FLS2013-100372339 GULF Tp gAY BLVD
FLS2013-10037
1
o Largo Medica� Center, Inc
� � � Zoning: C�mmercial
' Atlas #: 299A
U`'�,.��'�../"�.s- �... -,r
Planning & Development Department
rd Development Application
ings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE,
INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION.
ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES)
TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE.
A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN
ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED
TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS.
THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200
APPLICATION FEE: $475
PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Largo Medical Center, Inc. (Nicholas Paul, Vice President)
MAILING ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
One Park Plaza, Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(727) 588-5200
EMAIL: nicholas.paul@hcahealthcare.com
AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Littlejohn Engineering Associates (George Huddleston, PE)
MAILING ADDRESS: 1615 Edgewater Drive, Ste. 180, Orlando, FL, 32804
PHONE NUMBER: (407) 975-1273
EMAIL: ghuddleston@leainc.com
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2339 Gulfto Bay eoulevard, Clearwater, Florida 33765
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 18-29-16-00000-310-0500, 18-29-16-000000-310-0600
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached
PROPOSED USE(S): Medical Clinic
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Specifically identify the request
(include all requested code f/exibility,•
e.g., reduction in required number of
parking spaces, height setbacks, lot
size, !ot width, specific use, etc.):
Flexible standard development to allow medical clinic use and an 8' privacy fence. The
proposed project is the construction of a 10,620 SF medical clinic and associated improvements.
Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 1 of 8 Revised 01112
LL
° C ear�ater
U
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Standard Development Application
Data Sheet
PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM
WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATION CYCLE.
ZONING DISTRICT:
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING USE (currently existing on site):
Commercial
Commercial General (CG)
Automobile Dealership/Body Shop
PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): Medical Clinic
SITE AREA: 103,407 sq. ft.
GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings):
Existing: 6,519 sq. ft.
Proposed: 10,620 sq. ft.
Maximum Allowable: N/A sq. ft.
2.37 acres
GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses):
First use: 10,620 sq. ft.
Second use: N/A sq. ft.
Third use: N/A sq. ft.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site):
Existing: .063
Proposed: .1027
Maximum Allowable: .55
BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15L floor square footage of all buildings):
Existing: 6,519 sq. ft. ( 6.30
Proposed: 10,620 sq. ft. ( 10.30
Maximum Permitted: N/A Sq• ft• � N�A
% of site)
%of site)
% of site)
GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer):
Existing: 1,083 sq. ft. ( 1.04 % of site)
Proposed: 33,982 ��. `:. j �2.86 % of site)
VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area):
Existing: 58,022 sq. ft. ( 56.11 % of site)
Proposed: 33,952 sq. ft. ( 32.83 % of site)
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; FaxRev sed 0112
Page 2 of 8
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious ai °as divided by the total square footage of entire site):
Existing: .64
Proposed: '48
Maximum Permitted: •90
DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre):
Existing: N/A
Proposed: N�A
Maximum Permitted: N/A
BUILDING HEIC -IT:
Existing:
:roposed:
M�,'-n�.�n^ Permitte
unknown
_`a;
25'
OFF-STREET PARKING: rovided In conjunction with any request
unknown Note: A p king demand study m�<. �
Existing: re uire� ` street parking spaces. Please see the
55 spaces to reduce he amount of q
Pro posed: crdopte d Pc �ing Demand Study Guid� � for further information.
Minimum Required: 55 spaces
WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VAWE OF THE PROJECT UP ' COMPLETION? $4J m.
ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY:
North: Commercial
South: Residential
East: Commercial
West: Residential
STATE OF FLORIDA, COU� �F PINELLAS day of
t, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn t. j subscribed before m�this-- to me and/or by
representations made in this application are true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize � Who is personally known has
City representatives to visit and photograph the ---- as identification.
property described in this application. produced _.,_
Signature of property owner or representative
Notary public,
My commission expires:
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; FaxRev sed2011812
Page 3 of 8
LL ,'lanning & Development Department
° ater Flexible Standard D�.velopment Application
���al'W
U Site Plan Submi��al Package Check list
IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE STANCLUDES THE FOL O'� NGF N,FORMATION AND/OR PLANS:L'CATIONS SHALL
INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT IN
�
�
�
�
Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requE ted asl ation Flexib Irty Cr tegi Dsheet(shall be used to
subject property is located. The attached Flexible Standard Developme t App'
provide these responses.
Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-9'_ '•A• The attached Flexible Standard Development
Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide thc: e responses.
A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered lanc �urveyor including the location of the property,
dimensions, acreage, location of all current strue� f'eh�imp�f � Y w thin�and � djacenittothe s'te,private easements including
official records book and page numbers and stre g�)
If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as
provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5.
❑ If this application is being submitted for the pu fo° ide de a ledl plans anld pec'f at onsnprepared rby a Flor da p ofess olnal
N/A marine structure, then the application must p
engineer, bearing the seal and signatur a I nth lower land ngs,tielp'les ordthe patch ng orare nfoceng of e Zstfng pili g on
or replacement of decking, stringers, g.
private and commercial docks.
T�A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer, certified planner or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale
of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information:
d thereon
�.
�
N/A ❑
N/A ❑
�l
�
�
.�
Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers reference •
North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared.
Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases.
Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard
Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable.
Location, footprint, size and height of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site.
Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points
of access.
Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, gutters, water lines�ro osed util ty elasementsm drains, manho es,
inlets, lift stations, fire hydrants, underground conduits, seawalls and any p p
Location of onsite and offsite stormwa��erosed sgo mwaterlmanagement, asfw II asl avna1rorative descr bing the pa posed
Engineering Department to evaluate p p
stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City o
Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual.
�[ Location of solid waste c.," ���`^" facilities, �?����red screening and provisions for accessibility for collection.
� Location of off-street �oading area, if required by Section 3-1406.
x N/A ❑
N/A ❑
�
Location, type and lamp height of all outdoor lighting fixtures.
Location of all existing and proposed attached and freestanding signage.
All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections,
street light po�es, bus shelters, signage and utility company facilities.
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; FaxRev sed2011 2
Page 4 of 8
]�, Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building
separations.
]� Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed buildir,� height, building materials, and concealment of
all mechanical equipment located on the roof.
�[ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage.
]� Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
N/A❑ If there is any requested deviation to the parking standards a parking demand study will need to be provided. Prior to the
preparation of such study, the methodology shall be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. The findings of
the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved.
� Tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and
condition of such trees; as well as a tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four
inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any.
N/A❑ A traffic impact study shall be required for any development which may degrade the acceptable level of service for any
roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
❑ An application for a certificate of concurrency/capacity or a nonconcurrency affidavit. No development approval shall be
granted until a certificate of concurrency/capacity is issued or a nonconcurrency affidavit is executed.
J� A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved
or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's
current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional
landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if
not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval:
�I Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including
botanical and common names.
�j Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line.
� Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs, and ground cover plants, including planting instructions, soil mixes,
backfilling, mulching, staking and protective measures.
j$j Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square
feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and
vehicular use areas.
� Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences,
pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, sign locations, curbs,
gutters, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, manholes, inlets, lift stations, fire hydrants, underground
conduits, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the
proposed landscape.
� Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape
islands and curbing.
�j Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations, and drainage structures and other
drainage improvements.
�I All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication nf centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections,
street light poles, bus shelters, signage and utility company facilities.
� Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any.
N/A ❑ An irrigation plan.
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; FaxRev sed 011 2
Page 5 of 8
° C earwater
U
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Standard Development Application
General Applicability Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE
CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent
properties in which it is located.
The proposed development meets all City requirements for size and coverage. Being in a previously designated commercially zoned area, it
will be in character with the surrounding businesses.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings
or significantly impair the value thereof.
The proposed development should not affect the development and value of the adjacent land and buildings.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of the proposed use.
The proposed development is a medical clinic. As such, there will be no risk to the health or safety of the surrounding neighborhood. On the
contrary, the proposed development should positively affect the health and safety of the surrounding area.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
The proposed development is within the City of Clearwater's traffic impact threshold. Therefore, there is minimal expected
impact to the local traffic.
The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
The development will have a less than significant community character impact, since it is consistant with the local businesses and commercially
zoned areas surrounding it.
6. The design of the prc�osed developme„t minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of
operation impacts, on adjacent properties.
There will be minimal effect on the olfactory senses. Although the medical clinic will be a twenty four hour clinic, every effort will be made to
minimize the adverse visual and acoustical effects.
Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. MyRle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; FaxRev sed 0112
Page 6 of 8
° C ear�ater
U
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Standard Development Application
Flexibility Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5) BEING REQUESTED AS SET
FORTH IN THE ZONING DIST RRH151DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECEOSSA�RY)DETAIL, EACH CRITERION
IS BEING COMPLIED WITH P
1. Flexibility criteria #1: The use and design of the parcel proposed for development is compatible with the surrounding area.
Response: The use, design, and layout will be compatible with the surrounding area. Aesthetically, the project has been designed to blend
with the surrounding commercial zone. From a use standpoint, the project will serve the community and surrounding residents.
2. Flexibility criteria #2: Off-street parking: The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will
require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for
storage or other non-parking demand-generating purposes.
3. (Response to #2 above): Based on trip generation studies for this type of facility, it is anticipated that the proposed use will not require as
many parking spaces as are required by the City code.
4.
6.
8.
Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. MyRle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; FaxRev sed2011812
Page 7 of 8
LL
° C earwater
U
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Standard Development Application
Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative
1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names:
Largo Medical Center, Inc. (Nick Paul, Vice President)
2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property:
2339 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida 33765
3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request):
the development of a 10,620 sf inedical clinic and associated improvements.
4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
Littlejohn Engineering Associates
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition;
5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Fiorida to consider and act on the above described
property;
6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner
authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application;
7. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Property Owner
Property Owner
Property Owner
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Property Owner
BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON
THIS
DAY OF
PERSONALLY APPEARED
WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN
DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED.
Notary Seal/Stamp
Notary Public Signature
My Commission Expires:
Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; FaxRev sed20112
Page 8 of 8
u
Proiect Data
Project Name:
Simulation Description:
Project Number:
Engineer :
Supervising Engineer:
Date:
AQUifer Data
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method
Copyright 2U'! 2
Devo Seereeram, Ph.�., P.E.
Clearvvater Medical Clinic
20130505
Garrett George
George Huddleston
09-23-2013
Base Of Aquifer Elevation, [B] (ft datum):
Water Table Elevation, [WTj (ft datum):
Horizontal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, [Kh] (ft/day)
Fillable Porosity, [n] (%):
Vertical infiltration was not considered.
Geometrv Data
Equivalent Pond Length, [L] (ft): 266.0
Equivalent Pond Width, [W] (ft): 18.4
Ground water mound is expected to intersect the pond bott: m
Staae vs Area Data
Stage
(ft datum)
68.00
69.00
70.00
71.00
Clearwater Medical Clinic
Area
(ft2)
650.0
2932.0
5679.0
9088.0
0.00
67.00
5.00
20.00
09-30-2013 18:18:29 Page 1
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - �°fined Method
Copyright 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., �'•E• _
Scenario Input Data
Scenario 1:: 5909 ft3 slug load
Hydrograph Type: Slug Load
Modflow Routing: Routed with infiltration
Treatment Volume (ft3) 5909
Initial ground water level (ft datum) 67.00 (overridden)
Time After
Storm Event
(d_ays)
0.100
0.250
0.500
1.000
1.500
Clearwater Medical Clinic
Time After
Storm Event
(d�—
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
09-30-2013 18:18:30 Page 2
PONDS Version 3•Ref ned Method
Retention Pond Re �o ht 2012
Copy 9
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P•�• _
Mod� Loa
MODFLOW CONTROL PARAMETERS
Perimeter boundary condition: constant head
Maximum iterations of outer loop: 150
Maximum iterations of inner loop: 60
Horizontal conductivity within pond: 10000e ���balance Water mound is expected to intersect pond bottom
Instantanerous storage coefficient: Volum
Default head closure tolerance: .01
Default residual closure tolerance: .5
Target water budget error: 1
On failure to converge: Rerun limiting inner loop to one iteration
> Maximum number of iterations of outer loop: 500
Running Average Porosity is active
> Starting on pass: 2
> When outer iteration reaches: 50
> Number of data points: 4
Running Average Pond Stage (for discharge structures with tailwater) is active
> Starting on pass: 2
> When outer iteration reaches: 50
> Number of data points: 4
Grid size: 1000 ft(from pond centerline)
Mound Output: none
Begin Scenario 1 9/30/2013 18:16:45
Default GWT has been overridden. Using 67.0 ft.
