city of reno | home - reno.gov

SDukes

Text Box

Tentative Map for

SDukes

Text Box

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION KEYSTONE CANYON

RENO, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA

Prepared For:

Mr. Kraig Knudsen TANAMERA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

5470 Reno Corporate Drive Reno, NV 89511

November 2007

JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING I N C O R P O R A T E D

Job No. 1513.01

JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING Keystone Canyon Apartments i I N C O R P O R A T E D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................1

EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................2

GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS...........................4

SEISMIC HAZARDS ..............................................................................................................5

Seismic Design Parameters.................................................................................................5

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................6

Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................8

Grading and Filling.............................................................................................................10

Slopes and Embankments .................................................................................................13

Trenching and Excavations..................................................................................................13

Standard Spread Foundations ...........................................................................................14

Post-Tensioned Slab on Grade Foundations .....................................................................15

Lateral Loads and Retaining Structures .............................................................................16

Slabs-on-Grade and Concrete ..........................................................................................17

Structural Pavement Sections...........................................................................................19

Site Drainage and Retention of Storm Water ...................................................................20

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES ..........................................21

STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE.....................................................................................21

REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................23

JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING ii I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments

TABLES

Table 1 – Guideline Specification for Imported Structural Fill

Table 2 – Maximum Allowable Temporary Slopes

Table 3 – Allowable Foundation Bearing Pressures

Table 4 – Preliminary Post-Tensioned Slab Design Parameters

Table 5 – Lateral Earth Pressures

Table 6 – IBC Requirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfates and Deicing Salts

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Vicinity & Development Map

Figure 2 – View of Property Looking Southwest

Figure 3 - Geologic Map of Development Area Figure 4 – Refusal in Test Pit 3

Figure 5 – Surface Float – Oversized Material

APPENDIX A

Plate A-1 – Site Plan and Approximate Exploration Locations

Plate A-2 – Logs of Test Pits

Plate A-3a – Unified Soil Classification and Key to Soil Descriptions

Plate A-3b – Criteria For Rock Descriptions

Plate A-4a – Summary of Test Results

Plate A-4b – Site Plan and Approximate Exploration Locations

Plate A-5 – USGS Seismic Design Parameters

Plate A-6 – Corrosive Soil Test Results

Plate A-7 – Static and Dynamic Earth Pressures (Mononobe-Okabe)

Plate A-8 – Structural Pavement Section Design – Low Volume Roads

APPENDIX B

Summary of Post-Tensioned Slab Design Parameters

JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 1 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION KEYSTONE CANYON APARTMENTS

RENO, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA

INTRODUCTION

Presented herein are the results of James Edward Engineering, Inc.’s geotechnical

exploration, laboratory testing, and associated geotechnical design recommendations for

the proposed Keystone Canyon Apartments to be constructed in Reno, Washoe County,

Nevada. These recommendations are based on surface and subsurface conditions

encountered in our explorations, and on details of the proposed project as described in this

report. The objectives of this study were to:

1. Determine general soil, bedrock, and ground water conditions pertaining to design

and construction of the proposed project.

2. Provide recommendations for design and construction of the project, as related to

these geotechnical conditions.

The area covered by this report is shown on Plate

A-1 (Site Plan and Approximate Exploration

Locations) in Appendix A and in Figure 1 of this

report. The site encompasses parcels numbers 082-

631-16, 082-631-18, 082-631-24 and a portion of

082-631-20. Our study included field exploration,

laboratory testing and engineering analyses to

identify the physical and mechanical properties of

the various on-site materials. Results of our field

exploration and testing programs are included in this

report and form the basis for all conclusions and

recommendations.

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

As shown in Figure 1, the site is located within a

149 acre parcel immediately west of Victory Way

between the intersections with Leadership Parkway

and North McCarran Boulevard, in Reno, Nevada.

SNAK

E RIVE

R DR

VICTORY LN

GREEN RI VER CT

LEADERSHIP PW

GREEN RIVER DR

LEADERSHIP PW

N MCCARRAN BL

N MCCARRAN BL

Figure 1: Vicinity &

Development Map


The site is bordered by Victory way to the

east, Leadership Parkway to the north and

undeveloped land to the west and the Sky

Country Estates along a portion of the

southern border. The parcel is entirely

contained in Section 33, Township 20

North, and Range 19 East.

Topography across the site is irregular.

The central portion of the site is

approximately 40 feet above the adjacent Leadership Way. It is our understanding that this

hill will be cut to near existing roadway grade and the material generated will be used to fill

the lower portions of the site. Site drainage is typically by sheet flow; however, a major

drainage crosses the parcel near the western border, and drains to the south toward

McCarran Boulevard.

Minor grading has occurred on the east side of the parcel and several soil and debris piles

are present. The piles consist of soil, concrete, asphalt and construction debris. Vegetation

is light to moderate and consists of native shrubs and grasses. Underground utilities trend

along Victory Way and Leadership Parkway.

The project consists of constructing 19 buildings consisting of a 166 unit apartment complex

with an associated club house and pool. Associated parking and access drives, and

underground utilities will also be constructed as part of the project. At this time, it is

anticipated that the structures will be wood-framed with conventional or post tensioned slab-

on-grade flooring. The cut/fill differential is unknown at the time of this report

EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

The site was explored in November 2007 by excavating a series of 6 test pits utilizing a

Caterpillar 315C excavator. Approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Plate A-1a

– Site Plan and Approximate Exploration Locations in the Appendix of this report. Test pit

locations were located by approximate means. Actual test pit location may be different than

that shown on the Site Plan.

Figure 2: View of Property Looking Southwest.


The depth of explorations ranged from 5 to 14 feet from the existing ground surface.

Refusal was met in two test pits where the rate of advance became less than 1 foot in 10

minutes. Logs of Test Pits are presented on Plate A-2 in the Appendix of this report.

Samples for testing were collected from the trench walls at specific depths in soil horizons

and bulk samples were also obtained from the stockpiles generated during excavation of

the test pits. James Edward Engineering’s personnel examined and classified all soils in

the field in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Description and Identification of Soils –

Visual Manual Procedure). The test pit logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface

conditions based on our field observations and the indicated laboratory test results. The

lines designating the interface between various strata on the test boring records represent

the approximate positions of the interface. The actual transition between the strata may be

gradual or completely irregular.

Representative samples were placed in sealed containers and returned to our Reno,

Nevada, laboratory for testing. Additional soil classification, as well as verification of the field

logs, was performed in accordance with ASTM 2487 (Unified Soil Classification System

[USCS]) upon completion of laboratory testing. Excavation and material profiles are

presented as Plate A-2, Logs of Test Pits, a Unified Soil Classification System and Key to

Soil Descriptions chart has been included as Plate A-3, and the Unified Rock Classification

System has been included as Plate A-4.

All soil testing performed in the James Edward Engineering soils’ laboratory is conducted in

accordance with ASTM Standards, specifically Volume 4.08 (Soil and Rock; Dimension

Stone; Geosynthetics). Samples of significant soil types were analyzed to determine their in

situ moisture content (ASTM D 2216), grain size distribution (ASTM D 422), and plasticity

index (ASTM D 4318), with the results of these tests are shown on Plate A-3a – Summary

of Test Results Index Properties. Results of these tests were used to classify the soils

according the USCS (ASTM D 2487) and to verify the field logs, which were then updated

as appropriate. This testing protocol provides an indication of the soil’s mechanical

properties.

Soluble sulfate testing was conducted on a sample of the site soils. This testing provides a

basis for evaluating the environment to which concrete will be exposed.


GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Figure 3, the Reno Folio – Geologic Map (Bonham & Bingler, 1973), shows that the project

is located within the Sandstone of Hunter Creek. This unit is known for the presence of

prominently bedded, interlayered siltstone, silty sandstone and sandy conglomerate. In

addition, this unit sometime includes diatomite and diatomaceous earth and sandstone.

Where the undisturbed geotechnical profile was excavated, the site generally consists of fat

sandy clays overlying claystone, silts, diatomite and sandstone of the Sandstone of Hunter

Creek Formation.

The profile essentially consisted of a surface veneer of sandy fat clay capping volcanic and

sedimentary bedrock. The volcanic bedrock encountered in the test pits generally excavated

into gravelly sand-silty sand and the sedimentary bedrock, Sandstone, excavated into fine

sand. Generally, soils were encountered in a slightly moist to dry condition. Groundwater

was not encountered in any of our explorations.

FIGURE 3 – Geologic Map of Development Area


SEISMIC HAZARDS

The Reno Folio – Earthquake Hazards Map (Bingler, 1974) was reviewed and shows

several mapped faults within the general vicinity of the proposed project. An east - west

trending Post Tertiary fault is located on the northwest corner of the site. No other mapped

faults trend through the project site. The remaining faults in the surrounding area are

considered to be early to late Pleistocene. These faults found within the sites vicinity are

considered inactive. A criteria for evaluating earthquake faults has been formulated by a

professional committee for the State of Nevada Seismic Safety Council, but has not yet

been adopted by the State or Counties. The guidelines present that faults with evidence of

movement within the past 10,000 years (Holocene time) are considered Holocene Active.

Faults with evidence of displacement within the last 130,000 years are considered Late

Quaternary Active and faults with movement within the last 1.6 million years are considered

Quaternary Active. The fault trending the northwest corner of the property would not be

considered active and no offsets or special considerations would be required.

Liquefaction is a loss of soil shear strength that can occur during a seismic event, as cyclic

shear stresses cause excessive pore water pressure between the soil grains. This

phenomenon is generally limited to unconsolidated, clean to silty sand (up to 35 percent

non-plastic fines) lying below the ground water table. Due to the close proximity to bedrock,

and anticipated depth to groundwater, the site units are not considered to be susceptible to

liquefaction. In addition, there is no specific policy in Nevada which requires structures to be

designed to resist liquefaction. Such designs tend to be very costly and are usually limited

to those structures with a public safety function, such as, fire and police facilities and

hospitals or buildings with high occupancy, such as, large commercial, retail, office and

manufacturing facilities, schools, municipal or major governmental buildings.

Seismic Design Parameters

Due to the presence of the near surface weathered bedrock, the site can be classified as a

Site Class C (very dense soil and soft rock) listed in Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International

Building Code. Based on the average latitude and longitude of the site (39.5490oN, and -

119.8490oW), the Site Coefficients Fa and Fv, as a function of site class, are 1.0 and 1.3,

respectively. A printout of the USGS assessment is presented on Plate A-5 of this report.


DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is the contractor’s responsibility for the grading and construction of the designed

improvements. This responsibility includes the means, methods, materials, techniques,

sequence, and procedures of construction and safety of construction at the site. All

construction shall conform to the requirements of the most recently adopted version of the

Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Washoe County, City of Sparks,

City of Reno, Carson City, and City of Yerington) as adopted and amended by the City of

Reno. Failure to inspect the work shall not relieve the contractor from his obligation to

perform sound and reliable work as described herein and as described in the Standard

Specifications for Public Works Construction for either public or private improvements.

If construction staking is replaced by the use of GPS systems, the site should be surveyed

by a licensed professional surveyor to verify that the lateral and vertical separations from

clay soils have been met as required by this report.

For purposes of this project, the following definitions shall be utilized:

♦ Fine-grained soil or bedrock altered to a fine-grained consistency is defined as

excavating with more than 40 percent by weight passing the number 200 sieve and a

plasticity index lower than 15.

♦ Clay soil or bedrock altered to a clay consistency is defined as excavating with more

than 30 percent passing the number 200 sieve and a plasticity index greater than 15.

♦ Granular soil or bedrock altered to a granular consistency is defined as not meeting the

above criteria with a maximum particle size of less than 12-inches.

In general, the native soil/bedrock profile encountered can be characterized as sandy fat

clay capping weathered, moderately to closely fractured bedrock which excavates to a

poorly consolidated sand, elastic silt or a gravelly sand-silty sand mix. As previously

discussed, minor fills and debris piles were encountered on site.

The recommendations provided herein, are intended to reduce risks of structural distress

related to consolidation or expansion of native soils and/or structural fills. These

recommendations, along with proper design and construction of the planned structure and

associated improvements, work together as a system to improve overall performance. If


any aspect of this system is ignored or poorly implemented, the performance of the project

will suffer. Quality control should be provided during construction. However, since

verification of mass grading is based on random density testing, laboratory testing, and

observation services, it is ultimately the contractor’s responsibility to perform consistent,

sound, and reliable work as required by the Standard Specifications for Public Works

Construction.

It should be noted that the site lies in a portion of Reno, Nevada known for the presence of

highly expansive clay, both as an argillic horizon and within altered zones of the underlying

bedrock. Although encountered and anticipated, the inconsistencies that exist regarding

location, extent, and intensity of alteration and clay mineralization lead to significant

variations in structural response of the overlying improvements. Clay remediation measures

that would eliminate the potential for subsequent movement, total and differential, would be

extensive and costly. The recommendations contained herein have been formulated in

accordance with local, current industry standards: however, due to the nature of the

underlying geologic units, movement within sit work and structures should still be

anticipated. The amount of movement expected will likely lead to localized

cosmetic/architectural distress and some maintenance and repairs, including

isolated removal and replacement of site work, should be anticipated. The

overexcavation limits presented herein can be increased should the owner wish to reduce

the risks associated with the project. It should be noted however, that increasing the

separation still cannot guarantee the performance of overlying improvements. Although

recommendations have been provided for both standard spread foundations and post-

tensioned slabs, it is our opinion that post-tensioned slabs will perform better under these

design constraints.

The explorations were advanced at the approximate locations shown on the site plan.

Locations were determined in the field by survey coinciding with the center of the structures.

