDROCK
SAMPLING
Cohesionless
SPT
Ring Sample
No Recovery
Bulk Sample
Water Table
Cohesive Soils
NR
VL
Very Loose
CONSISTENCY
Cohesionless
Soils
Cohesive Soils
Cementation
VL
Very Loose
So
Soft
MH
Moderately Hard
L
Loose
F
Firm
H
Hard
MD
Medium Dense
S
Stiff
VH
Very Hard
D
Dense
VS
Very Stiff
VD
Very Dense
TEST PIT L 0 G
LOGGED BY: TL
PROJECT #: 1905-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
Aa"�
PROJECT: Franklin and Ten Mile EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: T -O Engineers, Inc DATE: 10/9/17
GE 0 E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
C
c
>,
U
M
�
y
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -1
N
REMARKS
Q
H
a
N
V
.c
C
E
v
m
0
y
O
v
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Brown Sandy SILT w/ Organics; Slightly Moist
So
1
ML
Tan Sandy SILT; Slightly Moist
F
2 —X
3
4
!
Percolation Test Installed at 4.0'
SP
Tan Poorly Graded SAND; Slightly Moist to Moist
MD -
5
D
6
7
8
9
ML
Brown SILT w/ Varying amounts of Sand Content; Moist to
S
Saturated
10-
11
12
Ground Water Measured
at 13.2' per measurement
13
10/24/2017
14
END OF TEST PIT @ 14.5'
15
Groundwater Encountered
16
L
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT L 0 G
LOGGED BY: TL
PROJECT #: 1905-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Franklin and Ten Mile EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: T -O Engineers, Inc DATE: 10/9/17
G E 0 T E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:—
F�SAMPLES
NTEST
PIT NUMBER: TP -2
y
REMARKS
o
B:
V
G
E
M
m
O
N
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Dark Brown SILT w/ Organics; Moist
So
1
ML
Dark Brown SILT; Moist
F
2
CL -ML
Grey Sandy Silty CLAY w/ Some Gravel; Moist
S
3-XGround
Water Measured
at 3.8' per measurement
4
10/24/2017
5
6
SM
Brown Silty SAND w/ Gravel; Moist to Saturated
D
7
,a Yft t"M
yk
i pi e9
4.
Y.
8
F' fH
,I.I e.
'1 10 Y.z
Y
9
"i
.
F+
10
i uY
gyp;
END OF TEST PIT @ 11.5'
12
Groundwater Encountered
13-
314151617181920
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
1
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT L 0 G
LOGGED BY: TL
PRO 1 E C T #: 1905-I D3 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Franklin and Ten Mile EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: T -O Engineers, Inc DATE: 10/9/17
G E 0 T E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
c
c
�
>,
�
.-.
CL
N
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -3
c
y
REMARKS
a
E
p
U
O
D
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Tan Sandy SILT w/ Organics; Slightly Moist
So
1
ML
Tan Sandy SILT; Slightly Moist
F
2
SP
Brown Poorly Graded SAND; Slightly Moist
D
3
4
5
" F'
SM
Brown Silty SAND; Moist
D
6
SP
Brown Poorly Graded Fine SAND; Moist to Saturated
D
7
8
9
ML
Brown SILT w/ Sand; Saturated
S
10
11
—
END OF TEST @ 11.0'
Groundwater Encountered
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19–
'20
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT L 0 G
LOGGED BY: TL
PROJECT #: 1905-I D3 METHOD: Backhoe
"OA PROJECT: Franklin and Ten Mile EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
CLIENT: T -O Engineers, Inc DATE: 10/9/17
GE 0 E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
C
c
>,
U
cc
T
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -4
y
REMARKS
d
N
V
D
E
M
m
O
H
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
O
ML
Brown Sandy SILT w/ Organics; Slightly Moist
So
1
ML
Brown Sandy SILT; Slightly Moist
F
2SP-SM
Tan Poorly Graded SAND w/ Silt and Some Partially
MD-
4i A
Cemented Layers; Slightly Moist
D
3,X
4
5
�s
6
ML
Brown SILT w/ Sand and some Partially Cemented Layers
S
and Fine Sand; Moist
7
8
9
SP
Brown Poorly Graded SAND w/ Some Silt; Moist
D
10-
11
ML
Brown Sandy SILT; Moist
S
12-
21314
13-
14—
END OF TEST PIT @ 14.0'
Groundwater Encountered
15-
51617181920320
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
320E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: TL
PROJECT #: 1905-ID3 METHOD: Backhoe
PROJECT: Franklin and Ten Mile EXCAVATOR: Just Dig It
C LIE NT: T-0 Engineers, Inc DATE: 10/9/17
G E 0 T E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
>-1
co
E
tn
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -5
REMARKS
4�
=
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Brown SILT w/ Organics; Slightly Moist
So
ML
Brown SILT; Slightly Moist
F
SM
Brown Silty SAND; Slightly Moist
4
CEM
Grey CEMENTED Sand; Slightly Moist
H -
VH
6 —
SP
Brown Poorly Graded SAND; Slightly Moist
D
Percolation Test installed at 7.5'
SP
Tan Poorly Graded Fine SAND
D
SM
Tan SAND w/ Silt; Moist to Saturated
D
14—
END OF TEST PIT @ 14.01
Groundwater Encountered
320E.Corporate Drive, Suite 300.Meridian, Idaho 83842 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208)888'7924
TEST PIT LOG
LOGGED BY: TSL
PROJECT #: 1905-ID3 METHOD: Trackhoe
PROJECT: Entrata Farms EXCAVATOR: Lurre Const.