End Scenario 1 9/30/2013 18:16:45
09-30- 3p2 11 8:18:30 Page 3
Clearvvater Medical Clinic
Detailed Results
Elapsed
Time
00 00
0.002
2.400
6.000
12.000
24.000
36.000
48.000
60.000
72.000
84.000
96.000
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method
Copyr�9ht 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P•_=_
Sce ;; 5909 ft3 slug load
Instantaneous
Inflow Rate
9_�
g84.8333
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Outside
Recharge
00 000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Clea tearw r Medical Clinic
Stage
Elevation
6 ��OB �0
gg,g5966
6g.20833
68.69122
6g.20583
67.77781
67.58594
67.47508
67.40233
67.35056
67.31156
67.28110
Infiltration
Rate
73g 915
6.37059
0.17234
0.08485
0.02648
0.00211
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Combined
Instantaneous
Discharge
0
.3660029
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
Inflow
0p 00
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
5909.000
Cumulative
Infiltration
OOp p 00
38.24924
1866.45000
3333.44000
4145.74100
4327•86800
4327•86800
4327•86800
4327•86800
4327.86800
4327•86800
4327.86800
Combined
Cumulative
0
1.098009
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
1581.132
N.A.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
N.A.
09-30-2013 18:18:31 Page 4
PONDS Version 3•Ref ned Method
Retention PonCopyr gh 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph•�•� P'E'
Summarv of Results :: Scenario 1
Stage
Minimum
Maximum
5909 ft3 slug load
Inflow
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Posiai�vive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Neg
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Infiltration positive
Rate - Maximum - ative
Rate - Maximum - Neg
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Combined Discharge
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Ne9ative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Discharge Structure 1- simple weir
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Pos�ai{ive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Neg
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Discharge Structure 2 - inactive
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Discharge Structure 3 - inactive
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Pos�ai{ive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Neg
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Pollution Abatement:
36 Hour Stage and Infiltration Volume
72 Hour Stage and Infiltration Volume
Clea trw rea Medical Clinic
Time
hours
96.000
0.002
0.002
None
0.002
None
96.000
0.002
None
24.000
None
96.000
0.002
None
2.400
None
96.000
0.002
None
2.400
None
96.000
Rate Volume
Stage �ft31s) �ft3� —
ft datum .----
67.28
69.96
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
36.000
72.000
67.59
67.35
984.8333
None
6.3706
None
0.3660
None
0.3660
None
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
5909.0
None
5909.0
4327.9
None
4327.9
1581.1
None
1581.1
1581.1
None
1581.1
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
4327 •9
4327.9
09-30-2013 18:18:31 Page 5
C�
m
�
v
�
�
�
a
�i
C�
�
�
�
M
�
�
a�
E
�
O
�
�
l0
7
�
�
C)
0
�
W
0
0
�,
W
�'
�
w
�
v
�
�
�
Plot of Cumulative Valumes and Pond Stage vs Elapsed Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elansed Time (hrs)
Y1 Axis: Cumulative Infiow--� Cumulative Infiltration—� Cumulative Discharge— Y2 Axis: Pond Stage
�
�
�
�
�
c
�
�
>
d
W
�i
�
�
�o
�
�
v �
�
a o0
�
z
�; � �. v
�o�cn
�
����
3�°<y.
� �c o
�
�o, w
�N� o
- � N
m a "'
. �
m
.r
�
0
a
0
�
m
v
�
�
�
�
Q
�
�
_
�
...
N
d
�
�
�
�L
d
�
0
�
0
�
w
0
N
O
W
�
�
N
v
v
�
m
y
1
Plot of Flow Rates and Pond Stage vs Elapsed Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elapsed Time (hrs)
Y1 Axis: lnflow Rate-- Infiltration Rate-�-� Discharge Rate— Y2 Axis: Pond Stage—
�
3
�.+
lQ
'a
�
�
�
A>
Ili
a�
a�
R
�+
�
�
�
�
m
3
�
v �
3
p � O
3z
�; c'�av
c� o �vs
-+ a
� � � �
w � °< N.
,.sr �D O
3
� � `` w
ia
o^'� o
� = N
� f�C� N
(il O.
. �
�D
�
�
O
a
,
�, "-' r,
DRAINAGE DESIGN SUMMARY
for
Clearwater Medical Clinic
Clearwater, Florida
September 26, 2013
LITTL,EJt�HN ENGINEER[NG ASSOC[ATES
I 61 S Edgewater Drive, Suite I$4 C�rlando, Flarida 32$p4
P 4t}7.975. I 273 F 407.975. I 278 www.leainc.com
� a„ r.
Clearwater Medical Clinic
Clearwater, Florida
Drainage Design Summary
Overview
The proposed project is the construction of a medical clinic on a property that is currently home to a
former automotive dealership. The site is located on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, west of
Belcher Rd and east of State Route 19 in the city of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The proposed
clinic will be approximately 10,600 square feet in size and will mainly see acute trauma patients. With the
project, an old car dealership and associated infrastructure will be demolished.
Land Coverage
Using the Rational Method, the following Runoff Coefficients listed in the City of Clearwater Stormwater
Management Design Criteria were utilized in the calculations:
Runoff Coefficients:
➢ Ponds, lakes and detention areas = I.00
➢ Buildings, paved areas, and other impervious areas = 0.95
➢ Turfblock = 0.45
➢ Green or pervious areas = 0.20
However, for redevelopment projects, the City of Clearwater requires the following:
"In the case of redevelopment of land upon which no stormwater attenuation or water quality feature
exists, or upon which the existence of such features do not meet the standards applicable at the time of
redevelopment, the redeveloper will be required to provide facilities in a manner similar to an original
developer and in proportion to the extent to which the site plan of the property is affected or disturbed
by the redevelopment. In the methodology for calculating stormflow from property undergoing
redevelopment, the pre-development volume of runoff will be calculated by the use of a Weighted Runoff
Coefficient taken from the following table:"
PROPERTI' DESCRIFTIQtv'* �VEIGHTED COEFFICIE�IT OF
RLT':vOFF**
Lludersoing redec�elopu�ut aud nat eoutrlbutuig to �_? �ch�al
ur zxzstii�¢ flooclinc i�t�leiu'�**
Under¢�i� rede��elopment and caumliiztuig to an �0
existux� flaodiva rol�lem
Undergaiug i�edevelogment �nd coutributnxg to an
eaisCiug flaodiu„u problem for whicl� an atteuuating lr2 �chial
stomiwater management project is uncler
coashuctian
* City Engiueer slu�ll t�e tlie cletemuuing ai�dic�rit�= o£ d�e Property- Deseriprion
�`* fli �io ease sl�all the coe�cient �e less $ran .20
** Ta be applied only to area of }�rapert�= under¢oing alteratian
*** Sitt�tiou whereiu ro itv d�vxka�e accm�s in a�5 vear -?4liour stonu
As such, for analysis a runoff coefficient of 0.475 was used for the "building/paved areas" in lieu of the
0.95.
� �� �..
Pre-Development
ICPR Perc Pak modeling software was used to analyze the project site and determine the pre-
development runoff. The curve number (CN) for this model was determined using the geotechnical
report (see Appendix A), and it was determined that the site consists of hydrologic soil group A. Based
on this, open spaces were calculated with a CN value of 39, and impervious areas were calculated with a
CN value of 98. A time of concentration of 10 minutes was calculated for the pre-developed condition
using figure F-2 of the FDOT Hydrology Handbook. See Table I and Appendices E& F for more
information.
Post-Development
After the proposed project has been completed, all storm water runoff from project area will drain to the
proposed dry detention pond. This conveyance will be achieved through a combination of open swales,
curb cuts, curb inlets, and submerged storm sewer. A composite curve number was calculated for the
post-development condition based on practices described in the previous section. Additionally, a time of
concentration of sixty minutes was assumed for the proposed improvements. Table I summarizes the
watershed characteristics for the pre- and post-developed conditions.
Table I— Pre- vs. Post-Development Project Area
PRE-DEVELOPED POST-DEVELOPED
Land Use Area Area Runoff CN Area Area Runoff CN
s ac Coefficient* Value* s ac Coefficient Value
Im ervious 65,720 1.51 0.475 49 49,669 1.14 0.95 98
Pervious 37,687 0.87 0.20 39 53,088 1.22 0.20 39
Pond -- -- -- -- 650 0.01 I.00 100
Com osite 103,407 2.37 0.37 45.36 103,407 2.37 0.57 67.72
*- Pre-Developed impervious coefficients reduced by 50% per City of Clearwater Storm
Drainage Design Criteria
Proposed Pond
As shown in the Table I, the proposed improvements will increase the curve number; thus, they will
increase the project runoff. In order to attenuate these flows, and in order to comply with South West
Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) regulations, a dry detention pond is proposed. This
pond complies with district regulations as specified in this portion of the report. Furthermore, the pond
has been designed to properly detain the 25-year, 24-hour storm event (10"). That is, the post developed
peak runoff will not exceed that of pre-developed conditions.
Treatment Volume
The required treatment volume is defined as the following:
a) I/2" of runoff over the drainage area
1'
0.5" x 2.374 ac x 12„ = 0.0989 ac — ft
As a result, 0.09895 ac-ft (4,309 ft3) is required for the treatment volume.
Ground Water Table
District regulations (and common engineering practices) stipulate that the groundwater table must be
taken into consideration when establishing the bottom elevation for a dry pond. As per the geotechnical
report (see Appendix A), a boring was taken in the vicinity of the proposed pond (boring B- I).
�
� �'.� r
Table 2— Pro osed Pond: Geometric Characteristic
Area Volume (CF)
Elevation Above Below
SF Acres Incremental Cumulative Orifice Orifice
71 9,088 0.2086 7,383 I 3,480 9,172 -
70 5,679 0. I 304 I,788 6,097 I,788 -
�i5'9 �f��� ��. .,.�; 4,538 0.1042 2,518 4,309 0.00 0.00
69 2,932 0.0673 I,79I I,79I - 2,5I8
68 650 0.0149 0 0 - 4,309
� � �������
������;���;, = Treatment Volume
By interpolation, a weir elevation of 69.58 ft provides the minimum required treatment volume.
Water Quantity
The rational method was used to determine the attenuation volume needed for the proposed stormwater
management system, as well as to verify that the post-development runoff is less than the pre-
development runoff.
Per the City of Clearwater Rainfall Intensity IDF Curves, the rainfall intensity is 3.6 inches per hour (25
year frequency and a Time of Concentration equal to I hour).