All test holes were backfilled upon completion of the field portion of our study. The backfill

was compacted to the extent possible with the equipment on hand. However, the backfill

was not compacted to the requirements presented herein under SITE PREPARATION AND

GRADING AND FILLING. If structures, concrete flatwork, pavement, utilities or other

improvements are to be located in the vicinity of any of the test pits, the backfill

should be removed and re-compacted in accordance with the requirements contained

in the soils report. Failure to properly compact backfill could result in excessive


settlement of improvements located over test pits. Structural areas referred to in this

report include all areas of buildings, concrete slabs, asphalt pavements, as well as pads for

any minor structures. Slopes supported by retaining structures are also considered

structural. All compaction requirements presented in this report are relative to

ASTM D 1557 1.

Any evaluation of the site for the presence of surface or subsurface hazardous substances

is beyond the scope of this study. When suspected hazardous substances are encountered

during routine geotechnical investigations, they are noted in the exploration logs and

reported to the client. No such substances were identified during our exploration.

Site Preparation

All vegetation and topsoil should be stripped and grubbed from structural areas and

removed from the site or placed in non-structural zones. In addition, any existing fill should

be removed in its entirety prior to placing any additional fill or constructing improvements.

Nonstructural areas must be outside the zone of influence for any structures or public

improvements. In addition, the nonstructural zone should also be in an area where

settlement of the fill will not pose an issue to the development. Any organics placed in non-

structural areas must be adequately blended with soil to reduce the potential for excessive

movement. Areas which exist behind or under rockery or other retaining structures are

considered structural zones. Most of the fill soils encountered may be placed in deeper fills

as long as any organic or large construction debris is removed prior to placement and the fill

soils are moisture conditioned and recompacted required by this report.

Because of the potential for excavation difficulty associated with the mass grading, we

recommend that building pads be cut to footing grade then backfilled with structural fill to

facilitate excavation of foundations and underslab utilities. The test pits advanced in the

central portion of the property, on the hill, were only advanced to depths of 5 feet with the

Caterpillar 315C trackhoe. The depth of exploration was terminated when the rate of

advance was less than 1-foot in 10 minutes. Based on conversations with the grading

contractor responsible for the construction of Leadership Way, the excavation of the

roadway was achieved by utilizing a D-9 and scrapers with some minor difficulty. However,

1 Relative compaction refers to the ratio (percentage of the in-place density of a soil divided by the same soil’s maximum dry

density) as determined by the ASTM D 1557 laboratory test procedure. Optimum moisture content is the corresponding moisture content of the same soil at its maximum dry density.


that still does not negate the potential for blasting

during excavation of the hill/knob. Because the

planned depth of excavation significantly exceeds

the depths achieved during the performance of this

investigation, and the variation inherently present

in the geologic units, it is critical that the

contractor be duly diligent in his approach to the

project and formulation of his bid and must

ascertain for himself the excavatability

characteristics of the units by his personnel and

equipment.

Where present within 3-feet of structural

improvements, the exposed medium to highly plastic (Plasticity Index > 15) clay layer, or

altered bedrock, should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. This zone of

overexcavation will only exist in structural areas where fills are less than 3-feet or where

design cuts penetrate the clays. If the clay zone is penetrated before achieving the 3 foot

separation, overexcavation can be terminated. Overexcavation of the clay layer is not

required in post-tensioned slab areas.

Significant fill differentials are anticipated to exist beneath several of the structures. Too

much disparity in fill thickness can lead to excessive differential settlement that can result in

nuisance cracking. As a preliminary guideline, we recommend that the fill differential

beneath a single structure be limited to 7-feet where standard spread foundations are

utilized, and 12-feet where post-tensioned slabs are utilized. Once building pad grades are

established, this recommendation can be re-evaluated and modified if appropriate. If the

existing topography is such that the allowable fill differential is exceeded, the building pad

can be overexcavated on the cut side, or foundations can be deepened on the fill side.

Overexcavation and replacement to either mitigate the presence of clay soils or to maintain

the allowable fill differential should extend at least five feet beyond the limits of the structural

improvement.

Once the required overexcavation is completed, scarify any remaining clay soil or exposed

altered bedrock, moisture condition to at least 5 percent over optimum for a minimum depth

of 12 inches, and compact the exposed clay subgrade to not less than 88 percent and no

FIGURE 4: Refusal in Test Pit 3


more than 93 percent relative compaction. This moisture content must be maintained until

capped by a layer structural fill or improvements are constructed. If competent, unaltered,

bedrock is present at subgrade, scarification and recompaction is not required providing

excessively loose or disturbed material is removed or compacted prior to fill placement.

Grading and Filling

Structural fill is defined as any material placed below structural elements, such as;

foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, pavements or any structure that derives support from

the underlying soils. Structural fill should be free of vegetation, organic matter, and other

deleterious material. Structural fill for the project is planned to be generated on site or in the

immediate vicinity of the project. This specifications presented herein are intended to be a

guideline and variations in the site soils are anticipated. These specifications are the basis

of our design recommendations and if significant variations are observed during mass

grading, modifications to the design recommendations may be warranted.

Clay soils generated during mass grading can be placed in fills to within 5 feet below

structural grade or in all nonstructural areas. For preliminary purposes, clay soils may be

placed to foundation grade for post-tensioned slabs. This option will be evaluated more

closely once design grades are known. Clay soils placed as fill shall be moisture conditioned

to at least 3 percent over optimum and compacted to between 88 and 93 percent of the

soil’s maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). This moisture content shall be maintained until

the lift is covered by soil. Clay fills shall be uniform in thickness and shall not exceed 5-feet

in thickness beneath any structure.

Two to three-feet boulders were observed

across the ground surface and may be

encountered during grading. Isolated

boulders may be placed in fills which are

at least 10-feet outside the structure

footprint in backyard or common areas.

This provision is to allow for the random

placement of oversized particles. Should

the quantity of oversize become

excessive, removal from the site, or

Figure 5: Surface Float – Oversized Material


placement in non-structural areas may be required. Nesting of boulders is not allowed.

Screening the maximum particle size to 6-inches within the surface 2 feet of pad grade will

assist in trenching foundations. The maximum allowable particle size is a function of the

contractor’s ability to adequately compact the coarse fill, there being an adequate blend of

fines to assure a competent fill, and the impact on subsequent improvements such as

trenching for foundations or utilities. The recommended maximum particle size can be

modified depending on final grading requirements.

According to ASTM Standards, where less than 70 percent of the material passes the ¾-

inch sieve, the soil is too coarse for determining the moisture-density relationship of the

material (ASTM D1557). Soils meeting this condition are classified as ‘rock-fill” and the

following construction placement verification procedures are recommended.

• A moisture-density relationship (ASTM D1557 Method C) shall be determined on the

portion of the material passing the ¾-inch sieve. This data shall be used in the

documentation of the in-place moisture content of the fill and subgrade soil as it relates

to optimum as well as determining the relative compaction of the soil matrix within rock

fill.

• Where standard density testing can not be performed, a proof rolling effort consisting of

at least five single passes with a minimum 20-ton roller (825 Caterpillar Sheepsfoot

compactor, or equivalent) in mass grading, or five complete passes with hand

compactors in footing trenches is recommended. This alternate has proven to provide

adequate performance as long as all other geotechnical recommendations are closely

followed.

• Monitoring of the proof-rolling program should be provided to establish that no

significant increase in measured density is occurring with subsequent passes prior to

terminating compaction efforts. The rolling pattern established shall be reported and

shall include: number of passes (each way), equipment used, thickness of fill lift, and

estimated fraction of the fill passing the ¾-inch sieve. Density tests and moisture

contents should be reported as part of the quality assurance program.

• Prior to densification, the moisture content of the fraction of the rock fill passing the ¾-

inch sieve should be at least 3 percent above optimum. Higher moisture contents are


acceptable if the soil lift is stable and required compaction can be obtained in

succeeding fill lifts.

• Particles up to 12-inches in diameter can be used within the fill material and should be

placed in such a manner that nesting of the particles does not occur. In other words,

the voids between the rock particles should be filled with a finer grained material to

create a dense, homogenous mixture. Compliance with this requirement will be based

on careful construction procedures of the grading contractor. Granular soils with

particles up to 12-inches in diameter can be placed in maximum 18-inch lifts. Granular

soils with particles up to 6-inches in diameter can be placed in maximum 12-inch lifts.

• Class A structural fill with more than 70 percent of the soil passing the ¾”-sieve, as well

as the soil matrix within rock fill shall be compacted to not less than 90 percent of the

soil’s maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557 for fills less than 5-feet in thickness, and

95 percent for fills exceeding 5-feet in thickness.

Import structural fill, or structural fill generated on site, should be pre-qualified to meet the

requirements established in Table 1. This fill is required in the 18-inch zone immediately

beneath sitework and within the three-feet immediately beneath standard spread foundations

and non-reinforced slabs-on-grade.

TABLE 1 - GUIDELINE SPECIFICATION FOR IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL

Sieve Size Percent by Weight Passing

12 Inch 100 ¾ Inch 70 – 100 No. 40 15 – 70 No. 200 10 – 30

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Maximum Liquid Limit Maximum Plastic Index

10 – 30 40 15 R-Value (Minimum) - 30

Soluble Sulfate Level < 0.10 Percent by Weight (Negligible)

Adjustments to the recommended limits presented in Table 1 can be provided to allow the

use of other granular, non-expansive material, including rock fills. Rockfill generated on site

which exhibits a plasticity index greater than 15, shall be acceptable as long as an

Expansion Index less than 30 is maintained and no more than 30 percent of the soil mass

passes the # 200 sieve. Any other adjustments must be made and approved by the

geological engineer, in writing, prior to importing fill to the site. Depending on final grades,

location, and structural loads, this requirement can be re-evaluated and modified if


appropriate.

Structural fill shall be compacted to not less than 90-percent of the soil’s maximum dry

density where total fill thickness is less than 5-feet. The degree of compaction should be

increased to 95-percent where fill thickness exceeds 5-feet.

Slopes and Embankments

The face of any exterior embankment or cut slopes should be constructed with an

inclination of no steeper than 2H:1V. The surface of embankment slopes should be

compacted to the same percent compaction as the body of the fill. This may be

accomplished by compacting the surface of the embankment as it is constructed or by

overbuilding the fill and cutting back to its compacted core. Clay soils or soils blended with

organics shall not be placed in areas to be retained by structures.

Temporary (during construction) and permanent (after construction) erosion control will be

required for all disturbed areas. The contractor shall prevent dust from being generated

during construction in compliance with all applicable city, county, state and federal

regulations. The project specifications should include an indemnification by the contractor

of the owner and engineer for any dust generation during the construction period. The

owner will be responsible for mitigation of dust after his acceptance of the project.

Trenching and Excavations

Unsupported excavations will require shoring or laying back of sidewalls to maintain adequate

stability. OSHA, 29 CFR, 1926, Table B-1, Subpart P - Excavations regulations require that the

temporary sidewall slopes for excavations be no greater than those presented in Table 2.

Layered soils must maintain the maximum allowable slope for the weakest layer. Definitions and

allowable slope configurations are presented in the referenced register, and should be

consulted. Soil classification is required when shoring or shielding is used and the on-site soils

should be considered Type A for the sandy fat clay and Type C for the bedrock that has been

weathered to a dense clayey sandy gravel consistency.


TABLE 2 - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TEMPORARY SLOPES

Soil or Rock Type Maximum Allowable Slopes

1 For

Excavations Less Than 20 Feet Deep2

Type A Type B Type C

3H:4V 1H:1V 3H:2V

(53 degrees) (45 degrees) (34 degrees)

NOTES: 1. Numbers shown in parentheses next to maximum allowable slopes are angles expressed in degrees from the

horizontal. Angles have been rounded off. 2. Sloping or benching for excavations greater than 20 feet deep shall be designed by a registered professional

engineer.

If shoring and shielding options are considered, Appendix F of Subpart P of the referenced

register must be followed. All trenching should be performed and stabilized in accordance with

local, state, and OSHA standards. Bank stability is the responsibility of the contractor, who is

present at the site, able to observe changes in ground conditions, and has control over

personnel and equipment. Surcharge loads from stored material, equipment, traffic, etc. must be

specifically evaluated for conditions created by the contractor.

Based on our test results, the soil generated from the excavations must be screened to less than

4-inches to meet Class E (SSPWC) backfill requirements. In addition, due to the plasticity, much

of the backfill generated on site will not meet Class E requirements. Backfill shall be moisture

conditioned as necessary, placed in maximum 1 foot uniform lifts, and compacted to not less

than 90 percent of the soils’ maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557. Larger particles may be

incorporated in private improvements provided the contractor has the equipment on site and the

trench is of adequate width to facilitate backfill placement and compaction.

Standard Spread Foundations

Provided the foundation soils and embankment fills have been prepared in accordance with

the recommendations of this report, the bearing pressures presented in Table 3 can be

utilized for design. For frost protection, footings should all be set at least two feet below

adjacent outside or unheated interior finish grades. Based on the recommendations

contained within this report, and anticipated fill depths total structural settlement is

anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch, or less. Differential settlement between foundations

within a structure with members experiencing similar loads and sizes is anticipated to be ¼

to ½ of the total settlement.


TABLE 3 – ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURES

Loading Conditions

Maximum Soil Net Allowable Bearing

Pressures1

(pounds per square foot)

Dead Loads plus full time live loads 3,000

Dead Loads plus live loads, plus transient wind, or seismic loads.

4,000

NOTES: 1. The net allowable bearing pressure is at the base of the footing, in excess of the adjacent overburden pressure.

2. Minimum foundation widths and depths shall be as established by code.

Post-Tensioned Slab-on-Grade Foundations

Preliminary post-tensioned slab-on-grade design values are presented below in Table 4 and

in Appendix B of this report. The design values presented are based on the test data

obtained during this investigation and the VOLFLO Win 1.5 computer program. The existing

moisture profile was assumed to remain constant until construction of the units.