CLIENT: Landmark Development Partners DATE: 2/26/19
G E 0 T E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -6
REMARKS
ca
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Dark Brown Sandy SILT; Moist
So
SM
Brown Silty SAND; Moist
F
4 —
ML
Dark Brown SILT wl Sand; Moist
F
SP
Brown Poorly Graded SAND W/ Silt; Moist
D
Percolation Test Conducted at
SP
Brown Poorly Graded Sand; Moist
D
7.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
1" j
I
I
I
I
I
I I
328E.Corporate Drive, Suite 3O0.Meridian, Idaho 83042 (208)888-7010 Fax: C208\888-7824
TEST PIT L 0 G
LOGGED BY: TSL
PROJECT #: 1905-ID3 METHOD: Trackhoe
PROJECT: Entrata Farms EXCAVATOR: Lurre Const.
C LIE NT: Landmark Development Partners DATE: 2/26/19
G E 0 T E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
C
p
T
V
^
E
N
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -7
H
4-1REMARKS
o.
E
C1
-
O
G
v
m
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Dark Brown SILT w/ Organics; Moist
So
1
i ML
Dark Brown SILT; Moist
F
2
CL -ML
Grey Sandy Silty CLAY w/ Some Gravel; Moist
S
3
Ground Water Measured
at 5.6' per measurement
4
2(27/2019
5
6
k
SM
Brown Silty SAND w/ Gravel; Moist to Saturated
D
END OF TEST PIT @ 7.5'
8
Groundwater Encountered
9
10-
11
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
1'21
j
I
I
I
I
I
I I
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT L 0 G
320
LOGGED BY: TSL
PROJECT #: 1905-ID3 METHOD: Trackhoe
PROJECT: Entrata Farms EXCAVATOR: Lurre Const.
C LIE N T : Landmark Development Partners DATE: 2/26/19
G E 0 T E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
o
N
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -8
H
REMARKS
d
1=
O
U
=
O
O
M
m
ti
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Tan Sandy SILT w/ Gravel & Organics; Moist
So
1
ML
Tan Sandy SILT w/ Gravel; Moist
F
2
3
4
5
6
Awa
SM
Brown Silty SAND w/ Gravel; Moist
D
k
t
Percolation Test Condicted at
7
END OF TEST PIT @ 7.5-
8
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
9
110-
11
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT L 0 G
LOGGED BY: TSL
PROJECT #: 1905-03 METHOD: Trackhoe
PROJECT: Entrata Farms EXCAVATOR: Lurre Const.
C L I E NT: Landmark Development Partners DATE: 2/26/19
G E 0 T E K LOCATION: Franklin Rd and Ten Mile Rd ELEVATION:
SAMPLES
C
p
T
sE
TEST PIT NUMBER: TP -9
y
REMARKS
Q
o
H
3
a
N
H
_
p
E
v
o
m
o
N
ti
m
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
ML
Tan Sandy SILT w/ Organics; Slightly Moist
So
1
i
ML
Tan Sandy SILT; Moist
F
2
'I M1 r
SM
Lt. Brown Silty SAND w/ Gravel; Slightly Moist
D
3
�� r.,�
4
SP
Tan Poorly Graded SAND w/ Gravel; Slightly Moist
D
5
6
Percolation Test Conducted at
7.0'
7
END OF TEST PIT @ 7.0'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
8
9
10-
11
12-
21314151617181920
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
1'0j
320 E. Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
A a 0 K 11
FIELD TESTS AND OBSERVATIONS (1905-03)
PERCOLATION TESTS
The infiltration rate was determined by conducting percolation tests for onsite soils. The infiltration
rate was determined in inches per hour in general accordance with Ada County requirements.
Infiltration rate results are presented below.
LOCATION
INFILTRATION RATE
(Inches/Hour)
(P-1) TP -I @ 4.0'
2.2
(P-2) TP -5 @ 7.5'
24.0+
(P-3) TP -6 @ 7.5'
24.0+
(P-4) TP -8 @ 7.5'
1.68
(P-5) TP -9 @ 7.0'
24.0+
GROUND WATER MONITORING RESULTS
Ground water monitoring results are presented below. Ground water elevation results are recorded
in feet below existing grade.
LOCATION
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION
TP -1
14.0'+
TP -2
5.6'
TP -6
7.5'+
TP -7
5.2'
TP -8
7.5+
TP -9
7.0'+
+ Indicates a dry reading at the bottom of the piezometer
n/a Indicates that the piezometer was damaged/missing in the field
and no measurements were obtained.
Bold Indicates ground water was encountered in the piezometer
LABORATORY TESTS RESULTS (1905-103)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Atterberg limits were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 4318.
The results are shown in the following plates.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM test method C 136 and ASTM C 117.
Test results are presented in the following plates.
RESISTANCE R -VALUE TESTING
Tests were conducted on representative soil samples, in general accordance with Idaho test method
T-8 and AASHTO T-190, to determine the soil's performance when placed in the base, subbase, or
subgrade of a road subjected to traffic.
LOCATION R -VALUE @ 200
psi
TP- I @ I.0' — 2.0' 22