Pre-Development Discharge Rate:
Qpre — LC�I�25yearl�Al
C = .37
I = 3.6 in/hr
A = 103,407 SF
1' 1 hr
Q = (.37)(3.6 in/hr)(103,407 ft)(12"��3600 secs�
Q = 3.23 CF/sec
Post-Development Discharge Rate:
Qpost— LC�II25year][A►]
C = .57
1 = 3.6
A = 103,407 SF
1' 1 hr
Q = (.45)(3.6 in/hr)(103,407 ft)(12"��3600 secs�
Q = 4.87 CF/sec
3
; e� r
Attenuation Volume:
Attenuation Volume = (OQ)(Tc)
�Q = I .64 cfs
Time of Concentration (Tc) = I hour (3600 secs)
Attenuation Vol = (1.64 cfs)(3600 secs)
Attenuation Vol = 5909.63 CF
The proposed stormwater system has been designed to provide water quality and contain the attenuation
volume in the above ground dry pond. The post-development discharge rate is to be controlled via a
control structure with a weir. The weir sizing calculations are below:
QP�e = [C][Length][Height]'�S
QPfe = 3.23 cfs
C = 3.13
Length (L) = 0.5 ft
Height (H) = unknown
H = (Q/CL)"'
H _ � 3.23 �2�3
(3.13)(. 5)
H = 1.62 f t
Conclusion
As can be observed in the results above, this site provides detention for the design storm events to
maintain post-development flows at or below that of the pre-developed level. Additionally, district
requirements for a dry detention system have been adhered to.
Appendices
Appendix A Geotechnical Report
Appendix B ICPR Input Criteria
Appendix C ICPR Results
Appendix D PondPack Draw Down
4
� � ��
APPENDIX A
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
4 ► r
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION— � -
Proposed FSED Site
-- 2339 Gulf to Bay Boulevard--
Clearwater, Florida
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
PREPARED FOR:
LittieJohn Engineering Associates
1615 Edgewater Drive, Suite 180
Orlando, Florida 32804
PREPARED BY:
Universal Engineering Sciences
9802 Palm River Road
Tampa, Florida 33619
(813) 740-8506
June 27, 2013
Consultants in, Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences � Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection
Offices in: Oriando • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Ocala • Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota � Miami
St. Augustine • Panama City • Fort Pierce � Leesbu�g � Tampa • West Palm Beach • AHan#a, GA
�
1�1u/
June 27, 2013
V N IVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • E�vironmental Sciences
Geophysical Services • Construction MaterialsTesting • Threshold Inspection
Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration
LittleJohn Engineering Associates
1615 Edgewater Drive, Suite 180
Orlando, Florida 32$04
Attention; Ben Elfis, PE
Reference: Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
Dear Mr. Ellis:
LOCATIONS:
■ Atlanta
• Daytona Beach
• Fort Myers
• Fort Pierce
� Gainesville
� Jacksornille
• Kissimmee
� Leesburg
� Miami
• Ocala
� Orlando (Headquarters)
• Palm Coast
» Panama City
• Pensacola
• Rockledge
• Sarasota
� Tampa
• West Palm Beach
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has completed a geotechnical exploration on the
above-referenced site in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Our scope of services was in
general accordance with UES Proposal #0830.0413.13, dated April 24, 2013, and authorized by
you.
This report contains the results of our study, an engineering interpretation of the subsurface
data obtained with respect to the project characteristics described to us, geotechnical design
recommendations, and general construction and site preparation considerations.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a
continued association with LittleJohn Engineering Associates. Please do not hesitate to contact
us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Respectfully submifted,
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.
Certificate of Authorization No. 549
��, �� ti
Sur"endra V. �
Geotechnical
Florida Li� n;
Date Q(�,(�
3 — Client
�� �tti�i�arri��rr
� .`•� ��-'��1jj�, f�,''�i
�,• G�Ng� ••;�'/ '',r,.�.
. *. %�
• , ..
� , 74t� . �
. —
��r ; �r �
q�096�TA"t'� t� ;' �
: .
f • � •;�.Q�:�Q�`• ti� `�.�
,f���j�flf�'������ �����4��
9802 Palm River Road, Tampa, Florida 33619 Ph (813) 740-8506 Fax (813) 740-8706
www. UniversalEngineering.com
� �.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.O 1NTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3
1.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................,.......,...,...........3
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................... ......... .......�. ......,.. .....:,:..,.3
2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLQGIES ...................................................................................3
2.1 PURPOSE .........................................................................................................................3
2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ..................................................................... . .............................4
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................... ................. ....4
3.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................5
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................5
3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 SOIL SURVEY ................:..:....:..........__........................,.....,......._....:..:__..._.....................,..._.........5
3.2.2 SOI1.. Bt�Ri�lGS ........:.............:..........__...._.._,.........................................,....,...........................,.....5
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS . ,........� ..................................................»...,.......... ......,...............6
4.1 GENERAL ..................................................... ..........�.........,.....,...............,.. . ...............6
4.2 GROUNDWATER ........................................ ................................................... ......... .6
. ..... ..
4.3 BUILDING FOUDATION AND FLOOR SLAB ....:................ .................6
4_3:1 �IIILQWC FOUNDAT�L�N. ............................. .6
4,3_2 F�QQR SLAB .7
--....... ........ . ........... .................................. ...
. . _ .._. ........
4.�,� F�Q4R $LA� MOISTURF ��NTROL ....... .. ................ ...:..................:.................... .............7
4_3.4 �STlMAT�p STRUGTURAL �ETTL�M��I��,. ._7
4.4 PAVEMENT SECTIONS ........................................................ ....................,,.. ..,.... 8
4.4.7 EFFECTS t�� GRflUN�WATER ................... �............_..._...............,.....,...................... ...,......:1'I
4.4.8 GURBING,� ... ......... ..............................................._.....:---.......,........................ .,,...;.. .;,..,... .:1'f
4;4.1Q CONSTRUGTfCiN TRAFFIC.._ ................ .........:.......... ..._.�..._..._:._... .................,,.....,,_.....,1'(
4.5 RETAINING WALLS .............................. ........................................... . ............ . 12
4.6 SITE PREPARATION .................................................................................... ........13
4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES ............................................................. ......14
5.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................ ................................�....,................ ........_........15
��
_ _ --
t �.
" Proposed FSED Site
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page ii
SITELOCATION MAP ......................................,.................................................,................... , .A
SITEAERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ....... ................... ................... ....................:,......,........., ,..,...,...A
SITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ... ........ ...................... .... ,... ....... ......,, ....,. ...,,.,A
SCS SOIL SURVEY MAP ................................. . . .................................... .... ....... .....,A
BORINGLOCATION PLAN ...................... ..... ....................... ... ..... .......................8
BORING LOGS ......................... ..................... ........................................ ......... ... ... .B
. .. ... .. ...
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART ... ......... ....... ............................. ............ ...... ...... .........B
ASFE IMPORTANT GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION ............................................................. C
CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS ................................,............,......... .................. .. C
�,
Proposed FSED Site
UES Report #0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Page 3
In this report we present the results of our geotechnical exploration on the site of the proposed
Free Standing Emergency Department (FSED), located at 2339 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in
Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. This report contains the results of our study, an
engineering interpretation of the subsurface data obtained with respect to the project
characteristics described to us, and our recommendations for geotechnical design and general
site preparation. Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal
#0830.0413.13, dated Aprif 24, 2013, and authorized by you.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that the subject site is located at 2339 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in Clearwater,
Pinellas County, Florida. Based on the information you provided, we understand that the
proposed development includes a 10,000 SF single-story steel frame Free Standing Emergency
Department facility with associated pavement and parking areas. In addition, we understand the
typical column loads will be 75 kips with a maximum column loads of 125 kips and exterior walls
with loads of 1.6 kip/ft. Although the provided site plan shows stormwater pond locations, we
understand they are not anticipated during site devefopment.
Our geotechnical recommendations are based upon the above assumptions and cansiderations.
If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, please inform Universal
Engineering Sciences so that we may review our recommendations, and make revisions as
needed.
A general location map of the project area appears in Appendix A:
included in Appendix A for your reference are a Site Aerial Photograph,
Map and SCS Soil Survey Map.
2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGIES
2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of our services was:
Site Location Map. Also
USGS Site Topographic
o to explore the general subsurFace conditions at the site using Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) borings and auger borings;
o to interpret and review the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed
construction as it was described to us; and
o to provide geotechnical engineering design information and recommendations,
and general recommendations for site preparation.
'��
I 1�►�.�/
Proposed FSED Site Page 4
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of traditional geotechnical
procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually
or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards.
2.2 FiELD EXPLORATION
The subsu�face conditions within the building footprint were explored with a total of four (4) SPT
borings designated B-1 through B-4, each extended to a depth of 25 feet below existing grade.
These borings were advanced using the rotary wash method, and samples were collected while
performing the Standard Penetration Test at regular intervals. Seven (7) auger borings
designated A-1 through A-7 were advanced within the proposed pavement and parking, areas,
each to a depth of 7 feet below the present grade.
We performed the SPT test in general accordance with ASTM D-1586 guidelines. However, at
depths of 10 feet or fess we sampled continuously in order to detect slight variations in the soil
profile. In general, a standard split-barrel sampler (split-spoon) is driven into the soil using a
140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler 12 inches, after first seating it 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or
SPT-N value. This value is used as an index to soil strength and consistency. The top 4.5 feet
of all SPT borings were advanced using a hand auger. This technique is a part of our safety
procedure due to proximity of underground utility fines that may not have been located by One-
Call Sunshine.
We performed the auger borings according to the procedures of ASTM D-1452. We performed
the auger probe borings by advancing a slender, solid-stem auger into the soil to the required
depth. We evaluated the soil type by visually inspecting the cuttings recovered from the auger
flights.
Consider the indicated locations and depths to be approximate. Our drilling crew located the
borings based upon estimated distances and taped measurements from existing site features. If
more precise location and elevation data are desired, a registered professional land surveyar
should be retained to locate the borings and determine their ground surface elevations. The
Boring Location Plan is presented in Appendix B.
Unless other arrangements are agreed upon in writing, UES will store recovered soil samples
for no more than 60 calendar days from the date of the report. After that date, UES will dispose
of all samples.
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually
classified by our technical staff. No additional laboratory testing was deemed necessary at this
time.
„
Proposed FSED Site
UES Report #0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
3.0 FINDINGS
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Page 5
At the start of our geotechnical exploration, we reviewed aerial photographs available from the
Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office and TerraServer USA, USGS topographic
quadrangle maps, and the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Pinellas
County for relevant information about the site. At the time of our exploration, the existing
building was being demolished and rest covered by parking areas.
3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.2.1 SOIL SURVEY
According to SCS, the subject site is within Urban land Soil Cornplex consisting of areas where
most of the soil surface is covered with impervious materials, such as shopping malls, large
parking lots, large commercial buildings, highways and large industrial areas. Therefore SCS
Soil Survey does not offer specific infarmation regarding this soil formation.
3.2.2 SOIL BORINGS
The boring locations and detailed subsurFace conditions are illustrated in Appendix B: Boring
Location Plan and Boring Logs. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are
based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. Refer to Appendix B: Soils
Classification Chart, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring
Logs. The general subsurface soil profile on the site, based on the soil boring information, is
described below. For more detailed information, please refer to the boring logs.
The subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the boring locations generally began with a layer of
asphaltic concrete pavement consisting of 2 inches of asphalt and 4 inches of limerock base
underlain by sand (SP) to a maximum explored depth of 25 fieet below the existing grade. in
borings B-2 through B-4, we encountered approximately 2 feet thick limerock layer starting just
below the asphalt layer or from the existing ground surface. The provided soil profile is very
general in nature and represents a composite of soil conditions and some deviations were
encountered. The individual boring logs should be reviewed for detailed soil conditions.
The shallow water table was not encountered within the top 10 feet depth at our boring
locations.
The boring logs and related information included in this report are indicators of subsurface
conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. Subsurface conditions, including
groundwater levels and the presence of deleterious materials, at other locations on the site may
differ significantly from conditions which, in the opinion of UES, exist at the sampling locations.
Note, too, that the passage of time may affect conditions at the sampling locations.