TABLE 4 – PRELIMINARY POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN PARAMETERS

em Center Lift (ft) – 5.5 ym Center Lift (in) – 1.2

em Edge Lift (ft) – 2.8 ym Edge Lift (in) – 2.2

NOTE: The values presented are contingent upon the contractor and the homeowners following the construction and post-construction considerations presented in our geotechnical update.

To aid in determining final design grades before the slabs have been structurally designed,

a preliminary slab thickness of 11-inches can be assumed. Post-tensioned slabs should be

underlain by a 4-inch layer of pea gravel. This layer can be increased or decreased

depending on final slab thickness to maintain the design grades.

An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be utilized for design. This

value may be increased by a factor of 1.33 when considering wind or seismic loading.

Exterior thickened edges or stiffening beams must be designed to resist the effects of frost

heave or be extended to a minimum depth of 2 feet below finished exterior grade.

The design values presented are for surrounding landscaped areas, including lawns and

flower beds. In addition, post-construction practices must be incorporated to help limit

distress to structures. To help minimize movements in soils due to post-construction factors,

not climate related, the following maintenance procedures are required:


• Uniform landscaping should be provided adjacent to the perimeter of the foundation,

and excellent drainage provided and maintained away from the residence.

• Water should be applied in a uniform, systematic manner as equally as possible on

all sides of the residence to keep the soil moist. Areas without ground cover may

require more moisture due to the potential for increased evaporation.

• Trees should not be planted within 10 feet of the structure.

• The foundation perimeter should be observed during extreme hot and dry periods to

help insure that adequate watering is being provided to prevent the soil from

separating from the foundation.

It should be noted that post-tensioned slabs are designed to respond to movement within

the underlying soils and the subsequent movement within the overlying structure can induce

some architectural cracking within the finished improvements. The amount of movement

and cracking typically diminishes with time but because the post-tensioned slab/soil has a

dynamic relationship, some maintenance associated with this foundation system should be

anticipated.

Lateral Loads and Retaining Structures

Lateral loads, such as wind or seismic, may be resisted by passive soil pressure and friction

on the bottom of the footing. The recommended coefficient of base friction is 0.45 and has

been reduced by a factor of 1.5 on the ultimate soil strength. Lateral earth pressures

imposed on retaining walls are dependent on the relative rigidity and movement of the

structure, soil type, and moisture conditions behind the wall. Recommended lateral earth

pressures are presented in Table 5. The surface foot of passive resistance should be

ignored unless confined by slab or pavement. Earth pressure calculations are presented on

Plate A-7 in Appendix A of this report.

TABLE 5 – LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Wall Type Lateral Earth Pressure (psf/f)

Rotation of wall face to allow full development of Static Active Pressure

55

Static Passive Pressure 225

Combined Static & Dynamic – Driving Wedge 75

Combined Static & Dynamic – Resisting Wedge 185


Wall backfill can be structural fill as outlined in Table 1. Excessive pressures can be

developed due to heavy compaction equipment during backfill placement. Therefore, all

backfill behind any retaining structures should be screened to 6” minus and shall be

compacted to not less than 90 percent if only supporting slabs-on-grade. Due care must be

exercised during compaction to avoid build-up of excessive pressures. The values

presented in Table 5 do not take into account hydrostatic pressures. French drains, a

drainage backfill geotextile such as Mirafi 140 N, or a pre-manufactured drain system such

as Tensor® DC1200 may be used if hydrostatic pressure buildup is possible.

Slabs-on-Grade and Concrete

Non-reinforced concrete slabs-on-grade shall be underlain by not less than 6 inches of

compacted Type 2, Class B aggregate base as specified in the Standard Specifications for

Public Works Construction. A minimum slab thickness of 6-inches should be considered

under, and in front of, dumpster areas. Given the nature of the native bedrock, incorporating

reinforcement in the slabs should be considered as a means to help limit the potential for

future movement, even with the overexcavation requirements being met.

A moisture vapor retarder or barrier should be considered beneath interior slabs-on-grade

supporting moisture sensitive floor coatings, treatments, or equipment. Any moisture vapor

barrier system should be installed in strict accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Stego-Wrap 15-mil, or equivalent, is recommended should a barrier be desired.

Table 6 summarizes IBC requirements for concrete in areas subjected to sulfate and

deicing salt exposure and presents the recommended concrete mix design parameters for

the project. Sulfate testing on the native soils yielded results in the severe range. This test

data is presented on Plate A-6. Mix designs, with associated qualification tests and

certificates of compliance, shall be in accordance with the ACI 211.1 trial batch method and

shall be submitted to the owner/engineer for review at least two weeks prior to use.


TABLE 6 – IBC REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATES AND DEICING SALTS

Use Exposure Cement3

Coarse Aggregate

Size (in)

1,3

Minimum Sacks of Cement/ Yard

3

Min 28 Day Compressive Strength (psi)

3

Maximum Water/ Cement Ratio

3

Maximum Slump (in)

3

Entrained Air (%)

3

Sulfates4 Neg.

Mod. Severe V. Sev.

5

Type II-V or Type II

with Flyash

- - - -

5.5 6.0 6.5 6.5

3000 4000 4500 4500

0.50 0.50 0.45 0.45

4 4 4 4

- - - -

Structural –Foundations,

Stemwalls, And Interior

Slabs-on-Grade

Recommended

Type V

or Type

II-V

1 ½”

(SOG) 6.5 4500 0.45 4 -

Sulfates4 Neg.

Mod. Severe V. Sev.

5

- - - -

5.5 6.0 6.5 6.5

3000 4000 4500 4500

0.55 0.50 0.45 0.45

4 4 ½ – 7 ½

De-Icing

Salts Severe

Weathering Region T

ype II-V or Type II with

Flyash

- 6.0 4500 0.45 4 6 min Exterior2 –

Curbs, Gutters, Walks and Driveways

Recommended

Type V

or Type

II-V

# 67 6.5 4500 0.45 4 6 min

1 Aggregate size may be adjusted providing the contractor can acceptably demonstrate his ability to work and finish the product, and all other requirements are met.

2 Fibers may be added to increase durability.

3 Requires the project structural engineer’s approval

4 Testing may be warranted once design grades are approached.

5 In very severe sulfate exposure areas, Type V plus Pozzolan cement is required.

Western Nevada is a region with exceptionally low relative humidity and absorptive

aggregates. As a consequence, concrete flatwork is prone to shrinking and curling which

may not be typical of other US regions. Typical joint spacing, regionally, is on 10 to 12 foot

centers. In addition, where slab-on-grade thickness allows, the industry has been gravitating

toward the use of 1 ½” aggregate in slab-on-grade mixes to reduce the quantity of paste

and associated potential for excessive shrinkage. The structural engineer should review mix

designs from local suppliers or specify shrinkage limits to evaluate that joint spacing and

reinforcing are consistent with local aggregate and environmental requirements. All

concrete placement and curing should be performed in accordance with procedures outlined

by the American Concrete Institute. Special considerations should be given to concrete

placed and cured during hot or cold weather conditions. Proper control joints and

reinforcing should be provided to minimize any damage resulting from shrinkage.


Structural Pavement Sections

All private asphalt pavement workmanship and materials shall conform to the requirements

of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Type 3 Plantmix Bituminous

Pavement is recommended for light traffic and parking areas, Type 2 Plantmix Bituminous

Pavement is recommended in heavy truck areas. Due to increased longevity, AC 20-P oil

should be considered for use in the top lift of the pavement mat. In addition, incorporating a

target air-void specification of 2 to 4 percent in light traffic areas will improve the longevity in

these low volume zones.

A minimum structural section consisting of 3-inches of plantmix bituminous pavement,

capping 6-inches of Type 2 Class B aggregate base should be considered for all parking

and drive areas and utility access roads. If for some reason heavy truck traffic will be

concentrated in any portion of the development, increasing the section to 4-inches of

plantmix bituminous pavement should be considered. Structural pavement section

calculations are presented on Plate A-9 in the Appendix of this report.

Maintenance is mandatory to long-term pavement performance. Maintenance refers to any

activity performed on the pavement that is intended to preserve its original service life or

load-carrying capacity. Examples of maintenance activities include patching, crack or joint

sealing, and seal coats. If these maintenance activities are ignored or deferred, premature

failure of the pavement will occur.

The cost associated with proper maintenance is generally much less than the cost for

reconstruction due to the premature failure of the pavement. Therefore, since pavement

quality is an integral consideration in the formulation of our design recommendations, we

strongly recommend the owner/project manager implement a pavement management

program.

Premature failure of asphaltic concrete frequently occurs adjacent to poorly graded ponding

areas and/or landscape areas. Failures may occur due to excessive precipitation, irrigation

and landscaping water infiltrating into the subgrade soils causing subgrade failure. As such,

in areas where the design team suspects that saturation of the subgrade soils beneath

asphaltic pavement may occur, it is strongly recommended the owner/project manager

install a subdrain system to eliminate the potential for saturation of subgrade soils. The

subdrain system should discharge into a permanent drainage area that will not impede


drainage flow to cause the system to back-up and/or clog. Appropriate maintenance

procedures should be implemented to ensure the subdrain system does not plug and allow

for proper drainage of surface and subsurface water beneath paved areas. Subdrain

location and configuration should be evaluated once final grading and landscaping plans

have been prepared. The project civil engineer and landscape designer should review all

potential areas for subdrain installation.

Site Drainage and Retention of Storm Water

Adequate surface drainage must be constructed and maintained away from the

structures. Permanent finish slopes away from the structures should be sufficient to allow

water to drain away quickly from and prevent any ponding of water adjacent to the

structures. All runoff should be collected within permanent drainage paths that can

convey water off the property. A system of roof gutters and downspouts is recommended

to collect roof drainage and direct it away from the foundations.

As previously mentioned foundation, or wall backfill should be densified to at least 90

percent relative compaction in accordance with the requirements provided in the Grading

and Filling section of this report. Compacting the backfill material decreases permeability

and reduces the amount of irrigation and storm water available to migrate into the soils

supporting foundations and slabs-on-grade.

With the advent of on-site storm water retention systems special considerations are

warranted for sites with expansive soils. If possible, on-site storm water retention systems

should be constructed down gradient from any structures. Because much of the site will

be founded in fill, percolation testing can be performed once mass grading is complete to

provide a basis for assessing retention time and seepage rates. Special grading

recommendations can be provided to create a fill in a nonstructural area that would be

more susceptible to infiltration.

It should be cautioned that given the nature of the on-site materials, introducing any water

into the underlying fills, bedrock, or clays will increase the potential for subsequent

movement in overlying or adjacent improvements.


CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES

The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that the

contractor performs his work as required by the project documents and that owner/project

manager provides sufficient field-testing and construction review during all phases of

construction. Prior to construction, the owner/project manager should schedule a pre-job

conference including, but not limited to, the owner, architect, civil engineer, the general

contractor, earthwork and materials subcontractors, building official, and geotechnical

engineer. It is the owner's/project manager responsibility to set-up this meeting and contact

all responsible parties. The conference will allow parties to review the project plans,

specifications, and recommendations presented in this report, and discuss applicable

material quality and mix design requirements. All quality control reports should be

submitted to the owner/project manger for review and distributed to the appropriate parties.

During construction, James Edward Engineering, Inc. should have the opportunity to

provide sufficient on-site observation of site preparation and grading, over-excavation, fill

placement, foundation installation, and paving. These observations would allow us to

document that the geotechnical conditions are as anticipated and that the contractor's work

meets with the criteria in the approved plans and specifications. The site should be

surveyed by a licensed professional surveyor for grade and location prior to placing

structural fill over clay soils. Without this verification, JEE cannot provide verification that the

work being completed is in accordance with the project’s plans, specifications, or

geotechnical report. If certification by a licensed surveyor is not provided, verification of

horizontal and vertical control must be provided by whoever was responsible for establishing

those boundaries.

STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local geotechnical

practices. The analyses and recommendations submitted are based upon field exploration

performed at the locations shown on Plate A-1 of this report. This report does not reflect

soils variations that may become evident during the construction period, at which time re-

evaluation of the recommendations may be necessary. We recommend our firm be

retained to perform construction observation in all phases of the project related to

geotechnical factors to document compliance with our recommendations. The


owner/project manger is responsible for distribution of this geotechnical report to all

designers and contractors whose work is related to geotechnical factors.

It is the contractor’s responsibility for the grading and construction of the designed

improvements. This responsibility includes the means, methods, materials, techniques,

sequence, and procedures of construction and safety of construction at the site. All

construction shall conform to the requirements of the most recently adopted version of the

Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the requirements of the City of

Reno. Failure to inspect the work shall not relieve the contractor from his obligation to

perform sound and reliable work as described herein and as described in the Standard

Specifications for Public Works Construction.

All plans and specifications should be reviewed by the design engineer responsible for this

geotechnical report, to determine if they have been completed in accordance with the

recommendations contained in this report, prior to submitting to the building department for

review. It is the owner's/project manager responsibility to provide the plans and

specifications to the engineer. This report has been prepared to provide information

allowing the architect and engineer to design the project. The owner/project manager is

responsible for distribution of this report to all designers and contractors whose work is

affected by geotechnical aspects. In the event of changes in the design, location, or

ownership of the project after presentation of this report, our recommendations should be

reviewed and possibly modified by the geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer

is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no

responsibility for misinterpretation or misapplication of his recommendations or their validity

in the event changes have been made in the original design concept without his prior

review. The engineer makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the

professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement and included in this report.

This report was prepared by James Edward Engineering, Inc. for the account of Tanamera

Commercial Development. The material in it reflects James Edward Engineering Inc.’s best

judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which

a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it,

are the responsibility of such third parties. James Edward Engineering Inc. accepts no

responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made

or actions based on this report.