�
Proposed FSED Site
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GENERAL
Page 6
In this section of the report we present our geotechnical design recommendations, general site
preparation recommendations and information pertaining to the construction relafed services
UES can provide, Our recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil
test data, our understanding of the proposed construction as it was described to us, and our
stated assumptions. If the structural loads or site layout differ from those assumed or described
to us, we should be retained to review the new or updated information and amend our
recommendations with respect to those changes. Additionally, if subsurFace conditions are
encountered during constructions that were not encountered in the test borings, report those
conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations.
4.2 GROUNDWATER
Based upon our visual inspection of the recovered soil samples, review of information obtained
from SWFWMD and the USDA Soil Survey of Pinellas County, and our knowledge of local and
regional hydrogeology, our best estimate is that the seasonal high groundwater level could be
greater than 6.0 feet below the existing grade at the test boring locations, on average.
It should be noted that the estimated SHWT does not provide any assurance that groundwater
levels will not exceed this level in the future. Should impediments ta surFace water drainage
exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration exceed the normally anticipated
amounts, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimate. Also, future development
around the site could alter surFace runoff and drainage characteristics, and cause our seasonal
high estimate to be exceeded. We therefore recommend positive drainage be established and
maintained on the site during construction. Further, we recommend permanent measures be
constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. Finally,
we recommend all foundation and pavement grades account for the seasonal high groundwater
conditions.
Based upon the estimated seasonal high water table and the necessary site preparation,
temporary dewatering may not be required during construction operation. However, we
recommend that the groundwater table be maintained at least 24 inches below all earthwork
and compaction surfaces. We recommend that the groundwater level be verified immediately
prior to construction.
4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB
4.3.1 BUILD4NG FOUNDATION
The soil strata encountered at the SPT boring locations should be adaptable to support
structures having loading conditions within our stated assumptions using conventional shallow
foundations, provided the upper soils to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the footing are
Proposed FSED Site Page 7
UES Report #0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
densified to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (MPMDD) (ASTM D-
1557) prior to foundation construction. We recommend using shallow strip or spread
foundations sized to exert a maximum soil bearing stress of 2,500 pounds per square foot (ps�.
All individual foundations should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade
(finished surrounding grade, for example).
Maintain minimum foundation widths of 24 inches for continuous strip footings, and 30 inches
for isolated column footings, even though the maximum allowable soil bearing stress may not be
developed in all cases. We estimate that foundations so designed will have a minimum factor of
safety of two against bearing capacity failure.
4.3.2 FLOOR SLABS
For the floor slabs, we recommend using a standard concrete slab-on-grade system. A
fibermesh mix should be used to control thermal cracking. Optionally, welded wire mesh could
be used for crack control. If welded wire is used, we recommend using flat wire instead of
rolled. Normal weight concrete having a 28-day compressive strength (f'c) of at least 3000 psi
should be used. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci can be used beneath the proposed
floor slabs, assuming they are supported on compacted structural fill or well compacted existing
subgrade soils (minimum 95% MPMDD).
4�� FLOOR SLAB MO!�T! �RE rQNT!?�L
Per the Florida Building Code, we recommend installing polyethylene vapor barrier between the
bottom of the floor slab and the top of the compacted subgrade. We recommend installing a
minimum 10-mil, polyethylene vapor barrier between the bottom of the floor slab and the top of
the compacted subgrade. This will help to minimize floor dampness and moisture intrusion into
the structure through the slab. Assume a coefficient of friction of 0.2 at the soil-slab interface if
a vapor barrier is used. If no vapor barrier is used, assume a coefficient of friction of 0.35 at the
interface.
4.3.4 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT
For foundations designed as recommended and site earthwork accomplished according to the
recommendations provided later in this report, we estimate totaf foundation sett{ement of less
than one inch, and differential settlement of less than one half inch. However, if the site is not
prepared according to the guide{ines provided later in this repoh, or if our assumptions on
construction type and structural loads are inaccurate, our estimates of total and differential
settlement may be exceeded during the design life of the structures.
�
Proposed FSED Site
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
4.4 PAVEMENT SECTIONS
4.4.1 ASSUMPTIONS
Page 8
We assume that a combination of flexible asphaltic and rigid concrete pavement sections will be
used on this project. Our recommendations for both pavement types are listed in the following
sections.
At the time of this exploration, specific traffic loading information was not provided to us. We
have assumed the folfowing conditions for our recommended minimum pavement design.
• a twenty (20) year design life
• terminal serviceability index (Pt) of 2.5
• reliability of 90 percent
• total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E,BSAL) up to 35,000 for light duty pavements -
car and pickup truck traffic
• total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E18SAL) up to 150,000 for heavy duty
pavements — occasional heavy truck traffic (delivery, trash collection, service lanes, etc.)
4.4.2 LAYER COMPONENTS
Based on the results of our soil borings, the assumed traffic loading information and review of
the 2008 FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual, our minimum recommended pavement
com onent tnicKnesses are resentea in i apie i.
TABLE 1
MINIMUM ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT COMPONENT THICKNESSES
Service Maximum Layer Component
Level Traffic SurFace Course Base Course Stabilized Subgrade
Loading (inches) (inches) (inches)
Light Duty UpE1e AL�� 1'/2 6 12
Heavy Duty up to 150,000 2 8 �2
E1eSAL
4.4.3 STABI�IZED SUBGRADE
We recommend that the stabilized subgrade materials immediately beneath the base course
exhibit a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 as specified by FDOT, or a minimum
Florida Bearing Value (FBV) of 75 psi, compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) value.
,,
Proposed FSED Site Page 9
UES Report #0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
Stabilized subgrade can be imported materials or a blend of on-site and imported materials. If a
blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum
mix proportions.
Compaction testing of the stabilized subgrade should be performed to the full depth at a
frequency of at least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of 3 tests, whichever is
g reater.
4.4.4 BASE COURSE
We recommend the base course be limerock or crushed concrete. Crushed concrete generally
provides a cost-effective alternative material in lieu of limerock and is particularly resistant to
adverse effects from high groundwater conditions. Soil-cement base may also be used;
however, reflection cracking should be expected.
For a limerock or crushed concrete base, the base course should be compacted to a
minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density and exhibit a
minimum LBR of 100. We recommend that the base materials comply with the latest edition of
the FDOT Road and Bridge Construction specifications.
For a soil-cement base, we recommend the contractor perform a soil-cement design with a
seven (7)-day strength of 300 pounds per square inch (psi) on the materials he intends to use.
Place soil-cement in maximum 6-inch lifts uniform and compact in place to a minimum density of
95 percent of the maximum dry density according to specifications in ASTM D-558,°Moisture
Density Relations of Soil Cement Mixtures".
Place and finish the soil-cement according to Portland Cement Association requirements. Final
review of the soil-cement base course should include manual "chaining" and/or "soundings"
seven days after placement. Please note that shrinkage cracks will form in the soil-cement
mixture and vou should expect reflection crackina on the surface course.
Compaction testing of the base course should be performed to the full depth at a frequency of at
least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of 3 tests, whichever is greater.
4.4.5 FLEXIBLE SURFACE COURSE
For the new pavement areas, we recommend that the surfacing consist of FDOT SuperPave
(SP) asphaltic concrete. The surface course should consist of FDOT SP-9.5 fine mix for light-
duty areas and FDOT SP-12.5 and/or SP-9.5 fine mix for heavy duty areas. The asphaltic
concrete should be compacted to an average field density of 93 percent of the laboratory
maximum density determined from specific gravity (Gmm) methods, with an individual test
tolerance of t2 percent. Specific requirements for the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural
course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction.
, �
MM►.i/
Proposed FSED Site
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
Page 10
After placement and field compaction, the surfacing should be cored to evaluate material
thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one (1) core per
10,000 square feet of placed pavement or a minimum of two (2) cores per day's production.
4.4.6 RIGID PAVEMENT OPTION
In heavily loaded andlor high traffic areas such as aprons and garbage corrals we recommend
using a rigid pavement system for increased strength and durability and for longer life. Portland
cement concrete pavement is a rigid system that distributes wheel loads to the subgrade soils
over a farger area than a flexible asphalt pavement. This results in reduced localized stress to
the subgrade soil. We recommend using a compacted subgrade below concrete pavement with
the following stipulations:
Subgrade soils must be densified to at least 98% MPMDD to a depth of at least 1-foot
directly below the bottom of concrete slab.
2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel
rutting corrected prior to placement of concrete.
3. The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete.
4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the
thickened edges (curb or footing).
5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated seasonal high
groundwater level by at least 12 inches.
Our recommendations on slab thickness for standard duty concrete pavements are based on (1)
the subgrade soils densified to at least 98% MPMDD, (2) modulus of subgrade reaction (k)
equal to 150 pci, (3) a 20-year design life, and (4) total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads
(ESAL) of 45,000. We recommend using the design shown in the following table for standard
duty concrete pavements.
TABLE 2
RIGID PAVEMENT COMPONENT RECOMMENDATIONS - LIGHT DUTY
Minimum Pavement Thickness Maximum Control Joint Minimum Sawcut Depth
Spacing
5 Inches 10 Feet x 10 Feet 1.25 Inches
Our recommendations on slab thickness for heavy duty concrete pavements are based on the
same factors as above with the exception of the total ESAL increased to 300,000. Our
recommended design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown in Table 3 below.
�,
Proposed FSED Site Page 11
UES Report #0830.1300279
i„ro �� '�f11 �
�
TABLE 3
RIGID PAVEMENT COMPONENT RECOMMENDATIONS - HEAYY DUTY
Minimum Pavement Thickness Maximum Control Joint Minimum Sawcut Depth
Spacing
6 Inches 14 Feet x 14 Feet 1.5 Inches
For both standard duty and heavy duty rigid pavement sections, we recommend using normal
weight concrete having a 28 day compressive strength (f�) of 4,000 psi, and a minimum 28-day
flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of at least 600 psi (based on the 3 point flexural test of
concrete beam samples). Layout of the sawcut control joints should form square panels, and
the depth of sawcut joints should be at least %4 of the concrete slab thickness.
For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing
of Non-Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products
Association, 1nc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas," published by the Portland
Cement Association.
4.4.7 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER
One of the most critical influences on pavement performance in Florida is the relationship
between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level.
It has been our experience that many roadways and parking areas have been damaged as a
result of deterioration of the base and the base/surface course bond due to moisture intrusion.
Regardless of the type of base selected, we recommend that the seasonal high groundwater
and the bottom of the base course be separated by at least 18-inches. At this site pavement
constructed on existing grade will meet the minimum required separation.
4.4.8 CURBING
Most pavement curbing is currently extruded curb which lies directly atop of the final asphaltic
concrete surface course. Use of extruded curb or elimination of curb entirely, can allow latera!
migration of irrigation water from the abutting landscape areas into the base and/or interface
between the asphaltic concrete and base. This migration of water may cause base saturation
and failure, and/or separation of the asphaltic concrete wearing surtace from the base with
subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. For extruded curbing, we recommend that
underdrain be installed behind the curb wherever anticipated storm, surFace or irrigation waters
may collect. In addition, landscape islands should be drained of excess water buildup using an
underdrain system. Alternatively, we recommend that curbing around the landscape sections
adjacent to the parking lots be constructed using full depth curb sections.
4.4.9 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
Light duty roadways and incomplete pavement sections will not perform satisfactorily under
construction traffic loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (construction equipment,
�./
Proposed FSED Site Page 12
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
concrete trucks, sod trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, etc.) be re-routed away from these
roadways or that the pavement section be designed for these loadings.
4.5 RETAINING WALLS
Earth pressures on retaining walls are influenced by structural design of walls, conditions of wall
restraint, construction methods, and the strength of the materials being restrained. The most
common conditions assumed for earth retaining wall design are the active and at-rest
conditions. Active conditions apply to relatively flexible earth retention structures, such as free-
standing walls, where some movement and rotation may occur to mobilize shear strength. Walls
which are rigidly restrained, such as loading dock or service pits walls, should be designed for
the at-rest condition. Hovarever, if fhe walls will be backfilled before they are braced by the floor
slabs, they should also be designed to withstand active earth pressures as self supporting
cantilever walls.