REFERENCES

ADOT (1985), Materials Preliminary Engineering and Design Manual, 2

nd Edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1993, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;

Geosynthetics, Volume 4.08. Asphalt Institute, Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets, Manual Series No. 1 (MS-1) Bonham, H. F., & Bingler, E.C., 1973, Reno Folio – Geologic Map: Nevada Bureau of

Mines and Geology. Bowles, J. E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill. Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn, 1974, Foundation Engineering, Wiley. Siddharthan, R., J. W. Bell, J. A. Anderson, and C. Depolo, 1993; Peak Bedrock

Acceleration for the State of Nevada. University of Nevada, Reno/Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (unpublished).

Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1996 (Washoe County, Sparks-

Reno, Carson City, Yerington, Nevada). International Building Code, 2006; International Conference of Building Officials. Wesnousky, Steven G., Paleoearthquake Study of the Olinghouse Fault Zone near Reno,

Nevada. Center for Neotectonic studies, University of Nevada, Reno, 2003

APPENDIX A

JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING

1513.0112/05/07

Geotechnical Investigation

KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA

Project No.: PLATE A-19475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871

SITE PLAN & APPROXIMATE EXPLORATION LOCATIONSI N C O R P O R A T E D

ASP EN D

ALE D

BILLIN

G

LENV

IEW

DR

GREEN RIVER CT

GREEN RIVER DR

IVES A

KEYSTO

N

LEADERSHIP P

WLEADERSHIP PW

REG

AL

CT

AN N

ESS

AV

VICTORY LN N MCCARR

NMCCA

RRAN B

L

Looking Southeast from Terminus of Leadership Parkway

Looking West from the Intersection of Victory Lane and Leadership Parkway

TP-1

TP-3

TP-2 TP-4

TP-5

TP-6

LEGEND

Sandstone of Hunter Creek Alta Formation Peavine Sequence Development Area

Post-Tertiary Fault (Dashed where approximated, dotted where concealed)considered inactive.

Proposed Site

A - Drill Cuttings B - Bulk Sample A- Atterberg LimitsB- Grain Size Distribution

S- 2" O.D. 1.38" I.D. Tube Sample C- ConsolidationU- 3" O.D. 2.42 " I.D. Tube Sample MD- Moisture/Density

CH

22.8 A,B

Bottom of test pit @ 12 feet.No free water encountered.

9

6

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871

JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERINGI N C O R P O R A T E D

9475 Double R BoulevardReno, Nevada 89521

LABORATORY TESTS

A-2

T- 3" O.D. Thin-Walled Shelby Tube

C - CME Sample

Sam

ple

No.

Moi

stur

e

11/13/2007

R - Rotary Cuttings

PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN

Plate

Depth

W - WET

M - MOIST11/13/07

NE- No Free Water EncounteredDS - Direct Shear

11

12

10

CAT 315C

4

DATE:

8

EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:

Gra

phic

al L

og

Sam

ple

V - VERY MOIST

S - SLIGHTLY MOIST

GROUNDWATER & SOIL MOISTURE

NEDateHour D - DRY

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

(%

of D

ry W

eigh

t)

Pock

et

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

)

Labo

rato

ry T

ests

1513.01SEE PLAN

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 1

SAMPLE TYPE

Keystone Canyon

7

Dep

th in

Fee

t

3

1

2

5

S

Uni

fied

Soil Visual Description

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0 – 11' FAT CLAY (CH) – stiff, moist, light organics, withsurface float of gravel and small cobbles, contains isolatedgypsum deposits, brown

minor gravel and small cobbles @ 7 feet soil becoming dryerwith depth

11 – 12' GRAVELLY CLAY (CH) – stiff, moist, brown

M

Sam

ple

Type

SM

S 1A

1B



13.1 A,B

Uni

fied


Cla

ssifi

catio

n

2A

0 – 1½' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) – stiff, moist, slight organics,brown

SM

1½ – 5' VOLCANIC BEDROCK – intensely fractured, lowhardness to hard moderately strong to strong, moderatelyweathered (excavates into a gravely sand/silty sand (SP/SM)bedrock strength increases with depth


SAMPLE TYPE

Dep

th in

Fee

t

3

1

2

5

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

(%

of D

ry W

eigh

t)

Pock

et

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

)

Labo

rato

ry T

ests

* Refusal is defined as the exploration was terminated whenthe rate of advance was less than 1 foot in 10 minutes.


C - CME Sample

V - VERY MOIST

S - SLIGHTLY MOIST


NEDateHour D - DRY

CAT 315C

Plate

Depth

W - WET

M - MOIST11/13/07

NE- No Free Water Encountered

DATE:

4 BED

RO

CK

1513.01PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN SEE PLAN

Keystone Canyon

11/13/2007

A-2


Gra

phic

al L

og

Sam

ple

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

No.

Moi

stur

e

Refusal met @ 5 feet.*No free water encountered.

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871



R - Rotary Cuttings

DS - Direct Shear

LABORATORY TESTS

S

GC M



12.3 A,B

* Refusal is defined as the exploration was terminated whenthe rate of advance was less than 1 foot in 10 minutes.

Refusal met @ 5 feet.*No free water encountered.

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871



DS - Direct Shear

LABORATORY TESTS

A-2


C - CME Sample

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

No.

Moi

stur

e

11/13/2007

PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN

Plate

Depth

W - WET

M - MOIST11/13/07


R - Rotary Cuttings

CAT 315C

4

DATE: EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:

Gra

phic

al L

og

Sam

ple

V - VERY MOIST

S - SLIGHTLY MOIST


NEDateHour D - DRY

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

(%

of D

ry W

eigh

t)

Pock

et

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

)

Labo

rato

ry T

ests

1513.01SEE PLAN


SAMPLE TYPE

Keystone Canyon

Uni

fied


Cla

ssifi

catio

n

GC/GP

0 – 1½' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC/GP) – very dense, moist, feworganics, brown

BED

RO

CK

SM

Dep

th in

Fee

t

3

1

2

5

M

1½ – 5' VOLCANIC BEDROCK – intensely fractured, hard,moderately strong to strong, moderately to deeply weathered.Excavates into a gravely clayey sand (SC), moderately plastic.Becomes hard to very strong @ 4 feet.

S 3A

S 3B



13.4 A,B

7

Dep

th in

Fee

t

3

1

2

5

SP


SAMPLE TYPE

Keystone Canyon

Uni

fied


Cla

ssifi

catio

n

CH SM

0 – 1½' SANDY CLAY (CH) – dense, slightly moist, minororganics, brown

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

(%

of D

ry W

eigh

t)

Pock

et

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

)

Labo

rato

ry T

ests

11

12

10

V - VERY MOIST

S - SLIGHTLY MOIST


NEDateHour D - DRYDepth

W - WET

M - MOIST11/13/07


8


11/13/2007 CAT 315C

9

6


Gra

phic

al L

og

Sam

ple

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

No.

Moi

stur

e

4

DATE:

R - Rotary Cuttings

DS - Direct Shear

LABORATORY TESTS

A-2

Plate


C - CME Sample

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871



14

13

Bottom of test pit @ 14 feet.

SP SM

12 – 14' SANDSTONE – poorly consolidated, blocky, low tomoderately hard, weak to moderately strong, little weathering,excavates into a find sand (SP)

No free water encountered.

SM

1½ – 5½' SANDSTONE – slightly cemented, poorlyconsolidated, blocky, low to moderately hard, weak tomoderately strong, little weathered, excavates into a find sand(SP), tan

S 4A

SM

5½ – 12' SANDSTONE – unconsolidated, excavates into aloose fine sand (SP), grey

S 4B

S 4C

SP



Bottom of test pit @10 feet.No free water encountered.

10

CH

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871



R - Rotary Cuttings

DS - Direct Shear

LABORATORY TESTS

A-2

Plate


C - CME Sample

9

6


Gra

phic

al L

og

Sam

ple

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

No.

Moi

stur

e

4

DATE:

8


11/13/2007 CAT 315C

W - WET

M - MOIST11/13/07

NE- No Free Water Encountered V - VERY MOIST

S - SLIGHTLY MOIST



Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

(%

of D

ry W

eigh

t)

Pock

et

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

)

Labo

rato

ry T

ests


SAMPLE TYPE

Keystone Canyon

Uni

fied


Cla

ssifi

catio

n

FILL D 0 – ½' FILL

CH

7

Dep

th in

Fee

t

3

1

2

5

M

8 – 10' SANDY CLAY (CH) – med stiff, moist, brown

SM

½ – 8' SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) –stiff, slightly moist withoccasional gravel, brown

Increased gravel contact with depth

S 5A



35.6 A,B7

Dep

th in

Fee

t

3

1

2

5

3 – 10' SILTSTONE/DIATOMACEOUS EARTH – moderatelyconsolidated, slabbly, occasionally fractured, soft, friable-plastic, little weathering moist. Excavates into a elastic silt(MH)


SAMPLE TYPE

Keystone Canyon

Uni

fied


Cla

ssifi

catio

n

GC/GP M

0 – 3' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC/GP) – with sand, dense, moist

M

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

(%

of D

ry W

eigh

t)

Pock

et

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

)

Labo

rato

ry T

ests

S - SLIGHTLY MOIST



CAT 315C

W - WET

M - MOIST11/13/07

NE- No Free Water Encountered V - VERY MOIST



Gra

phic

al L

og

Sam

ple

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

No.

Moi

stur

e

DATE: 11/13/2007

R - Rotary Cuttings

DS - Direct Shear

LABORATORY TESTS

A-2

Plate


C - CME Sample

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871



Bottom of test pit @ 10 feet.No free water encountered.

10

MH

9

6

4

S 6A

8


Date:

Pt

CH

OH

MEDIUM DENSE

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

0 - 4LOOSE

CL

OL

MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL NAMES

FIN

E-G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

M

OR

E TH

AN H

ALF

IS F

INER

TH

AN N

O. 2

00 S

IEVE

WELL GRADED SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL,LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL,LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL

CLAYEY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVELOVER 12% FINES

SW

SP

GM

SM

SC

GRAVELS WITHOVER 12% FINES

CLEAN SANDS WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

SANDS WITH

WELL GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY GRAVELS, SILTY GRAVELS WITH SAND

CLAYEY GRAVELS, CLAYEY GRAVELS WITH SANDGC

GW

GP

ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCKFLOUR, SILTS WITH SANDS AND GRAVELSINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITYCLAYS WITH SANDS AND GRAVELS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUSFINE SANDY OR SILTY SOLID, ELASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OR HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY

MH

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

CONSISTENCY RELATIVE DENSITY

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX (P

I)

0 - 2SOFT

MEDIUM STIFF

VERY SOFT VERY LOOSE5 - 103 - 4

VERY DENSE

11 - 30

50 +16 - 30VERY STIFF

5 - 8 STIFF 9 - 15 DENSE 31 - 50

3 IN. TO 3/4 IN.

* The Standard Penetration Resistance (N) In blows per foot is obtained bythe ASTM D1585 procedure using 2” O.D., 1 3/8” I.D. samplers.

HARD 30 +

GRAVEL 3 IN. TO NO. 4 SIEVE COARSE GRAVEL

DEFINITIONS OF SOIL FRACTIONSSOIL COMPONENT PARTICLE SIZE RANGE

SANDS &GRAVELS

SPT BLOW*COUNTS (N)

SILTS &CLAYS

SPT BLOW*COUNTS (N)

COBBLES ABOVE 3 INCHES

COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND

FINE GRAVEL 3/4 IN. TO NO. 4 SIEVESAND NO. 4 TO NO. 200

NO. 4 TO NO. 10NO. 10 TO NO. 40

GRAVEL MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTIONIS LARGER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

SAND MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

TRACEFEW

Particles are present but est. < 5%5% - 10%

SILT AND CLAY

LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS

SILT AND CLAY

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%

CLEAN SANDSWITH LITTLEOR NO FINES

CO

AR

SED

-GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

S

M

OR

E TH

AN H

ALF

IS C

OAR

SER

TH

AN

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

LITTLESOMEMOSTLY

DESCRIPTION OF ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES OF GRAVEL, SAND, AND FINES

15% - 20%30% - 45%

50% - 100%NOTE: Percentages are presented within soil description for soilhorizon with laboratory tested soil samples.

FINE SAND NO. 40 TO NO. 200MINUS NO. 200 SIEVEFINES (SILT OR CLAY)

12/05/07Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND KEY TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONS



I N C O R P O R A T E D Project No.: 1513.01 PLATE A-3a9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521

10

20

30

40

50

60

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CL - ML

CL

CH

MH & OH

ML & OL

U = unconsolidated M = moderately consolidatedP = poorly consolidated W = well consolidated

Splitting Property Thickness Stratification Intensity Size of Pieces in FeetMassive Greater than 4.0 ft. Very thick-bedded Very little fractured Greater than 4.0Blocky 2.0 to 4.0 ft. Thick-bedded Occasionally fractured 1.0 to 4.0Slabby 0.2 to 2.0 ft. Thin-bedded Moderately fractured 0.5 to 1.0Flaggy 0.05 to 0.2 ft. Very thin bedded Closely fractured 0.1 to 0.5Shaly or platy 0.01 to 0.05 ft. Laminated Intensely fractured 0.005 to 0.1Papery Less than 0.01 ft. Thinly laminated Crushed Less than 0.005

1. Soft - Reserved for plastic material alone2. Moderately soft - can be gouged deeply or carved easily with a knife blade3. Moderately hard - can be readily scratched by a knife blade; scratch leaves a heavy trace of dust and is readily visible after the powder has been blown away 4. Hard - can be scratched with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often faintly visible5. Very Hard - cannont be scratched with a knife blade; leaves a metallic streak

1. Plastic - very low strength 2. Friable - crumbles easily by rubbing with fingers3. Weak - An unfractured specimen of such material will crumble under light hammer blows4. Moderately Strong - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows before breaking 5. Strong - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows, and will yeild with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments6. Very Strong - Specimen will resist heavy ringing hammer blows and will yeild with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments

D. Deep - Moderate to complete mineral decomposition; extensive disintegration; deep and thorough discoloration, many fractures, all extensively coated or filled with oxides, carbonates and/or clay silt M. Moderate - Slight change or partial decomposition of minerals; little disintegration; cementation little to unaffected; Moderate to occasionally intense discoloration; Moderately coated features S. Slightly - No megascopic decomposition of minerals; little or no effect on normal cementation; Slight and inter- mittent, or localized discoloration; Few stains on fracture surfaces F. Fresh - Unaffected by weathering agents; No disintegration or discoloration; Fractures usually less numerous than joints

JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR ROCK

DESCRIPTIONS9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871

BEDDING OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS FRACTURING

STRENGTH

HARDNESS

CONSOLIDATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Usually determined from unweathered samples. Largley dependent on cementation.