Development of the full active earth pressure case requires a magnitude of horizontal wall
movement that often cannot be tolerated or cannot occur due to the rigidity of the wall and other
design restrictions such as the impact on adjacent structures. In such cases, walls are often
designed for either the at-rest condition or a condition intermediate of the active and at-rest
conditions, depending on the amount of permissible wall movement.
Passive earth pressure represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed
against the soil, and is used in wall foundation design to help resist active or at-rest pressures.
Because significant wall movements are required to develop the passive pressure, the total
calculated passive pressure is usually reduced by one-half for design purposes.
We recommend that the retaining walls be backfilled with materials deemed suitable by the
retaining wall designer. Typical sandy soils [SP. SP-SM, SP-SCj have been satisfactorily used
as fill in this region. We recommend that the soils selected for use as backfill be tested as
specified by the retaining wall designer prior to commencement of wall construction.
Recommended soil parameters for design of low retaining walls using soils such as those found
on site are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters (Level
Design Parameter
At-rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ko
Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka
of Internal Friction, cp
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, N
Wet Unit Weight, pounds per cubic foot,
Recommended Value
0.5
0.3
30 degrees
3.0
120
* For sloping backfill or backfiN with clayey sands the table values must be adjusted.
""Hydrostatic pressure should be accounted for seasonal high water table estimates and other site drainage
considerations
�
Proposed FSED Site Page 13
UES Report #0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
The recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures do not
consider the development of hydrostatic pressure behind the earth retaining wall structures. As
such, positive wall drainage must be provided for all earth retaining structures. These drainage
systems can be constructed of open-graded washed stone isolated from the soil backfill with a
geosynthetic filter fabric and drained by perforated pipe, or with one of several wall drainage
products made specifically for this application. Our recommendations assume that the ground
surface above the wall is level and that native or imported soils consisting of sands to silty
sands will be used for wall backfill. Lateral earth pressures arising from surcharge loading
should be added to the above earth pressures to determine the total lateral pressure. Additional
consideration must also be given for sloped backfill at the top of the wall. In each circumstance
the earth pressure coefficients for active and at-rest conditions will increase based upon the
amount of surcharge and angle above horizontal of the sloped backfill.
4.6 SITE PREPARATION
We recommend normal, good-practice site preparation procedures. These procedures include
clearing and grubbing the site, proof-rolling and proof-compacting the subgrade, and filling to
grade with engineered fill as needed.
A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows:
The existing structures need to be razed prior to new site development. Execute
demolition according to specifications to be provided by the project Structural Engineer.
Completely remove the affected structures including floor slabs, foundations, and
subgrade utilities. Backfill excavated areas (i.e., footing and utility trenches) according to
the guidelines discussed in Item #6 below.
2. Strip the proposed construction limits of all existing pavement sections (including base
material, where present), grass, roots, topsoil, construction debris, and other deleterious
materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building and in all
paved areas. Expect clearing and grubbing to depths of 6 to 12 inches, on average.
Deeper clearing and grubbing depths may be required where major root systems are
encountered.
3. Proof-roll the subgrade with a heavily loaded, rubber-tired vehicle under the observation
of a Universal Engineering Sciences geotechnical engineer or his representative. Proof-
rolling will help locate any zones of especially loose or soft soils not encountered in the
soil test borings. Then undercut, or otherwise treat these zones as recommended by the
engineer.
4. Prior to any filling of the site, proof-compact the subgrade from the surface using suitable
compaction equipment, until you obtain a minimum density of 95% MPMDD to a depth of
2 feet below stripped grade. In order to achieve the required degree of compaction, the
soils may need to be moisture conditioned until the in-situ water content is within +/- 2%
of the optimum moisture content (OMC).
�� ,
�i �/
�
, Proposed FSED Site
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
Page 14
5. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per
2,500 square feet per foot of depth improvement in the building area. In new paved
areas, perForm compliance tests on the stabilized subgrade for full depth at a frequency
of one test per 10,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is
greater.
6. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of fine to medium sand with less
than 5 percent soil fines. You may use fill materials with soil fines between 5 and
12 percent, but strict moisture control may be required. Place fill in uniform 10 to 12 inch
loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95% MPMDD at moisture
content of +/- 2% of optimum (OMC).
7. Perform compliance tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per
2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or at a minimum of twa test locations,
whichever is greater. In paved areas, perform compliance tests at a frequency of not
less than one test per 10,000 square feet per lift, or at a minimum of two test locations,
whichever is greater.
8. Test all final footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 2 feet. Additionally, we
recommend you test one out of every four column footings, and that you complete at
least one test per every 50 lineal feet of wall footing.
Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent structures. We
recommend you monitor nearby structures before and during proof-compaction. If disturbance
is noted, halt vibratory compaction and inform Universal Engineering Sciences immediately. We
will review the compaction procedures and evaluate if the compactive effort results in a
satisfactory subgrade complying with our original design assumptions.
4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES
Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) operates and maintains an in-house, Florida Department
of Transportation certified Construction Materials Testing laboratory. Our technicians are highly
trained and experienced, and our engineering staff is already familiar with the details of your
project. Therefore, we recommend the owner retain UES to perform construction materials
testing and field observations on this project. This includes monitoring all stripping and grading,
observation of foundation excavation and construction, verification of pavement subgrade and
all other construction testing and inspection services that may be needed on this project.
The geotechnical engineering design does not enc! with the advertisement of the construction
documents. It is an on-going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with
the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, our engineers are the most qualified
to address problems that might arise during construction in a timely and cost-effective manner.
�
Proposed FSED Site
UES Project No. 0830.1300279
June 27, 2013
5.0 LIMITATIONS
Page 15
During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this
report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is
not possible for a geotechnica! engineer to predict and address all possible subsurface
variations. An Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE)
publication, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in
Appendix C, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues. Further, we present
documents in Appendix C: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your attention the potential
concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.
Do not apply any of this report's canclusions or recommendations if the nature, design, or
location of the facilities is changed. If changes are contemplated, UES must review them to
assess their impact on this report's applicability. Also, note that UES is not responsible for any
claims, damages, or liability associated with any other party's interpretation of this report's
subsurface data or reuse of this report's subsurface data or engineering analyses without the
express written authorization of UES.
r�
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED FSED SITE
2339 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD
CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SITE LOCATION MAP
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: LITTLE JOHN ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: JUNE 26, 2013
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT N0: OB30.1300279 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: A
PROPOSED FSED SITE
2339 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD
CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: LITTLE JOHN ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: JUNE 26, 2013
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT N0: 0830.1300279 ; REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: Q
PROPOSED FSED SITE
2339 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD
CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
UNIVERSAL ----
ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: LITTLE JOHN ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: JUNE 26, 2013
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT N0: 0630.1300279 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: A
r ��
� - ;� � � � � �
��, �,. � �,� �,t
� � ���� � � �� �� � �
, _
_ � � R �
.
� ;� �� � � � � �� ��„ �,� �� � ��,� �
�. , 7 ,� � � � -
�. a ,
� ;;
� � � '�' �� ' �� �� � � �-�� � ��� � � �x � �' � �
� � � Q , ,� : � �,,
a � �° � ��'t . � � ' �� r4' "� i �
� � ��, ° j � ':.
� � �,.� ' , kp s6�i2..
,- -. - � ,. �,,,,
� .� �
� � . . v�'^ � �. n � ,r. . . . .
tf , 7�� �' � � " ' . , . -� �_.
� �' F '
p ,�matia ua �fl*. . �„
��. 34 �'' 'd'�.P�f � y�, � .. .w
. �� � � � , i'"
'� °3.�` -�p "�'�. s €_ ��° ,� .� . 'i' :hr x .WYn
�F �' � f +�" � isc:..
' ' ° � . :�i^. �, �� ��Tr ��� `",
� y . e
� � .....-_ �4.�
� , ����, # " ��alst . ✓ _ . � �y.
r � s,
„"d'+_`« , < � ,..�° "s' �� y,. �f� ��.. �� G �� 'aw�'l
�N',le; � � � Xk�=c_ �� � � . � � �" �"r��..,..
F � � ��r w �
��� � �, �:
. ,
� � E �� � �.� �
�° -; � � � s��-,
� A, � . �
�� � ���.ii�.1f.� ! �� i I' � � � r � �
. �� : _
�. �
� < � . �; x. . . P���, _ �� �
� � �>
a ., r : � ,
� `_( ... �:. � .�. �
. �e l �`� � , t • - . : e �
� � � �;,� �,� � P � - �.� "� '`� n �°- � � , -� ` � „ � �
�' �, � � � � � � : � �� a,31 ;� � ,� ��-: _
� � `i � � � �w �� �� � �� � � ���` � ��
� _ > ss �, �
� . - , �. ;, � ��r �
��1 v�'ff; `�
4�1-5!
4th� � q,�. '�1�;+��+�G;
��� �
5ih St �iy;
u�' �+
�c �i °7"
cn� m �,:
z� ; •— � Gttt 'St
f
cv'
� $th Sf
.�, � 7th-St _
�.�,� �
Et�
r� � w 7U� S#
�
�fh S# •-
_ _., u� 8th_Si � 7th 5t '�
� �` �
��`�� 8th St
�?� -
9ifi St �` � � _ �
�,
,��, �� 9th 5t.
� �� '!0#h St
10th
►..
�J
PROPOSED FSED SITE
2339 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD
CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SCS SOIL SURVEY MAP
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERiNG SCIENCES CUENT: LITTLE JOHN ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: JUNE 26, 2013
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT N0: OB30.1300279 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: /�
APPENDIX B
� � �
i
��''�� '"�� '� �.� ,5 .� � a�,��:�,�. �*4"��� �#�-�g
�u."��� o � � �, � ��� ;� � � 3
� �,�e�a.� � ,t� � �:� , �€, �`� , ��^� �.e#. , �* ��- �¢ i
�' � �� �� ' ^�` * � " ,� �, � �� � §��4 ��G'". � " � ��»:�'u� �
� � � ,.r n�-° �. �` �
.d < m . , , ` .a�„
� � m, � �� ���
�
� � ��. � - � �` ' �," � �, . � � . �, �� _ , � x,� � m�;".'�.�» � ...� �
,
.. ,.,. �i. »�-m...n�-,?,e�:�.*'a,..5�+, e�„ .� �. F e Sh,u �� -+�" °m.'a1iTM.�,«m;e�vn,�.a3%�mM " �r, �
� .. ... .. ... ., , '0���
�'
{ I I � �� t�� ,
�'
y � ,A � i �
3
4 y i
� + i
&,�°".
� .
� .
� � r
� �.F�" �� ��. _
i
,�. } � i�k'+� .WRz
# �
.�
�/'"
� inrm
1MIM�MeM�11RM+
��� �''�'91P If�{I� E�ply•
.. f 1�� �MI�AII
�.
� M �
' l � ��I��
,, ,
� �
�
�
�'
;
� a a �P . �
��� m.,�. _rv r �_� .
� _ -�—
� � �'° �'" � a � � � � ��, � ,; � � � � � ; ����
. y,�"�s*�_ ���`' �?��-"�� ,*� N �, �..�%� ������' _ �"� �"_. ��: s�"�� .s' ',.� _�._��,�.���`' . �,.�.� _ ;�' _'�"
� *� '
�� "'•
� ��"�`�' �"�"
�� � ,� � ..���
�: ;�.�
LEGEND:
� A-1 Approximate Auger boring locatian
-$-8-1 Approximate SPT boring location
��
PROPOSED FSED SITE
2339 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD
CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
BORING LOCATION PLAN
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: LITTLE JOHN ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: JCIA DATE: JUNE 26, 2013
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT N0: 0830.t300279 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: B
.� � �
UNiVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0830.1300279
9802PaImRiverRoad gORING LOG �
Tampa, Florida 33619 APPENDIX:
(813) 740-8506 PAGE: 1
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Bou{evard
Cleanvater, Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P,E,
CLIENT: Little John Enginee�ng
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS: NE stands for Not Encountered
BORING DESIGNATION: A�� SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6l14/13
WATER TABLE (ft): NE DATE FINISHED: 6/14/13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED 8Y: J.H.
EST, W,S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: AUGER
S S
A Y ATTERBERG ORG
DEPTH M BLOW N SPT-N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTI�N -200 MC LIMITS
(ft) L CoUNTS (bp� (bp� W 8 (%) (%) (%)
T O LL PL PI
:E n �s 50 �
� Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" limerock
� baaal
Bruwn gray sand (SP)
2
Medium brown sand (SP)
3
4 Light brown sand (SP)
g................ .— . _.,. ,.�. .._ _ ..._ .,..._ ..,.. , .... .. .,_ _� . . _ , . � . ..._ _. .. ..., . . ... . . ._.
6
� Boring terminated at 7 ft.
r7
$i
�
~U
i1
w
z
N
�
a
i?
�
�
p
0
m
c
�
�
z
�
m
�
w
�
r
J
Q
I� � �
UNIVERSAL ENGINEEftING SCIENCES PROJECT NO,: 0830.1300279
9802 Paim River Road B O R I N G LO G
7ampa, Floride 33619 APPENDIX:
(813) 740-8506 PAGE: 2
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E.
CLIENT: Li�le John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LaCATION PLAN
REMARKS: NE stands for Not Encountered
BORING DESIGNATION: A�2
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14/13
WATER TABLE (ft): NE DATE FINISHED: 6/14/13
DATE OF READlNG: DRILLED BY: J,H.
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: AUGER
SHEET: � Of �
RANGE:
5 S
A Y ATTERBERG ORG
DEPTFI M BLOW N SPT.N va DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS
(ft) L COUNTS (bPf) (bP�i W ', BO (%) (%) �%)
E 75 � LL PL PI v
9 Brown sand (SP)
1
2
3 Gray sand (SP)
4
Light brown sand (SP)
g. �.,� . ,....�. �.... ...=r: .... .. ..........°e, ., �� ..,e..,.. . .. , ._ _... ...... _ _ ,. ._..., ..._ _ . ._� ..,. ,, - -
6
� Boring terminated at 7 ft,
�
�
�
A
t?
u�i
z
�
�
a'
c�
n
0
c°�
0
�
O
�
4�
2
a
0
m
�
�
�
�
�, � e
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO,: 0830.1300279
9802 Paim River Road """"""'—'—
Tampa, Florida 33619 BORI NG LOG APPENDIX:
(813) 740-8506 PAGE: 3 �
PROJECT:
ENGINEER:
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater. Florida
Surendra Sagi, P,E.
Little John Engineering
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
NE stands for Not Encountered
BORING DESIGNATION: A�3 SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14/13
WATER TABLE (ft): NE DATE FINISHED: 6/14/13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: J.H.
EST. W.S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: AUGER
S S
A Y ATiERBERG
DEPTH M e�Ow N SPT-N vs DEPTH C M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS ORG
(tt) L COUNTS (bpfl (bPf) W 8� (%) (%) (%)
E � L LL PL PI
� Asphakic concrete pavement (2" esphalt, 4" limerock
� pasa)
� Drown ra aend (E3P
2 Gray sand (SP)
3
4
Light brown sand (SP)
g., ........ , ,. a ....... . ......rt,,, ._..,.. _ . , . .., _ _..... . . . ._ _ _ �..._ . _ ,. , e�..e, .,.. . . ...,.., .. ,.. . ,., . . ., _,.
6
� Boring terminated at 7 ft.
�
�
N
m
�
ia
�
z
w
�
'a
C9
ai
N
O
�
O
W
O
�
Q
�
Z
�
�
m
y
�
H
J
Q
J � �
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO_: 0830.1300279
9802PaImRiverRoad gORING LOG
Tampa, Fbrida 33619 APPENDIX:
(813) 740-8506 PAGE: 4
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwffier, Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E,
CLIENT: Little John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS: NE stands for Not Encountered
BORING DESIGNATION: A� SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14/13
WATER TABLE (ft): NE DATE FINiSHED: 6i14/13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: J.H.
EST. W.S.W,T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: AUGER
A Y ATTERBERG pRG
DEPTH M B�oW N SPT-N va DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIM�TS
(ft) P COUNTS (bp� IbPfl W O (%) (%) (°�)
E � �� Fn L LL PL PI
� Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphatt, 4" limerock
1 ���
i3ray brown sand (�F}
2 Medium brown sand (SP}
3 Light brown sand {SP)
4
5 _ . ...,., .... , . . ..:.., ... ... . . ........ .:.. . . ., .. ... .. �. _ , - ... _ . ..., .. , , ,. ......
6
� Boring terminated at 7 ft.
�
�
�
�
�
w
a
N
�
0.
�
m
0
m
0
m
0
C7
O
�
2
K
m
y
�
H
J
Q
♦� ' �
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
9902 Pahn River Road
Tampa, Florida 33619
{813)740-85Q6
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E.
C�IENT: Little John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS: NE stands for Not Encountered
PROJECT NO.: 0830.1300279
BORING LOG APPENDIX:
PAGE: . 5
BORING DESIGNATION: A�rJ SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14113
WATER TABLE (ft): NE DATE FINISHED: 6114/13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: J.H.
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: AUGER
I� t
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
9602 Palm River Road
Tampa, Fiorida 33619
(813j 740-8506
PROJECT: Propased FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E,
CLIENT: Little John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS: NE stands for Not Encountered
PROJECT NO.: 0830.1300279
BORING LOG APPENDIX:
PAGE: 6
BORING DESIGNATION: A-s SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14113
WATER TABLE (ft): NE DATE FINISHED: 6/14/13
DATE OF READING: DRIILED BY: J.H.
EST, W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: AUGER
ATfERBERG ORG
DEPTH M BLOw N SPT-N vs �EPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS
(ft) L couN15 (bpf) (bPf) W B� (°�) (%) (%)
LL PL PI
£ 0 25 50 L
� Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" limerock
�
base}
darlc brown send (SP)
2 Brown sand (SP)
3
4 LigM brown sand {SP)
5 ,. . . .. , _ .. .. ... . ... ...... .. .._ _, ,. , _. .. .... ._ .., ., . . . .. .
6
� Boring terminated at 7 ft.
�
m
�
a
�
w
z
�
�
'a
C?
m
0
c°n
C9
m
a
�
t3
Z
C
�
�
W
�
�
J
G
l� � {
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
9802 Palm River Road
Tampa, Florida 33619
(813)740-8506
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearvvater, Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E.
CLIENT: Little John Enginaering
LOCATION; SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS: NE stands for Not Encountered
_
PROJECT NO.: 0830.1300279
BORING LOG APPENDIX:
PAGE: 7
BORING DESIGNATION: A�% SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14/13
WATER TABLE (ft): NE DATE FINISHED: 6/14/13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: J.H.
EST. W,S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: AUGER
,+ � �
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERWG SCIENCES
9802 Palm River Road
Tampa, Fiorida 33619
(813J�40-6506
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E,
CLIENT: Little John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING LOG
PROJECT NO.
APPENDIX:
PAGE:
0830,1300279
8
BORING DESIGNATION: B'� SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP; RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE S7ARTED: 6/14113
WATER TABLE (ft): > 10 DATE FINISHED: 6/14l13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: J•N.
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING SPT
�� � �
��
UNNERSAL ENGiNEERtNG SCfENCES
9842 Paim River Raad
Tampa, Florida 33619
(813)740-8508
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Fbrida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E,
CLIENT: Little John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
PROJECT NO,; 0830,1300279
BORING LOG APPENDIX:
PAGE: 9
BORING DESIGNATION: B�2 SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14/13
WATER TABLE (ft): > 10 DATE FINISHED: 6/14(13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED 6Y: J,H,
EST, W.S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT
S S
ATTERBERG ORG
DEPTH M BLOW N SPT-N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS
(ft) P COUNTS (bpf) (bPr) W B ' (%) (%) (%)
� T O LL PL ' PI
E 0 25 50 L
� Asphaltic concrete p8�rement (2" asphaft)
Llmerock base
Gray brown sand (SP)
Brown sand (SP)
5 , . . .., �e. ..,�., .. .;. .n...,, e .,.,�.�.�..T.. . ,.... _ ....... ... ... . _ .. .._... ___ _
Dark brown sand (SP)
5-6-7 13
7-7-8 15
12-12-17 29
10 . . .� ...... ......... . . ., _,.. .,, ,.. . .,...,. .,,. . ,. .. . .. _. ,
, ....
10-10-17 27
15 .13-13-2Z _ 4A ... .. , , . .... . ..
� ' Brown sand (SP)
s�
� Zp � �� 8-]2-15,,. , 27.. „ --....,.... � Gray brown sand (SP) � .... ,__, .., .a :,. � . -- . _
m
c�i
t'.r
w
z
w
�
� �
a 25 ,� &-Z,9.,.,. 16. ,:,,,. ,
.. _. . , ... _..
� Boring terminated at 25 ft.
0
�
O
�
�
x'
0
m
�
w
�
�
r� ' �
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
9802 Palm River Road
Tampa, Florida 33619
(813)74D-8506
PROJECT: Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater. Florida
ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E.
CLIENT: Little John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
PROJECT NO.: 0830,1300279
BORING LOG APPENDIX: �
PAGE: 10
BORING DESIGNATION: B�3 SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSNIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14i13
WATER TABLE (ft): > 10 DATE FWISHED: 6/14/13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: J.H,
EST. W,S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT
� ��
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
9862 Palm River Road
Tampa, Florida 336�9
(813j74Q-8506
PROJECT:
ENGINEER:
CUENT:
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
Surendra Sagi, P,E.
Little John Engineering
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
PROJECT NO.: 0830.1300279
BORING LOG APPENDIX:
PAGE: 11
BORING DESIGNATION: B-4 SHEET: � O� �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 6/14l13
WATER TABLE (ft): > 10 DATE FINISHED: 6/14/13
DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: J,H,
EST. W,S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING SPT
5 S
ATTERBERG ORG
DEPTH M B�oW N SPT•N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS
(ft) L COUNTS (bpf) (bP� W B� (�o) (�o) (°�)
� n �� 5o L LL PL PI
p Limerock base
Gray brown sand (SP)
Btgn�m sand (�P) .. __ � , . , , . , . :. _ . e ;
5 � .� .. �.f << ..,., e,,,. _ ...,. .,...- � .__ ,, _. .. _ ._. . _ .__ ....
Light brown sand (SP)
4-6-8 14
5-5-'10 15
Dark brown sand (SP)
22-22-20 42
10 ... . .. ... ...... ,. ._. ,, . . _. .,. .., _ _ _. .. _.
15-13-15 28
�
_... ._, ,. � . ._ _ ..e ���
15 7-10-12. . 22 . . ., _. . _ Brown sand (SP)
"' „_ ...., ,.. _ _
10:33-5014",.831.1,0" . ..,_ _-_, ._ . - --�... _.. .,,.,,
� 20 . . yy . _.,. .... .,
e
0
c�
�
tn
�
�
a
�
03
0 25 15-15.-24 ,,. 39 _ � _- - . .
o � Boring terminated at 25 ft.