1513.0112/05/07



Project No.: PLATE A-3bDate:

I N C O R P O R A T E D

WEATHERING The physical and chemical disintegration and decomposition of rocks and minerals by natural processes such as oxidation,

reduction, hydration, solution, carbonation, freezing, and thawing

JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING

MH82.8 87 46 41TP-6 6 35.6

PLATE A-4a

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date: 12/05/07Project No.: 1513.01


Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871


SP10.9 - - -TP-4 4-5 13.4

SP/SM

TP-3 3 12.3 30.9 45 23 22 SC

51 CH

TP-2 2-3 13.1 12.4 - - NP

PLASTICITY

INDEX

TP-1 1-4 22.8 76.1 77 26

LIMIT

(%)(%) (%)

LIMIT- # 200

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX

80 90 10040 50 60 7010 20 3000

30

20

10

SYMBOL LOCATIONDEPTH

(FEET)

70

60

50

40

LIQUID LIMIT

110


SUMMARY OF TEST DATA

LIQUID

CONTENT

PLASTIC

USCSWATER

NATURAL

SUMMARY OF TEST DATA

MH or OH

CH or OH

CL or OL

ML - CL ML or OL


1513.0112/05/07



Project No.: PLATE A-4b9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871

SITE PLAN AND APPROXIMATE EXPLORATION LOCATIONSI N C O R P O R A T E D

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100PARTICLE SIZE - mm

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

- %

TP-1 @ 1-4'TP-2 @ 2-3'TP-3 @ 3-5'TP-4 @ 4-5'TP-6 @ 6-7'

2" 3"1"¾”½”#4#200 #10#16#40#100


9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date: Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871


USGS SEISMIC DESIGN

PARAMETERS 1513.0112/05/07



Project No.: PLATE A-5


1513.0112/05/07




Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871


CORROSIVE SOIL TEST RESULTS

Radiansγ -kv -h -φ -ψ -kh -θ -ξ -

β -

*kh = 0.5 Peak Ground Acceleration

PAE and PPE are the combined static and dynamic forces due to the driving and resisting wedges, respectively.


KA * γ

φ - ψ - θ

1

0.1489 8.5

φ - ψ + θ0.1489 8.5

cos2(θ)

0.97800.0000

KA KP

KP * γ

0.46360.38050.3218

2.03880.4905

0.3419

1

26.621.818.4

11.50.3489 20.0

00.9780

0.6758

0.3419

22454

1.0000 1.0000

sin(φ - ξ)sin(φ - ψ + β)

KAE 0.6758 KPE

ψ - θ + ξψ + θ + ξ 11.50.2000

β - θφ - ψ + β

cos(ψ - θ + ξ)

cos(β - θ)

0.3419 0.34190.1483 0.1483

sin(φ + ξ)sin(φ - ψ - β)

cos(β - θ)

φ - ξφ + ξφ - ψ - ββ - θ

cos2(φ - ψ + θ)cos(ψ)cos2(θ)

1.7061 1.7061

0.9801

1.0000 1.00000.1483 0.1483

0.9801 0.9801

0.9801

cos(ψ + θ + ξ)

0.9780 0.97800.9801 0.9801

1 1

cos2(φ - ψ - θ)cos(ψ)

0.0000 0

0.9801 0.9801

00

Degrees

01

0.3489 20.0

00

Degrees

K A & K AE K P & K PE

Radians DegreesRadians

2:12.5:13:1

200.1489 8.5

0.1489 8.50.2000

0.3489

unit weight of soil (pcf) 11001

110

arctan (kh/1-kv) = seismic inertia angleinternal friction angle of soil

0.20000.2000

Project No.: PLATE A-7

height of structurevertical acceleration in g's

inclination of soil surface (upwards from structure is positive)

soil-structure friction angleinclination of interface with respect to verticalhorizontal acceleration in g's

11.511.5

9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:

EC 1110-2-6058 Department of The Army - US ACOE

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871

STATIC AND DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES (MONONOBE-OKABE)I N C O R P O R A T E D 12/5/2007

12/05/07



=½ K PE γ h 2DRIVING WEDGE P AE RESISTING WEDGE K PE=½ K AE γ h 274 KPE * γ 188KAE * γ

00.0000Backfill Slope Toe Slope

00.0000


1513.0112/05/07




Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871


STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN

(Low Volume Roads)

ESAL DETERMINATION

Low

Very Good (R>35)

Traffic Level

2.4 - 2.62.2 - 2.41.6 - 2.1

SN2.7 - 2.8

SN

ESAL RANGEHigh

MediumLow (125 - 750 Residences)

700,000 - 1,000,000400,000 - 600,00050,000 - 300,000

Low

Relative Quality of

Roadbed Soil

HighMedium

Good (R>15)

HighMedium

Fair (R>10)

HighMediumLow

Poor (R>7)

HighMediumLow

2.7 - 2.9

3.2 - 3.42.9 - 3.22.2 - 2.8

2.5 - 2.71.8 - 2.42.9 - 3.12.6 - 2.81.9 - 2.5

Plantmix Surface

Thickness (in) - Sparks

4

3.4 - 3.63.1 - 3.32.3 - 3.0

3.7 - 3.8

Material Type Reference

AC

2.4 - 2.61.7 - 2.23.0 - 3.12.6 - 2.92.0 - 2.53.2 - 3.32.8 - 3.12.1 - 2.7

Structural Number for Section 2.0

3.3 - 3.62.5 - 3.1

Very Poor (R>5)

HighMediumLow

Plantmix Base060

STRUCTURAL NUMBER (CLIMATE ZONE V)

Reliability

50% 75%

3.5 - 3.63.1 - 3.42.3 - 2.9

0.10.07

0.2Type 2 Class B

Structural Fill (R-45)

CTBABSF

Cement TreatedPB

Thickness (in) - Reno

40

Structural Coefficient

0.350.32

2.2

Thickness (in)

00000

0.0

00

00

0.0

Construction Traffic (Trips per Lot)

Thickness (in)

000

80

LNTd

TAverage Daily Two Way Trips per LotNumber of LotsDesign Life (yrs)

Percent Heavy Trucks

20166102

0.52201.0

ESAL20 6.63E+04

Tf

Tc

Construction Truck Factor Tcf

Average Truck Factor

APPENDIX B

123456


TP-1 - 12' of Sandy Fat ClayTP-1 - 12' of Sandy Fat Clay - Surface 1' moisture conditioned and maintained12' Sandy Fat Clay - Upper 5 Feet Clay Fill (pF = 3.8)

3.43.11' Structural Fill capping Sandy Fat Clay 6.1 0.3

1.67.0 0.4 3.6 2.4

3.93' Structural Fill capping Sandy Fat Clay2' Structural Fill capping Sandy Fat Clay

7.8 0.5

3.75.5 1.2 2.8 2.25.5 0.5 2.9

4.53.10.36.1

CONDITIONY M (IN)E M (FT)

CENTER LIFTY M (IN)E M (FT)

3.54.1

COMMENTSWorst case scenario - 12' of insitu fat clay

pF*4.151

% FC*

20

22.8%M

568

8

EDGE LIFT

35.513.412.313.1 3.5

4.1

26PL

41-

22NP51PI

46-

76.5% -# 200

77LL

45-

23-

TP-1TEST PIT

@6'4 - 5'@ 3'2 - 3' 1 - 4'

DEPTH

TP-6TP-4TP-3TP-2

9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:

83.711.530.012.4

87-

Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871

PRELIMINARY PT-SLAB DESIGN PARAMETER STUDYI N C O R P O R A T E D 1513.01

12/07/07


KEYSTONE CANYON

Project No.: PLATE B-1

Build 041405

VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.

Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127

Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01

Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7

Report Number : 1513.01

SHRINK CALCULATION

Ym Center (Shrink) = -0.37 inches ( -0.94 centimeters )Em Center = 7.00 feet ( 213.36 centimeters )

DISTANCE0.0 ft 0.7 ft 1.4 ft 2.1 ft 2.8 ft 3.5 ft 4.2 ft 4.9 ft 5.6 ft 6.3 ft 7.0 ft0 cm 21 cm 43 cm 64 cm 85 cm 107 cm 128 cm 149 cm 171 cm 192 cm 213 cm

Ym

0.0 in

1.0 in

Shrink at Slab Shrink at distance X from edge of slab Shrink atEdge Em0.0 ft 0.7 ft 1.4 ft 2.1 ft 2.8 ft 3.5 ft 4.2 ft 4.9 ft 5.6 ft 6.3 ft 7.0 ft0 cm 21 cm 43 cm 64 cm 85 cm 107 cm 128 cm 149 cm 171 cm 192 cm 213 cm

inches -0.37 -0.33 -0.30 -0.26 -0.22 -0.19 -0.15 -0.11 -0.07 -0.04 0.00cm -0.94 -0.85 -0.75 -0.66 -0.57 -0.47 -0.38 -0.28 -0.19 -0.09 0.00

Page 1 of 69:03:10 AM

Build 041405






SUCTION PROFILESSuction (pF)

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.50

5

10

15

Depth(feet)

2.0

13.0

Initial suction at edge of slab

Final suction at edge of slab

Constant SuctionPage 2 of 6

9:03:10 AM

Build 041405






LAYER GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES

Gamma100 % Fine GammaH GammaH GammaHLayer (Average) Clay (Average) (Shrink) (Swell)

1 0.050 66.67 0.033 0.032 0.0342 0.170 67.11 0.114 0.102 0.128

Alpha Alpha AlphaLayer (Average) (Shrink) (Swell) S P KoHo

1 0.004976 0.004990 0.004963 -15.328 0.000624 0.0002712 0.002980 0.003130 0.002812 -9.085 0.000526 0.000228

Gamma100 Determination Per PTI 3rd Edition Manual% Fine PI/ LL/ Zone Gamma100

Layer Clay PI %fc LL %fc Chart (Average)1 66.67 15 0.23 30 0.45 2 0.0502 67.11 51 0.76 77 1.15 3 0.170

Page 3 of 69:03:10 AM

Build 041405






SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Soil Properties

Layer Thickness and description

Layer Layer Depth toNumber Thickness Bottom Layer Description

1 2.0 ft 2.0 ft Structural Fill2 11.0 ft 13.0 ft Sandy Fat Clay

Layer Geotechnical Properties

Layer Liquid Plastic % Pass. % Finer Density Gamma Ko Ko FabricNumber Limit Limit #200 2 mic. (lb/ft^3) 100 Drying Wetting Factor

1 30 15 30 20 120.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.02 77 26 76 51 100.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.0

Page 4 of 69:03:10 AM

Build 041405






SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Suction at Edge of Slab

Initial Suction Profile ---- Measured Suction ProfileDepth Suction(feet) (pF)

Point 1 : 0.0 3.5Point 2 : 2.0 3.5Point 3 : 2.1 4.3Point 4 : 9.5 4.1

Final Suction Profile ---- Default Dry Design EnvelopeSuction Value at Surface : 4.4 pF

Constant SuctionConstant suction : 4.1 pFDepth to constant suction : 10.0 ft

Moisture BarriersVertical barrier depth : 0.0 ftApply vertical barrier to : Neither Profile

Horizontal barrier length : 0.0 ft

Page 5 of 69:03:10 AM

Build 041405






SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Em

Em DistanceDetermined per Modified PTI methodThornthwaite Moisture Index -40

Suction Profile at Em ---- Constant Suction Profile

Page 6 of 69:03:10 AM

Build 041405






SWELL CALCULATION

Ym Edge (Swell) = 2.43 inches ( 6.17 centimeters )Em Edge = 3.60 feet ( 109.73 centimeters )

DISTANCE0.0 ft 0.4 ft 0.7 ft 1.1 ft 1.4 ft 1.8 ft 2.2 ft 2.5 ft 2.9 ft 3.2 ft 3.6 ft0 cm 11 cm 22 cm 33 cm 44 cm 55 cm 66 cm 77 cm 88 cm 99 cm 110 cm

Ym

0.0 in

1.0 in

2.0 in

3.0 in

Swell at Slab Swell at distance X from edge of slab Swell atEdge Em0.0 ft 0.4 ft 0.7 ft 1.1 ft 1.4 ft 1.8 ft 2.2 ft 2.5 ft 2.9 ft 3.2 ft 3.6 ft0 cm 11 cm 22 cm 33 cm 44 cm 55 cm 66 cm 77 cm 88 cm 99 cm 110 cm

inches 2.43 2.02 1.64 1.29 0.96 0.68 0.43 0.24 0.10 0.03 0.00cm 6.17 5.14 4.17 3.27 2.45 1.72 1.10 0.61 0.26 0.07 0.00

Page 1 of 69:01:26 AM

Build 041405






SUCTION PROFILESSuction (pF)

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.50

5

10

15

Depth(feet)

2.0

13.0

Initial suction at edge of slab

Final suction at edge of slab

Constant SuctionPage 2 of 6

9:01:26 AM

Build 041405






LAYER GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES

Gamma100 % Fine GammaH GammaH GammaHLayer (Average) Clay (Average) (Shrink) (Swell)