�o
m
0
C7
O
�
Kp
ci
�
tlt
�
F
J
d.
t� � I
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
9802PaImRiverRoad SOIL CLASSIFiCATION CHART
Tampa, Flmida 33619
(B13) 7408506
TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY OR CONDITION
COARSE-GRpINE�SQSC$ {ma)or portions retained on No. 200 sieve): indutles (4) ciean
gravel and sands a»d (2} s�tyrorclayey gravels and sands. Condition is rated ac�oMir�g ta
retativa density as determined by laboratory tests or standard peneVetion tesisiasice t6sts.
Descriotive Terms Relative Densitv SPT Blow Count
Very loose 0 to 16 % < 4
Loose 75 to 35 °h 4 to 10
GENERAL NOTES
1, Class�cations are based on the United Soil Classification
System and include consistency, moisture, and color. Field
descriptions have been modified to reflect results of lebaratory tests
where deemed appropriate.
2, Surface elevations are based on topographic maps and estimated
locations.
Medium dense 35 to 65 % 10 to 30 3. Desaiptionsnn these horinq lags apply oNy atthe specific
Dense 65 to 85 °k 30 to 50 bonng Ioeetions and.�Ythe time the bonngs were mede. They are
Very dense 8S to l00 % � SU notgua�ranteetl to be representiative ot subsurface conditions at other
loca6ons or times.
FINE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions passing on No. 200 sieve): inGudes (1) inorganic and �� sYMBOLS
organic silts and clays, (2) gravelly, sandy, or silty clays, and (3) clayey silts. Consistency is �
rated according to shearing strength, as indicated by penetrometer readings, SPT blow count, ��������
ar unconfined compression teats '��� `�'�
FILL iCP9Ol1. M'PNAIT OOYGEIE 64A BIMIW BMANY bLTY YEY
911T qAY SIdA 9�n0
Unconflned Compressive � � � � � � � �
DescNoUve Terms Stren9th kPa SPT Blow Count
Very soft �?J � 2 PERT &lT 8LT ORWNIC CIAV �Y UYES�OhE LIUF9TONE OOIONRE
ow r+� su �ow wa��
$Oft 25 to 50 2�O 4 °�'� "^ T'� �f° �T'� `�"�"��0
Medium stiff 50 to 100 4 to 8 OTHER SYMBOLS
Stiff 100 to 20� 8 to 15
Very stiff 200 to 400 15 to 30 1 Measured Water � Estimated Seasonal
�.,.,� � dnn > 30 Table Level High Water Table
Major Divisions C'roup TypicaN Names Laboratory ClassificaYron Criteria
Symbols
x
� a, Well-greded gravels, gravel-sand �_�� greater lhan 4 C= ��3D� between 1 and 3 � o a o
o a�� y� C'w mjxtures, litUe or no t�nes u D,a � D,o x D,� � N �° s�
� �H rn °c � ... . --- - � 3k o 0
� °' d m d Poorl raded raveis, raveFsand �' v �� #
"' m'� �= GP Y�g 9 9 Not meeting en gradaUOn reqwrements for G W
� �� � mixtures, little or no fines z N o �
.N.� oZ . � a n. N
°oU�'m� y a�Z E Ul
N t m � d d GM Silty graveis, graveE-sand-s{It � � �n Atterberg 6mfts below "A" q�ye "A" line wi[h P.1 y.
o ��� a� mixtufes � � L � fine or P.I less than 4 �.
m- L m, � w .o . belween 4 antl 7 are borderv �
Z $ v = a
�� �� 3�� o� m� � line cases requinng use of �
�v�, � ° u, i a o Clayey g�8v81Q gravel-sand-Silt o E�� a c�n �� At[erberg lamits above "A° dual symbols a
�-`� ¢ GC miutu�es � � N � line or P.I greater than 7 N
� " �'s� 's�H v' d °o �
�� o�y�i�a NU vi z E o� Q o g
� W �� d Wetl-graded sands, gravetly sands, �€� � c� � p�o 9�ter than 6, C= ��30� betwaen 1 and 3 E o F N g
°- °' �+= � S W (jttle or n0 f ines � m � � C� D,o c D,Q x D�p y� p o N
.�� ii�y yo acp �iU'�- C
t? E ;° ; c c� ._.... vmi `o +b � : �
� �„ m o, pooAy-graded sands, gravetly sands„ o�,=' i � m Not meehng aEl gradaUon requyremeNs for SW
� m� �� SP p�e or na fines "� '' g•
�g � �p��y� _ :
� � OZ ... . .... m � ..
`N,C1C �Q.�.
�� L m $ c� ,°r' $ ntteroerg umils be�ow -a".
�-`• �� c SM Silty sands, sand-sjh m'tztures Q o�, � c� line or P.1 less than a Above "A" line with P.1 ��' 44 ��
� Y_ r,m � �, �£� N between 4 and 7 are bortler- u �„�
�£'; �_° ��$ y w" line cases requinng use oT � o �°� a$i o.
�'" a a o�� � d m � g,;, Atterberg limits above "A° dual symbols � = r10n "� �
�"' '� � a d d line or P.L. greater man 7 (� i
�._ � SC Clayey sands, sand-cisy mixtures a�
og�
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, ',
„ ML rock floor, silty or Gayey fine sands ao ! � e � �'
N� y� orclayeysiltswithslightplesticily FORCIARIFIC/�TIDNOFFINE-CiNA1NE�801lANU � � ' ���
� � E N . FWE�GRAINEDFNNCTIONOFCOPHSEi'iRAINED6011S ,4�v ; � O � O
N �_ � inorganic days of low to medium 70 „��' l a� o � s
0 9�� CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy Gays, vks1� � � � N
N N J q silty Gays, lean Gays � ..Q� N ��"�
� N v� Organfc silts and organic sUty ctays aya � � d
o� �� of low plas6city Z � �)�' �
� m Inorganic silts, micaceous or disto- �`4 a � N m a
�� MH maceous tine sandy or siity sous, /
�'" o organtcsitts �� � � � g �
��� " E � �� o�' E `° s' N m
� m ��� Inorganic ciays of high ptasGcaty, x° °" r`� iO �g,
< �
E � 3� CH f a t c l a y s �' {�� M oR OH
$ �.�o- � �o
ci
r � � ��„� Organic clays of inedium to h{gh a Nt� OL
� plesticity, organic silts � ° ' ° � m d �
Y L4QlRD LIMaT (LL) m n y
.��. > d � ° �
� � o N Pt Peat and other highty organic soils � � LL U U m
Plasticity Chart �
• wnen tne percen[ passing a no zw siavn is uc�wnn�� �� e� �, ���a, a ��_� =r ��•�� �� W�° •° °°• •-•° •� •- --•-
For exampfe; SP-SC, pooriy-gretled sand with Gay content belween 5% and 12�0.
APPENDfX C
,� � �
� ■ ■
eo e
c nica
n
ineerin
e or
�----- --�
�� �i���� ��t�
Geotechnicaf engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfitl the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering sludy is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelytor the client. No
one except you should rely on yaur geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And rro one
— not even you — shoultl apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read tl�e � Report
Serious problems have occurretl because those relying or� a geotechnical
engineering report did nol read it all. Do nal rely on an execut+ve summary
Do not read se(ected elements only.
A �ot�ch�cal �itt�% Is Based on
A 11111q11� Set Of �� f8Ct01'S
Geotechnical engineers consitler a number of unique, projact-specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
cMient's goals, objectives, and risk managemen[ preferences; the general
nature of the structure invoived, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site irnprovemenls,
such as access raads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otfr
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
� not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• camFleted before impartant projer,t changes were matle.
Typicai changes khat can erode the reliability af an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those ihat affect:
• the function of 1he proposed structure, as when il's changed irom a
parking garage to an office building, or from a figh� indusUial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientat+on, or weight of Ihe
proposed structure,
• composition of the design tearn, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, a!►w�ys inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes—eaen minor ones—and requesl an assessment of their impac�.
Geotechnical engineers cannof accept responsi6ility or lia6ility ior problems
thal occur trecause their reports do not consider deueloprrtenfs of which
they were nof intormed.
�BCe � �! �
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing repartwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to Ihe site:
or by natural events, such as (loods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. A/ways contact the geotechnical engineer 6efare applying the report
lo determine if it is skill reGable. A minor arnount of additiona! testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most GeatednHCa1 Fan�gs Are Wroiessional
Site�expl�oration idenkifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
su�surface lests are conducked or samp(es are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply lheir professional
judgment to rentler an opinion about subsurface condi�ions throughoul the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significan�ly—
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed yaur report to provide construction observaiion is the
most effective method of managing the risks asso�iated with unanticipated
conditions.
A�eport's Recommendations Are Ab� Final
Do not overrely on the co�struction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical eng+-
neers develop them principaUy �rom judgmern and opinion. Geotechnical
enginaers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
� �
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engine�r who developed your report cannot assume responsibiliry or
liabifity for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
consfruction obseruafion.
p seotecl�l 6�gi�ri� Report � Subject to
1�8�'�1'��R
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costiy problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members o( the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Conhactors can
also misinterprei a geotechnial engineering repod, Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing const�ucfion observation.
UO NOt R�'8111t #� �'�"�_ �
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their inkerpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering repo�t should
neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectura! or ather design tlrawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduciion is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from fhe report can eteuate risk.
Ei118 C011�1'BCtAi't il � �i�`i �
�
Some ownets antl design professionals misiakenly believe �hey can make
conlraetors liaial� tor unanti�ipate�i subsurta�e co�iitions by lirniting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
lractors the complete geolechnical engineering report, bul preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal In that lette�, advise contrac�ors fhat the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid deveiopmenl and that the
reporYs accuracy is limited; encourage them to canfer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types oi information they
need or prefer A ptebid conference can also be valuable_ 8e sure contrac-
tors have sulficient time to perform additionaf study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial respansibili�ies
stemming from unanticipated conditions
Read ii�fortsibi�tY Provisans Closcq►
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do noi recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expeclations khat
have led to disappointments, cfaims, and disputes. To heip reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limita�ions"
many af these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fuiiy and frankly.
6e0l�IV�1'OIr116111'� i.�11�MIS AI'C IYOt COY�d
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mentalstudy tliffer significantiy from those used lo perform a geotechnica!
study Fnr that reason, a geulechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood oi encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipafed environmenta! problems have !ed
to numerous project failures If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guitlance. Do not rely on an environmental reporf prepared Jor
someone else.
(�� jl p� ��� TO DC�I YYllh MOId
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amoun[s of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, al! such strategies should be
devised ior lhe e�ress purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with d+ligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultani. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development ol seaere mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces tlry,
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
atldressed as part �i the geokechnicai engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
�rcject is nat a m�1d pr�vent:nr� cetrsultzni: �rra�re af the services per-
iarmed in cnrrrre�'ian with th� g�ot�hr�B�l errgineer s study
w�rs des%�ned or cnr�dtrcted tarc t�e �rtrrpas� �f mald prev�n-
�ion. Ptopef imple�te�f�tTtrn tif ihe t�cttmmetttt�ifot►s canveyed
in this report wifl nat a� i�setf �� srttlicie�rt ttr �rrec�nt mr�l�
/rom growing in ar on tfr� sir�rcture invt�ived.
Re1� on xo� ASf�Men� seotechnc�al
6�1�!!1' �01' Adt��i1� A$�5�811GC
Membership in ASFE(fHE BEST PEOP� ot� EnRTH exposes geotechnica!