1 0.050 66.67 0.033 0.032 0.0342 0.170 67.11 0.114 0.102 0.128

Alpha Alpha AlphaLayer (Average) (Shrink) (Swell) S P KoHo

1 0.004976 0.004990 0.004963 -15.328 0.000624 0.0002712 0.002980 0.003130 0.002812 -9.085 0.000526 0.000228

Gamma100 Determination Per PTI 3rd Edition Manual% Fine PI/ LL/ Zone Gamma100

Layer Clay PI %fc LL %fc Chart (Average)1 66.67 15 0.23 30 0.45 2 0.0502 67.11 51 0.76 77 1.15 3 0.170

Page 3 of 69:01:26 AM

Build 041405






SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Soil Properties

Layer Thickness and description

Layer Layer Depth toNumber Thickness Bottom Layer Description

1 2.0 ft 2.0 ft Structural Fill2 11.0 ft 13.0 ft Sandy Fat Clay

Layer Geotechnical Properties

Layer Liquid Plastic % Pass. % Finer Density Gamma Ko Ko FabricNumber Limit Limit #200 2 mic. (lb/ft^3) 100 Drying Wetting Factor

1 30 15 30 20 120.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.02 77 26 76 51 100.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.0

Page 4 of 69:01:26 AM

Build 041405






SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Suction at Edge of Slab

Initial Suction Profile ---- Measured Suction ProfileDepth Suction(feet) (pF)

Point 1 : 0.0 3.5Point 2 : 2.0 3.5Point 3 : 2.1 4.3Point 4 : 9.5 4.1

Final Suction Profile ---- Default Wet Design EnvelopeSuction value at surface 2.9 pF

Constant SuctionConstant suction : 4.1 pFDepth to constant suction : 10.0 ft

Moisture BarriersVertical barrier depth : 0.0 ftApply vertical barrier to : Neither Profile

Horizontal barrier length : 0.0 ft

Page 5 of 69:01:26 AM

Build 041405






SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Em

Em DistanceDetermined per Modified PTI methodThornthwaite Moisture Index -40

Suction Profile at Em ---- Constant Suction Profile

Page 6 of 69:01:26 AM

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT FOR

THE VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP

PREPARED FOR:

LEADERSHIP MASTER LLC C/O TANAMERA CONSTRUCTION, LLC

5560 Longley Lane #200 Reno, NV 89511

PREPARED BY:

Manhard Consulting Ltd.

241 Ridge Street, Suite 400 Reno, Nevada 89501

(775) 746 – 3500

MAY 2019

Project No: TANRENV03

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP Table of Contents

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION……………………….…………….…………………..……… 1 1.1. Purpose of Study…..………………………………………………………….. 1 1.2. Project Location and Description……………………………………………. 1 1.3. Hydrologic Analysis Methods………………………………………………… 2 1.4. Assumptions……………………………………………………………………. 3

2. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS………………………………………… 4

2.1. Existing Drainage…………………………………………………………….... 4

3. PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ………………………………………... 5 3.1. Proposed Drainage - Hydrologic……………………………………………….. 5 3.2. Proposed Onsite - Storm Drainage Pipe Network…………………………… 6 3.3. Detention…………………………………………………………………………. 6

4. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….. 7

4.1. General Considerations………………………………………………………….. 7 4.2. Regulations and Master Plans…………………………………………………... 7 4.3. Impacts to Adjacent Properties…………………………………………………. 7 4.4. Standards of Practice…………………………………………………………….. 7

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT #1 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT #2 OVERALL EXISTING DRAINAGE PLAN EXHIBIT #3 OVERALL PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN EXHIBIT #4 PROPOSED ON-SITE DRAINAGE PLAN

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE #1 EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY (RATIONAL METHOD) TABLE #2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY (RATIONAL METHOD)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DATA APPENDIX B MASTER HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR KEYSTONE CANYON APPENDIX C STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 5 YEAR APPENDIX D STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 100 YEAR

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Study

This report presents the data, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and conclusions of a preliminary drainage study performed for the proposed project, to be known as Villas II at Keystone Canyon Tentative Map (Project). The information, data, and calculations presented herein are intended to provide preliminary drainage information for the Project in accordance with the City of Reno requirements.

A cross-reference with the Tentative Map Plans will aid in the understanding of this report. This report will defer to figures, tables, and the data and calculations contained in the appendices.

1.2 Project Location and Description

The two parcels that encompass the Villas II project is approximately 24.08 acres. The site is located directly north of Leadership Parkway in Reno, Nevada. The project is situated within the southern half of Section 33, Township 20 North, Range 19 East M. D. B. & M., and consists of Washoe County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 082-631-17 and 082-631-19 and a portion of the public right of Leadership Parkway.

Exhibit 3, the Overall Proposed Drainage Plan, illustrates the location and orientation of the project in relationship to the existing site conditions. The project area is currently zoned for mixed use and is bound to the north by BLM land, the south by the existing Villas at Keystone Canyon, and the east and west by areas zoned for open space. Reference Exhibit 1 for a site vicinity map. The project site is currently vacant and covered by native vegetation.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) this area is in an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X). The map number is 32031C3036 G and is included in Appendix A.

The purpose of this report is to analyze the existing and proposed conditions of the subject property based on the 5-year and 100-year peak flow events. The report contains the following sections: (1) Introduction, (2) Existing Drainage Conditions, (3) Proposed Drainage Conditions, and (4) Conclusion.


2

1.3 Hydrologic Analysis Methods

Parameters for peak storm flow and runoff volume estimates presented herein were determined using the data and methodologies presented in the Chapter II – Storm Drainage, of the City of Reno’s Public Works Design Manual (PWDM, Revised January, 2009) in conjunction with the Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage Manual (TMRDM, April 30, 2009). In instances where criteria in the PWDM and TMRDM differed, the more conservative criteria was used.

For the existing and proposed on-site hydrologic conditions, the Rational Method was utilized in accordance with Section 202.1.1 of the PWDM.

Rational Formula: Q=CiA

Q=Peak Discharge (cfs)

C=Runoff Coefficient (dimensionless)

i=Precipitation Intensity (in/hr.)

A=Watershed Area (Acres)

The runoff coefficients for the post-development model were taken from Table 201 of the PWDM (Reference Appendix A). For the existing condition, a 5-year of 0.40 and 100-year of 0.60 were used, respectively. In the proposed condition for Multi-Residential a 5-year of 0.60 and a 100-year of 0.70 was used, respectively.

The precipitation intensity data was taken from the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5, Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates for the project site: i(5)=1.47 in/hr., i(100)=3.66 in/hr. A minimum time of concentration (tc) of 10-minutes was used for all sub-basins for a conservative analysis given the relatively small size of the sub-basins. Appendix A contains the rainfall data and runoff parameters for the on-site developed sub-basins defined herein.


3

1.4 Assumptions

Since the Rational Method was employed for developed on-site peak storm flow estimations, reductions associated with hydrograph routing and combining have been neglected from the analyses herein. This contributes to the conservative nature of the ‘worst case’ analysis methods applied in this study.

The entire off-site drainages were not taken into consideration for this level of analysis. The reason for this is that this project area has been analyzed by previous studies. Copies of these studies can be found in Appendix B. These past studies both identify the off-site drainage areas and developed flows directed to this portion of the Villas II @ Keystone Canyon. Since these reports have already reviewed the existing flows entering the site, Manhard has simplified the existing and proposed preliminary analysis to just the on-site project area to determine the increase in developed storm flows.


4

2 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

2.1 Existing Drainage

The existing site is currently un-developed. The existing drainage, as it pertains to the Villas II @ Keystone Canyon project, is collected and concentrated at two locations. The first (Outfall #1) being at a drop inlet located north of Leadership Parkway and just west of the existing trailhead parking lot that discharges on the south side of Leadership Parkway. The second (Outfall #2) is a culvert located north of Leadership Parkway and east of the existing trailhead parking lot that routes water under Leadership Parkway. At the south end of Leadership parkway discharge from the culvert and drop inlet converge into an existing drainage channel that routes the discharge through existing culverts that run under McCarran Boulevard and discharge into the existing storm drain facilities and eventually the Truckee River southeast of the site. Exhibit 2 – Overall Existing Drainage Plan, illustrates the location of the outfalls as well as a depiction of the two sub-basins areas. As previously mentioned, Manhard has simplified the existing and proposed preliminary analysis to just the on-site project area to determine the increase in developed storm flows. To determine the increase in developed storm flows two Sub-Basin areas were delineated based on outfall location and the overlap between the existing condition and any proposed on-site project area. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the existing drainage basins.

Table 1 – Existing Conditions Hydrology (Rational Method)

Sub-Basin

Area

(Ac.)

Rational Method

Coefficient

(C5/C100)

Time of Concentration

(min)

Rainfall Intensity

(I5/I100)

(in/hr.)

5-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

100-Year Peak Flows

(cfs)

AREA E-1

1.99 0.40/0.60 10 1.47/3.66 1.17 4.37

AREA E-2

6.14 0.40/0.60 10 1.47/3.66 3.61 13.49


5

3 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

3.1 Proposed Drainage - Hydrologic

The proposed site was also split into two drainage basins. Exhibit 3 – Overall Proposed Drainage Plan, illustrates the location of the outfalls as well as a depiction of the two sub-basins areas. To pick up existing offsite flows there will be an interceptor swale on the north side of the property that splits the flow in two directions. Due to this some existing flow that was discharging at Outfall #2 in the existing condition will now be routed to Outfall #1 in the proposed condition. This difference in area has been accounted for in Sub-Basin Area P-1. Due to sizable contributions for both the native vegetation and proposed condition, a composite C-value was also determined for Area P-1. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the two drainage basins.

Table 2 – Proposed Conditions Hydrology (Rational Method)

Sub-Basin

Area

(Ac.)

Rational Method Coefficient

(C5/C100)

Time of Concentration (min)

Rainfall Intensity

(I5/I100)

(in/hr)

5-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

100-Year Peak Flows

(cfs)

AREA P-1

2.62 0.50/0.65 10 1.47/3.66 1.93 6.23

AREA P-2

6.14 0.60/0.70 10 1.47/3.66 5.42 15.74

The increase of 1.81 cfs in the 5-year storm and 2.25 cfs in the 100-year storm at Outfall #2 will be mitigated with a proposed detention pond east of the property and west of the trailhead parking lot. The increase of 0.76 cfs in the 5-year storm and 1.86 cfs in the 100-year storm at Outfall #1 will likely be reduced with a more detailed analysis. Any increase in runoff associated with development shall be detained per regulations presented in Chapter II – Storm Drainage, of the City of Reno’s Public Works Design Manual and the Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage Manual and adhere to previous master planning efforts, and flood control and drainage documents.


6

3.2 Proposed Onsite - Storm Drainage Pipe Network

The sub-areas took into account the proposed on-site flows that affect the site. The associated calculated 5-year and 100-year peak flows along with all preliminary storm drain sizing and flow calculations can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D. Pipe sizes and catch basins have been sized to accommodate the proposed flows. Reference Exhibit 4 - Proposed On-Site Drainage Plan in the map pocket for the associated proposed sub-areas and the proposed catch basins. For the catch basin design and analysis, the project site was divided into 10 proposed, on-site drainage basins. A 5-year intensity of 1.47 in/hr and 100-year intensity of 3.66 in/hr were used.

Within the project site, drainage for the basins will be contained in curb and gutters, discharging to catch basins. Drainage will then travel through the proposed storm drain network and outlet to the east to a proposed detention pond west of the trailhead parking lot.

The proposed storm drain network was designed to accommodate the required gravity flow without surcharge or pressure condition during the 5-year, 24-hour storm event; furthermore, the storm drain network accommodates the 100-year, 24-hour storm event with some surcharge conditions. All grading was designed to outlet all sump conditions to the low points of the project and ultimately discharge into the existing drainage to the east of the property. In the occurrence of a storm larger than 100-year, 24-hour event which overwhelms any/all inlets within the on-site storm drain network, there is overland flow routing that has been accounted for to route water to the existing drainageway prior to the flooding of any of the buildings within the project.

All off-site existing drainage will be picked up by interceptor swales before entering the disturbed development and will be routed around the project site, ultimately discharging into the existing drainageway.

The onsite storm drainage system shall be maintained by the owners of The Villas II, unless The City of Reno should choose to want to maintain the system for any reason.

3.3 Detention

Any required detention basin will be analyzed with the final design and if any improvements are needed, they will be incorporated into the improvement plans and final hydrology report. These will be located east of the development near the existing trailhead. They will be required to hold at least 1,550 cf in the 5-year event and 2,500 cf in the 100-year event.


7

4 CONCLUSION

4.1 General Considerations

This study is intended to be a working document and may require updates and revisions to address the status of the improvement plans. As grading designs and surface water flow patterns are refined with subsequent plan editions, revisions may be required for the calculations provided herein.

4.2 Regulations and Master Plans

The proposed improvements and the analyses presented herein are in accordance with drainage regulations presented in Chapter II – Storm Drainage, of the City of Reno’s Public Works Design Manual and the Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage Manual and adhere to previous master planning efforts, and flood control and drainage documents.

4.3 Impacts to Adjacent Properties

The performance of the proposed project improvements, and storm water conveyance facilities, once constructed, will not adversely impact upstream or downstream properties adjacent to this site. The development of this site for the uses proposed will not increase upstream or downstream storm flow runoff rates, volumes, velocities, depths, and will not influence floodplain boundaries.

4.4 Standards of Practice

This study was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable professional engineers practicing in this and similar localities.


APPENDIX A- SUPPORTING DATA

USG

S Th

e N

atio

nal M

ap: O

rthoi

mag

ery.

Dat

a re

fresh

ed O

ctob

er, 2

017.

Nat

iona

l Flo

od H

azar

d La

yer F

IRM

ette

050

01,

000

1,50

02,

000

250

Feet

Ü

119°51'18.40"W 39°3

3'15

.81"

N

119°50'40.94"W

39°3

2'48

.07"

N

SEE

FIS

REP

OR

T FO

R D

ETA

ILED

LEG

END

AN

D IN

DEX

MA

P F

OR

FIR

M P

AN

EL L

AYO

UT

SPEC

IAL

FLO

OD

HA

ZAR

D A

REA

S

Wit

hout

Bas

e Fl

ood

Elev

atio

n (B

FE)

Zone

A, V

, A99

Wit

h B

FE o

r D

epth

Zone

AE,

AO

, AH

, VE,

AR

Reg

ulat

ory

Floo

dway

0.2

% A

nnua

l Cha

nce

Floo

d H

azar

d, A

reas

of 1

% a

nnua

l cha

nce

floo

d w

ith a

vera

gede

pth

less

tha

n on

e fo

ot o

r w

ith

drai

nage

area

s of

less

than

one

squ

are

mile

Zon

e X

Futu

re C

ondi

tions

1%

Ann

ual

Chan

ce F

lood

Haz

ard

Zone

X

Are

a w

ith R

educ

ed F

lood

Ris

k du

e to

Leve

e. S

ee N

otes

.Zon

e X

Are

a w

ith F

lood

Ris

k du

e to

Lev

eeZo

ne D

NO

SC

REE

NA

rea

of M

inim

al F

lood

Haz

ard

Zone

X

Are

a of

Und

eter

min

ed F

lood

Haz

ard

Zone

D

Chan

nel,

Culv

ert,

or S

torm

Sew

er

Leve

e, D

ike,

or

Floo

dwal

l

Cros

s S

ectio

ns w

ith 1

% A

nnua

l Cha

nce

17.5

Wat

er S

urfa

ce E

leva

tion

Coas

tal T

rans

ect

Coas

tal T

rans

ect B

asel

ine

Pro

file

Bas

elin

eH

ydro

grap

hic

Feat

ure

Bas

e Fl

ood

Elev

atio

n Li

ne (B

FE)

Effe

ctiv

e LO

MR

s

Lim

it of

Stu

dyJu

risd

ictio

n B

ound

ary

Dig

ital D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e

No

Dig

ital D

ata

Ava

ilabl

e

Unm

appe

d

This

map

com

plie

s w

ith

FEM

A's

sta

ndar

ds fo

r th

e us

e of

di

gita

l flo

od m

aps

if it

is n

ot v

oid

as d

escr

ibed

bel

ow.

The

base

map

sho

wn

com

plie

s w

ith

FEM

A's

bas

emap

ac

cura

cy s

tand

ards

The

flood

haz

ard

info

rmat

ion

is d

eriv

ed d

irect

ly fr

om th

eau

thor

itat

ive

NFH

L w

eb s

ervi

ces

prov

ided

by

FEM

A. T

his

map

was

exp

orte

d on

2/1

1/2

01

9 a

t 1

2:0

8:0

0 P

M a

nd d

oes

not

refle

ct c

hang

es o

r am

endm

ents

sub

sequ

ent

to t

his

date

and

time.

The

NFH

L an

d ef

fect

ive

info

rmat

ion

may

cha

nge

orbe

com

e su

pers

eded

by

new

dat

a ov

er ti

me.

This

map

imag

e is

voi

d if

the

one

or m

ore

of t

he f

ollo

win

g m

apel

emen

ts d

o no

t ap

pear

: bas

emap

imag

ery,

floo

d zo

ne la

bels

,le

gend

, sca

le b

ar, m

ap c

reat

ion

date

, com

mun

ity id

entif

iers

,FI

RM

pan

el n

umbe

r, an

d FI

RM

eff

ectiv

e da

te. M

ap im

ages

for

unm

appe

d an

d un

mod

erni

zed

area

s ca

nnot

be

used

for

regu

lato

ry p

urpo

ses.

Legend

OTH

ER A

REA

S O

FFL

OO

D H

AZA

RD

OTH

ER A

REA

S

GEN

ERA

LST

RU

CTU

RES

OTH

ERFE

ATU

RES

MA

P P

AN

ELS

8

1:6,

000

B20

.2

The

pin

disp

laye

d on

the

map

is a

n ap

prox

imat

e po

int s

elec

ted

by th

e us

er a

nd d

oes

not

repr

esen

t an

aut

hori

tativ

e pr

oper

ty lo

cati

on.

City of Reno Public Works Design Manual

-203-Revised January 2009

A = watershed area, acres

The following Table 201 listing runoff coefficients based depending on future use, shall be used:

TABLE 201 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS "C"

Land Use Type Runoff Coefficient "C"

Rural ...............................................................................0.25-0.35

Single Family Residential ..............................................0.45-0.60

Multi-Residential............................................................0.60-0.70

Neighborhood Commercial ............................................0.85

Community Commercial ................................................0.85

Tourist Commercial........................................................0.85

Office..............................................................................0.85

Manufacturing ................................................................0.85-0.90

Distribution and Warehousing........................................0.85-0.90

Public Facility.................................................................0.50-0.85

Pavement and Concrete Surfaces ...................................0.90-0.95

Park.................................................................................0.25

Open Space (0-5% grade - vegetated)............................0.20-0.30

Open Space (0-5% grade - no vegetation)......................0.30-0.40

Open Space.....................................................................0.40-0.50 (5-15% grade - vegetated or unvegetated)

Open Space.....................................................................0.40-0.60 (Over 15% grade - sparsely vegetated, rock or clay soils)

2/8/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server

https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=39.5509&lon=-119.8502&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 1/4

NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5 Location name: Reno, Nevada, USA*

Latitude: 39.5509°, Longitude: -119.8502° Elevation: 4976.13 ft**

* source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES

Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, SandraPavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey

Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan

NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland

PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials

PF tabularPDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour)1

DurationAverage recurrence interval (years)

1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000

5-min 1.16(0.996‑1.34)

1.45(1.24‑1.69)

1.93(1.66‑2.28)

2.40(2.04‑2.83)

3.19(2.64‑3.80)

3.94(3.14‑4.74)

4.81(3.72‑5.88)

5.89(4.37‑7.36)

7.64(5.33‑9.86)

9.28(6.17‑12.2)

10-min 0.888(0.756‑1.02)

1.10(0.936‑1.29)

1.47(1.26‑1.73)

1.83(1.55‑2.16)

2.43(2.01‑2.90)

2.99(2.39‑3.61)

3.66(2.83‑4.48)

4.48(3.32‑5.60)

5.82(4.06‑7.51)

7.06(4.69‑9.31)

15-min 0.732(0.628‑0.844)

0.908(0.776‑1.06)

1.22(1.04‑1.43)

1.51(1.28‑1.78)

2.01(1.66‑2.40)

2.47(1.98‑2.98)

3.02(2.34‑3.70)

3.70(2.74‑4.62)

4.81(3.35‑6.20)

5.84(3.88‑7.69)

30-min 0.494(0.422‑0.568)

0.612(0.522‑0.718)

0.820(0.700‑0.964)

1.02(0.864‑1.20)

1.35(1.12‑1.61)

1.66(1.33‑2.01)

2.04(1.58‑2.49)

2.49(1.85‑3.11)

3.24(2.25‑4.18)

3.93(2.61‑5.18)

60-min 0.306(0.261‑0.352)

0.379(0.323‑0.444)

0.507(0.433‑0.597)

0.630(0.535‑0.744)

0.836(0.693‑0.998)

1.03(0.824‑1.24)

1.26(0.975‑1.54)

1.54(1.14‑1.93)

2.01(1.40‑2.59)

2.43(1.62‑3.20)

2-hr 0.206(0.182‑0.235)

0.254(0.226‑0.292)

0.325(0.286‑0.374)

0.386(0.336‑0.444)

0.480(0.406‑0.558)

0.566(0.466‑0.666)

0.664(0.532‑0.792)

0.788(0.611‑0.973)

1.02(0.756‑1.31)

1.24(0.884‑1.62)

3-hr 0.165(0.149‑0.186)

0.205(0.186‑0.232)

0.256(0.230‑0.289)

0.297(0.264‑0.336)

0.355(0.310‑0.404)

0.405(0.348‑0.467)

0.467(0.392‑0.545)

0.549(0.451‑0.652)

0.697(0.555‑0.878)

0.835(0.648‑1.09)

6-hr 0.119(0.108‑0.133)

0.149(0.135‑0.167)

0.184(0.165‑0.205)

0.210(0.188‑0.235)

0.244(0.215‑0.275)

0.269(0.234‑0.306)

0.295(0.253‑0.339)

0.326(0.275‑0.380)

0.382(0.314‑0.452)

0.443(0.359‑0.551)

12-hr 0.080(0.072‑0.089)

0.100(0.090‑0.112)

0.125(0.113‑0.140)

0.145(0.130‑0.162)

0.171(0.151‑0.193)

0.191(0.166‑0.217)

0.211(0.181‑0.243)

0.231(0.195‑0.269)

0.258(0.211‑0.307)

0.280(0.224‑0.338)

24-hr 0.052(0.047‑0.058)

0.065(0.059‑0.073)

0.082(0.074‑0.092)

0.096(0.086‑0.107)

0.115(0.103‑0.129)

0.131(0.116‑0.146)

0.147(0.129‑0.165)

0.163(0.142‑0.185)

0.186(0.160‑0.213)

0.205(0.173‑0.236)

2-day 0.031(0.028‑0.036)

0.040(0.035‑0.045)

0.051(0.045‑0.057)

0.060(0.053‑0.068)

0.073(0.064‑0.082)

0.083(0.072‑0.094)

0.094(0.081‑0.107)

0.105(0.090‑0.122)

0.121(0.101‑0.142)

0.134(0.110‑0.159)

3-day 0.023(0.021‑0.026)

0.029(0.026‑0.033)

0.038(0.033‑0.043)

0.045(0.039‑0.050)

0.054(0.048‑0.062)

0.063(0.054‑0.071)

0.071(0.061‑0.082)

0.080(0.068‑0.093)

0.094(0.078‑0.110)

0.104(0.085‑0.124)

4-day 0.019(0.017‑0.021)

0.024(0.021‑0.027)

0.031(0.028‑0.035)

0.037(0.033‑0.042)

0.045(0.040‑0.052)

0.052(0.046‑0.060)

0.060(0.052‑0.069)

0.068(0.058‑0.079)

0.080(0.066‑0.093)

0.089(0.073‑0.106)

7-day 0.013(0.011‑0.015)

0.016(0.014‑0.019)

0.021(0.019‑0.025)

0.026(0.022‑0.029)

0.031(0.027‑0.036)

0.036(0.031‑0.042)

0.041(0.035‑0.048)

0.047(0.039‑0.055)

0.054(0.045‑0.065)

0.061(0.049‑0.073)

10-day 0.010(0.009‑0.011)

0.013(0.011‑0.015)

0.017(0.015‑0.020)

0.020(0.018‑0.023)

0.025(0.022‑0.029)

0.028(0.025‑0.033)

0.032(0.028‑0.038)

0.036(0.031‑0.042)

0.042(0.035‑0.050)

0.046(0.038‑0.055)

20-day 0.006(0.006‑0.007)

0.008(0.007‑0.009)

0.011(0.009‑0.012)

0.013(0.011‑0.015)

0.015(0.013‑0.018)

0.018(0.015‑0.020)

0.020(0.017‑0.023)

0.022(0.019‑0.026)

0.025(0.021‑0.030)

0.027(0.023‑0.033)

30-day 0.005(0.004‑0.006)

0.006(0.006‑0.007)

0.008(0.007‑0.010)

0.010(0.009‑0.011)

0.012(0.011‑0.014)

0.014(0.012‑0.016)

0.015(0.013‑0.018)

0.017(0.015‑0.020)

0.019(0.016‑0.023)

0.021(0.018‑0.025)

45-day 0.004(0.004‑0.005)

0.005(0.005‑0.006)

0.007(0.006‑0.008)

0.008(0.007‑0.009)

0.010(0.008‑0.011)

0.011(0.009‑0.012)

0.012(0.010‑0.014)

0.013(0.011‑0.015)

0.015(0.013‑0.017)

0.016(0.013‑0.019)

60-day 0.003(0.003‑0.004)

0.004(0.004‑0.005)

0.006(0.005‑0.007)

0.007(0.006‑0.008)

0.008(0.007‑0.009)

0.009(0.008‑0.010)

0.010(0.009‑0.011)

0.011(0.009‑0.012)

0.012(0.010‑0.014)

0.013(0.011‑0.015)

1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for agiven duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are notchecked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top

PF graphical



Back to Top

Maps & aerials

Small scale terrain



Large scale terrain

Large scale map

Large scale aerial

+–

3km

2mi

+–

100km

60mi

+–

100km

60mi



Back to Top

US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Weather Service National Water Center

1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910

Questions?: [email protected]

Disclaimer

+–

100km

60mi


APPENDIX B-MASTER HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR KEYSTONE CANYON (Summit Engineering, September 2008


APPENDIX C- STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 5 YEAR

FlexTable: Catch Basin TableHydraulic

Grade Line(Out)(ft)

HydraulicGrade Line

(In)(ft)

Depth(Out)(ft)

Flow (Total Out)(cfs)

CarryoverFlow(cfs)

Flow (Local Surface)(cfs)

Label

4,949.444,949.440.350.710.000.71CB-14,961.164,961.160.340.670.000.67CB-24,949.714,949.710.290.500.000.50CB-34,961.394,961.390.380.810.000.81CB-44,950.384,950.380.441.110.001.11CB-54,932.094,932.090.240.330.000.33CB-64,950.214,950.210.150.140.000.14CB-74,924.534,924.530.250.360.000.36CB-84,936.124,936.120.270.430.000.43CB-94,922.324,922.320.310.540.000.54CB-10

Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 WWatertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666

2/12/2019

Bentley StormCAD CONNECT Edition[10.01.00.70]

Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolutionCenterVillas II at Keyston Canyon.stsw

FlexTable: Catchment TableFlow (Total Out)

(cfs)Time of Concentration

(min)Runoff Coefficient

(Rational)Area

(acres)OutflowElement

Label

0.7110.000.6000.797CB-110.6710.000.6000.758CB-220.5010.000.6000.566CB-330.8110.000.6000.914CB-441.1110.000.6001.246CB-550.3310.000.6000.369CB-660.1410.000.6000.157CB-770.3610.000.6000.409CB-880.4310.000.6000.486CB-990.5410.000.6000.611CB-1010


2/12/2019



FlexTable: Manhole TableElevation (Rim)

(ft)Hydraulic Grade

Line (Out)(ft)

Hydraulic GradeLine (In)

(ft)

Depth (Out)(ft)


Label

4,964.284,958.524,958.520.340.67MH-54,952.494,946.514,946.510.631.84MH-64,953.184,944.974,944.970.611.75MH-74,953.014,944.744,944.740.712.76MH-84,937.724,932.064,932.060.753.05MH-94,928.714,925.404,925.400.793.44MH-104,926.754,921.544,921.540.894.62MH-114,924.714,919.534,919.530.925.10MH-124,951.824,948.064,948.060.350.71MH-134,952.284,946.554,946.550.370.70MH-144,962.294,957.574,957.570.380.81MH-164,952.874,948.814,948.810.410.94MH-174,950.774,946.304,946.300.410.93MH-184,948.474,943.554,943.550.400.93MH-194,943.524,938.324,938.320.400.93MH-204,938.524,933.324,933.320.400.92MH-214,935.724,929.974,929.970.400.92MH-224,928.404,922.774,922.770.471.26MH-23


2/12/2019



Flex

Tab

le: C

ondu

it T

able

Flow

/ Ca

pacit

y(%

)Ca

pacit

y(c

fs)

Flow

(cfs

)Ve

locit

y(ft

/s)

Diam

eter

(in)

Slop

e(ft

/ft)

Leng

th(ft

)In

vert

(Sto

p)(ft

)In

vert

(Sta

rt)(ft

)Up

stre

amSt

ruct

ure

Labe

l

11.3

5.94

0.67

5.02

12.0

0.02

891

.34,

958.

284,

960.

82CB

-2Pi

pe-3

6.4

10.3

80.

677.

4312

.00.

085

143.

64,

945.

984,

958.

18M

H-5

Pipe

-473

.02.

521.

843.

5012

.00.

005

284.

34,

944.

464,

945.

88M

H-6

Pipe

-569

.62.

521.

753.

4712

.00.

005

46.4

4,94

4.13

4,94

4.36

MH-

7Pi

pe-6

18.7

14.7

22.

7614

.37

12.0

0.17

173

.94,

931.

414,

944.

03M

H-8

Pipe

-726

.311

.60

3.05

12.4

512

.00.

106

62.3

4,92

4.71

4,93

1.31

MH-

9Pi

pe-8

39.6

8.67

3.44

10.4

112

.00.

059

65.2

4,92

0.75

4,92

4.61

MH-

10Pi

pe-9

74.9

6.17

4.62

8.62

12.0

0.03

064

.64,

918.

714,

920.

65M

H-11

Pipe

-10

15.6

4.55

0.71

4.21

12.0

0.01

687

.74,

946.

284,

947.

71M

H-13

Pipe

-11

8.8

9.23

0.81

7.24

12.0

0.06

755

.44,

957.

294,

961.

01CB

-4Pi

pe-1

29.

68.

450.

816.

7912

.00.

056

154.

54,

948.

504,

957.

19M

H-16

Pipe

-13

9.5

9.81

0.94

7.88

12.0

0.07

631

.94,

945.

994,

948.

40M

H-17

Pipe

-14

9.5

9.81

0.93

7.87

12.0

0.07

634

.84,

943.

254,

945.

89M

H-18

Pipe

-15

10.1

9.19

0.93

7.51

12.0

0.06

777

.14,

938.

024,

943.

15M

H-19

Pipe

-16

10.4

8.92

0.93

7.34

12.0

0.06

378

.14,

933.

024,

937.

92M

H-20

Pipe

-17

9.1

10.0

60.

927.

9812

.00.

080

40.8

4,92

9.67

4,93

2.92

MH-

21Pi

pe-1

89.

59.

610.

927.

7212

.00.

073

98.5

4,92

2.40

4,92

9.57

MH-

22Pi

pe-1

91.

49.

740.

144.

4612

.00.

075

20.9

4,94

8.50

4,95

0.06

CB-7

Pipe

-20

2.9

12.6

20.

367.

0912

.00.

125

15.0

4,92

2.40

4,92

4.28

CB-8

Pipe

-21

4.9

11.0

40.

547.

2912

.00.

096

34.4

4,91

8.71

4,92

2.01

CB-1

0Pi

pe-2

22.

319

.13

0.43

10.0

012

.00.

288

38.6

4,92

4.71

4,93

5.85

CB-9

Pipe

-23

9.2

3.56

0.33

2.83

12.0

0.01

043

.94,

931.

414,

931.

85CB

-6Pi

pe-2

49.

611

.54

1.11

9.28

12.0

0.10

555

.44,

944.

134,

949.

94CB

-5Pi

pe-2

53.

912

.87

0.50

7.94

12.0

0.13

126

.34,

945.

984,

949.

42CB

-3Pi

pe-2

65.

812

.22

0.71

8.47

12.0

0.11

810

.94,

947.

814,

949.

09CB

-1Pi

pe-2

727

.82.

520.

702.

7412

.00.

005

60.0

4,94

5.88

4,94

6.18

MH-

14Pi

pe-2

850

.710

.06

5.10

12.8

512

.00.

080

38.8

4,91

5.51

4,91

8.61

MH-

12Pi

pe-2

917

.87.

061.

266.

8012

.00.

039

39.4

4,92

0.75

4,92

2.30

MH-

23Pi

pe-3

0

Page

1 o

f 127

Sie

mon

Com

pany

Driv

e Su

ite 2

00 W

Wat

erto

wn,

CT

0679

5 U

SA+1

-203

-755

-166

62/

12/2

019

Bent

ley

Stor

mC

AD C

ON

NEC

T Ed

ition

[10.

01.0

0.70

]Be

ntle

y Sy

stem

s, In

c. H

aest

ad M

etho

ds S

olut

ion

Cen

ter

Villa

s II

at K

eyst

on C

anyo

n.st

sw


APPENDIX D- STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 100 YEAR

FlexTable: Catch Basin TableHydraulic

Grade Line(Out)(ft)

HydraulicGrade Line

(In)(ft)

Depth(Out)(ft)


CarryoverFlow(cfs)

Flow (Local Surface)(cfs)

Label

4,952.094,952.093.002.060.002.06CB-14,961.424,961.420.601.960.001.96CB-24,952.424,952.423.001.460.001.46CB-34,961.674,961.670.662.360.002.36CB-44,950.714,950.710.773.220.003.22CB-54,934.854,934.853.000.950.000.95CB-64,950.324,950.320.260.410.000.41CB-74,929.284,929.285.001.060.001.06CB-84,938.204,938.202.351.250.001.25CB-94,923.514,923.511.501.580.001.58CB-10


2/12/2019



FlexTable: Catchment TableFlow (Total Out)

(cfs)Time of Concentration

(min)Runoff Coefficient

(Rational)Area

(acres)OutflowElement

Label

2.0610.000.7000.797CB-111.9610.000.7000.758CB-221.4610.000.7000.566CB-332.3610.000.7000.914CB-443.2210.000.7001.246CB-550.9510.000.7000.369CB-660.4110.000.7000.157CB-771.0610.000.7000.409CB-881.2510.000.7000.486CB-991.5810.000.7000.611CB-1010


2/12/2019



FlexTable: Manhole TableElevation (Rim)

(ft)Hydraulic Grade

Line (Out)(ft)

Hydraulic GradeLine (In)

(ft)

Depth (Out)(ft)


Label

4,964.284,958.774,958.770.591.94MH-54,952.494,953.204,953.207.325.28MH-64,953.184,946.954,946.952.595.15MH-74,953.014,945.984,945.981.958.14MH-84,937.724,942.124,942.1210.818.99MH-94,928.714,938.164,938.1613.5510.12MH-104,926.754,932.904,932.9012.2513.63MH-114,924.714,923.454,923.454.8415.05MH-124,951.824,953.684,953.685.972.05MH-134,952.284,953.394,953.397.212.01MH-144,962.294,957.854,957.850.662.35MH-164,952.874,949.114,949.110.712.73MH-174,950.774,946.604,946.600.712.73MH-184,948.474,943.864,943.860.712.72MH-194,943.524,938.634,938.630.712.71MH-204,938.524,934.094,934.091.172.70MH-214,935.724,933.864,933.864.292.68MH-224,928.404,933.314,933.3111.013.63MH-23


2/12/2019



Flex

Tab

le: C

ondu

it T

able

Flow

/ Ca

pacit

y(%

)Ca

pacit

y(c

fs)

Flow

(cfs

)Ve

locit

y(ft

/s)

Diam

eter

(in)

Slop

e(ft

/ft)

Leng

th(ft

)In

vert

(Sto

p)(ft

)In

vert

(Sta

rt)(ft

)Up

stre

amSt

ruct

ure

Labe

l

33.0

5.94

1.96

6.78

12.0

0.02

891

.34,

958.

284,

960.

82CB

-2Pi

pe-3

18.7

10.3

81.

9410

.13

12.0

0.08

514

3.6

4,94

5.98

4,95

8.18

MH-

5Pi

pe-4

209.

72.

525.

286.

7312

.00.

005

284.

34,

944.

464,

945.

88M

H-6

Pipe

-520

4.4

2.52

5.15

6.56

12.0

0.00

546

.44,

944.

134,

944.

36M

H-7

Pipe

-655

.314

.72

8.14

10.3

612

.00.

171

73.9

4,93

1.41

4,94

4.03

MH-

8Pi

pe-7

77.5

11.6

08.

9911

.44

12.0

0.10

662

.34,

924.

714,

931.

31M

H-9

Pipe

-811

6.8

8.67

10.1

212

.89

12.0

0.05

965

.24,

920.

754,

924.

61M

H-10

Pipe

-922

0.7

6.17

13.6

317

.35

12.0

0.03

064

.64,

918.

714,

920.

65M

H-11

Pipe

-10

45.1

4.55

2.05

2.61

12.0

0.01

687

.74,

946.

284,

947.

71M

H-13

Pipe

-11

25.6

9.23

2.36

9.83

12.0

0.06

755

.44,

957.

294,

961.

01CB

-4Pi

pe-1

227

.88.

452.

359.

2112

.00.

056

154.

54,

948.

504,

957.

19M

H-16

Pipe

-13

27.8

9.81

2.73

10.6

912

.00.

076

31.9

4,94

5.99

4,94

8.40

MH-

17Pi

pe-1

427

.89.

812.

7310

.69

12.0

0.07

634

.84,

943.

254,

945.

89M

H-18

Pipe

-15

29.6

9.19

2.72

10.1

912

.00.

067

77.1

4,93

8.02

4,94

3.15

MH-

19Pi

pe-1

630

.48.

922.

719.

9612

.00.

063

78.1

4,93

3.02

4,93

7.92

MH-

20Pi

pe-1

726

.810

.06

2.70

3.43

12.0

0.08

040

.84,

929.

674,

932.

92M

H-21

Pipe

-18

27.8

9.61

2.68

3.41

12.0

0.07

398

.54,

922.

404,

929.

57M

H-22

Pipe

-19

4.2

9.74

0.41

6.11

12.0

0.07

520

.94,

948.

504,

950.

06CB

-7Pi

pe-2

08.

412

.62

1.06

1.34

12.0

0.12

515

.04,

922.

404,

924.

28CB

-8Pi

pe-2

114

.311

.04

1.58

2.01

12.0

0.09

634

.44,

918.

714,

922.

01CB

-10

Pipe

-22

6.6

19.1

31.

251.

6012

.00.

288

38.6

4,92

4.71

4,93

5.85

CB-9

Pipe

-23

26.7

3.56

0.95

1.21

12.0

0.01

043

.94,

931.

414,

931.

85CB

-6Pi

pe-2

427

.911

.54

3.22

12.5

912

.00.

105

55.4

4,94

4.13

4,94

9.94

CB-5

Pipe

-25

11.4

12.8

71.

461.

8612

.00.

131

26.3

4,94

5.98

4,94

9.42

CB-3

Pipe

-26

16.8

12.2

22.

062.

6212

.00.

118

10.9

4,94

7.81

4,94

9.09

CB-1

Pipe

-27

79.9

2.52

2.01

2.56

12.0

0.00

560

.04,

945.

884,

946.

18M

H-14

Pipe

-28

149.

610

.06

15.0

519

.16

12.0

0.08

038

.84,

915.

514,

918.

61M

H-12

Pipe

-29

51.4

7.06

3.63

4.63

12.0

0.03

939

.44,

920.

754,

922.

30M

H-23

Pipe

-30

Page

1 o

f 127

Sie

mon

Com

pany

Driv

e Su

ite 2

00 W

Wat

erto

wn,

CT

0679

5 U

SA+1

-203

-755

-166

62/

12/2

019

Bent

ley

Stor

mC

AD C

ON

NEC

T Ed

ition

[10.

01.0

0.70

]Be

ntle

y Sy

stem

s, In

c. H

aest

ad M

etho

ds S

olut

ion

Cen

ter

Villa

s II

at K

eyst

on C

anyo

n.st

sw

city of reno | home - reno.gov

Documents