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction projec�. Confer
with you AS�E-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
A�E
THE BESr PEOP� on E�Rni
88iS Cc+lesville Road{Suite G1Qfi, Siivar Spr�t�g, MD 2091d
Telephone:301/565-2733 Eacsimi±e:301/589-2017
e-mail: intaC�?asfe.arg rrwwasfe.o�g
Copyright 2004 by ASFE. !nc Duplicatian, reproduCtron, or copying o1 fhis document, in �vhole or m part by any means wha[soever, �s strictry prohitrrted, except with ASFf §
specitiC written permission, fxcerpling, qupting, or ofherwise extrac7mg vrord+rtg from this documenl is permitfed only with the express written permission of ASfE, and onry for
pfrrposes of sCholarly �esearch or book review. Only membe�s of ASFE may use fhis document as a complement to or as an element ol a geotechnica! engineering report Any other
lirm, individuaf, or other enfity tha! so uses fhrs document viithoul being an ASFE member coutd be committmp negl�gent or intentionat (frauduJenq misrepresentation,
IIGER08641 DM1RP
�� � 1
CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS
WARRANTY
Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in
accordance with generally accepted soif and foundation engineering practices, and makes no
other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report.
UNANTICIPATED SOlL CONDITIONS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report
does not reflect any va�iations which may occur between these borings.
The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become known until construction
begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after pertorming
on-site observations and noting the characteristics of any variations.
CHANGED COND1TiONS
We recommend thatthe specifications forthe project require thatthe contractorimmediately notify
Universal Engineering Sciences, as well as the owner, when subsurface conditions are
encountered that are different from those present in this report.
No claim by the contr�ctar for any canditions dif�ering from those anticipated in the plans,
specifications, and those fou�d in this report, should be allawed unless the ca�tractar notif�s #he
owner and Universa{ Engineering Sciences of such cha�ged canditions. Fut#her, w� �ec�mmend
that all foundation work and site improvements E�e observed by a representative of Universat
Engineering Sciences to monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions and
to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report.
MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT
Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and opinions contained within
this report based upon the data relating only to the specific project and location discussed herein.
If the conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are made by others, those
conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences.
CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION
This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of #his project and to assist the acchitect
or engineer in the design of this project. !f any ct�anges in the design or lo�atian �f the struc#ure
as outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are inciuded ar added tha# are nvt
discussed in the report, the conclusions and re�ommendatic�r�s contain�d in ihis report s�rall not
be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conctusions modified or approved
by Universal Engineering Sciences.
USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS
Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report
was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction
operations.
Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test caissons or other explorations to
determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering
Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached
boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurFace conditions which will affect
construction operations.
STRATA CHANGES
Strata changes are indicated by a definite fine on the boring logs which accompany this report.
However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between
soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available
information and may n�t be shown at the exact depth.
OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING
Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling and sampling, such as:
water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative ease or resistance to drilling progress,
unusual sample recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however, lack of
mention doss not preclude their presence.
WATER LEVELS
Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during drilling and they indicate normally
occurring conditions. Water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has
been reviewed and interpretations made in this �eport. However, it must be noted thatfluctuations
in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other
factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of
such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such
possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations.
LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS
All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering
Sciences to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects during the course of this exploration
and that no attempt was made by Universai Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried
objects. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be resparYSibfe for any buried man-made objects
which are subsequently encountered �iuring construction that are not �iiscusseci within the text of
this report.
TIME
This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of exploration. If the report is not used in a
teasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additianal reviews may
be required.
�e � .
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering � Environmental Sciences
Canstructian Adaterials Tespng � Threshold Inspection • Plans Review
Privat� F+raviderBuilding lnspection • Geophysical Services
August 20, 2013
LittleJohn Engineering Associates
1615 Edgewater Drive, Suite 180
Orlando, Florida 32804
Attention: Ben Ellis, PE
Reference: Additional Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed FSED Site — Stormwater Pond
2339 Gutf to Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
UES Project No. 0830.130Q279
Dear Mr. Ellis:
OFFICES IN:
• Atlanta
• Daytona
• Fort Myers
� Fort Pierce
• Gainesville
• Jacksonville
• Kissimmee
• Leesburg
• Miami
• Ocela
• Orlando (Headquarters)
• Palm Coast
• Panema City
• Pensacola
• Rockledge
• Sarasota
• Tampa
• West Patm Beach
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has completed additional geotechnical exploration
on the above-referenced site in Clearyvater, Pinellas County, Florida. Our scope of services was
in general accordance with UES Proposal #0830.0413.13, dated April 07, 2013, and authorized
by you. This letter report should be used in canjunction with our earlier geotechnical report
issued on June 27, 2013.
The subsurface conditions within the stormwater pond area were explored with a total of two (2)
SPT borings designated B-5 and B-8, each extended to a depth of 20 feet below existing grade.
These borings were advanced using the rotary wash method, and samples were collected while
performing the Standard Penetration Test at regular intervals. A boring location plan along with
corresponding boring logs is attached to this letter report.
We performed the SPT test in general accordance with ASTM D-1586 guidelines. However, at
depths of 10 feet or less we sampled continuously in order to detect slight variations in the soil
profile. !n general, a standard split-barrel sampler (split-spoon) is driven into the soil using a
140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler 12 inches, after first seating it 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or
SPT-N value. This value is used as an index to soil strength and consistency. The top 4.0 feet
of all SPT borings were advanced using a hand auger. This technique is a part of our safety
procedure due to proximity of underground utility lines that may not have been located by One-
Call Sunshine.
The subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the boring locations generally began with a layer of
3 inches of asphalt underlain by sand and sand with silt (SP and SP-SM) to a maximum
explored depth of 20 feet below the existing grade. The provided soil profile is very general in
nature and represents a composite of soil conditions and some deviations were encountered.
The individual boring logs should be reviewed for detailed soil conditions.
The shallow water table was encountered at a depth of 8 feet below existing grade at our boring
locations.
9802 Palm River Road • Tampa, Florida 33619 • 813-740-8506 • Fax 813-740-87Q6
a� � e
Based upon our visual inspection of the recovered soil samples, review of information obtained
from SWFWMD and the USDA Soil Survey of Pinellas County, and our knowledge of local and
regional hydrogeology, our best estimate is that the seasonal high groundwater level within the
stormwater pond area could be 6.0 feet below the existing grade at the test boring locations, on
average.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a
continued association with LittleJohn Engineering Associates. Please do not hesitate to contact
us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.
Certificate of Authorization No. 549
3 — Client
` 1{t11ft1lyt�fj�
,,�ti�'� '�� DF� �,fi/��'{i
S- +�,�
�' � . �,���nr��.,��, :
. : , .� ;-
Surendra V. Sag�M.��, �. r
Geotechnical Ma$age5` ��. 741i9� �t —
Florida Lice se a. 74Q96 '� ;*=
Date a.o e', : SfiA'1'E C,�F ; �
,,� .,�Q- .
',�'�f •�/���p`.����` ,�``�•
�fjfr'�j��`fli�AL �������4��
rrini
.+ � �
. a � �� w
'�°�-"�s�'�p.��, ...: ���. �JF�� �- x . F } � � .. � �}n�l� ��k3 f"� kS K As Y
��ix , �,�� �w�,-� � � ��x� ' � � H�'�E�e l+aq ���
��` �� '� v _ ?. , � . �
3�, t "n` r e� *� `� `" �, .;' .. ' .. "�' � � '� .�„,�itr�. "f � � � '�'* � � ' P
�� * p�� � �� �a _ �� . �:#���` ��A4 ��i � �� �� kf �
a y v
. a . yv . aiy. �,rtA .
mx • .. +t+ ... a -, . n. . k...y x �_ ....,. . �w _ .. o. .sarAw../e.e-M, ...� .Y° +a%;�.'"r'Xk%�� �"i'C'Y�F,� :�+FSS'.rr� v e q1t���,��
* n ° ..,. .�w�.d. xr � �� � a�,�+nillalt �
a7 ,e; ra� ' na � ��a:���.,. �c ; �°*"�"" � »a�"� � '��� �`*u�c �i , �� �.,z-n��^ Pf" .�'i+� , .� ..;
j, �' b� a .��-+w "H :�,C `��° . '�� .. ��r � � � ��-�' ,.,nA'� �+Y.� c+" an.���" ���"� ; �%«.r
� b:,..., at' .att 6-wv '#P ,m ,t Mk�°'✓1 `�L+�+
� . ;�.� �-. Yi r � � �.' �
�*-� °`� ,.�,r�., � + _ .t ,,� ' � � u.u`�?�� � � ���'.
��..�.Y n y � g � '�"•�`'�r s. w a °�+ . '�vd' d. u }� ��" � �;p�;4 �'at� ��6's`R""i '� i ��'4 , � �
`��m' "t�k „ '"-° k �
4 $, . '`�' �, � ;y � "F'F'^'
,� q - �^',' � ���" � M'° �M' d ¢ "" M . � ; w�rwaWfw'""`�,v'p�'
� ""�'A„` —.>n ,a�r ..�.._'!"",$�_4� §�„�'�....e r � .,. „A .. x .. .. .wn .�^�a � c�.R+nra^ x.,. « °� '"" ';,,»;f ,�'
��
_ . ... . ,.:. , e . . .vriiF:b � . .
� ��
i
�. .
�i, � �+, ;
� �� ���-� �
, �
e- ' , '
��i'i'����� ���°�I
.
M ����■� � ■
��
:� �
. ��
� .
� � � ��
� � �.��
�r�� ���� � ���, ., �� �� � �� �.,� �.� �� �
� �
� �� �, �, ���,r.
��, � �� � � � ��, � . �� � � � �
�..
,, ,�,��' ��: �" r �, �'a+
' +''"""l
� _. s ._.,� `� � � �,� �_�J`"� y ,.vu" _:'�
.�� - _ � � a ., �
�.. . . _ � I .. _. s � _ .. �� t' k Mi .., +' 1 - `= s� _� G � . .
�B-5 Additional performed SPT boring location
��'°'t ay .�� �, yy
w" j � �_ � �,`� ba"
y � " � ^# � .
Rw,��"'�'�.�'i.�,,:. ., �..i °d..vwm"�"'��h�:`.
�!.. a �w�.;,a-�..,y+.aw.et+:
• �"�� F �
��"". �.a m a�
��}" � � r-.
����=�
����,
;� rt .
��� : �, *�`.�
��* ys�
�
.... '
� � ���
�.
:� � �
� � {
,
.�.,�
PROPOSED FSED SITE
2339 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD
CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
BORING LOCATION PLAN
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES CUENT: LITTLE JOHN ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: AUG 13, 2013
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT N0: 0830.1300279 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: B
� �,
PROJECT:
ENGINEER:
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0830.1300279.0�0
9802PaImRiverRoad �O�I�� �O�
Tampa, Florida 33619 APPENDIX:
(813} 740-8506 PAGE: 1 .
FSED Site
2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd.
Clearwater, Ebrida
Surrendra Sagi, P.E.
Little John EnOineering
SEE BORING LOCATtON PLAN
BORING DE5IGNATION: B-S SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: B(7113
WATER TABLE (ft): B.0 DATE FINISHED: 8/7l73
DATE OF READING; 8/7/2013 DRILLED BY: UES
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT
S S
A Y ATTERBERG
DEPTH M BLOW N SPT-N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS ORG
(ft) L COUNTS (bp� (bPf) T �B (°/a) (%) (%)
E �s r,n I LL PL PI
0
Aspfialt
Light brown sand (SP)
3.4 4.4
g. . _,._:.... _ ... ...... ....... ..< . . � , .._ ,
4-6-9-10 15
3-5-5-5 10 �
Brown sand with silt (SP-SM)
6.9 18,9
10 . 5.-3-.5-5, ,...=8 .. .. . .... .... . � . .... ..e<,. .�.� ,. e _,. ..,_.
� 15 ,.4-7-7.1.,....,2$,a ;�.... . . ........ . . ........_........ . . ,_..._.... — _..,.� . .. .. __ ......,._...
c
�
�u^
t9
�
2
�
� light brown sand with silt (SP-SM)
�
�
a
-' 2p � =1�5-121.4.....2fi � .. � � .......... ...._,,......., ... ... ..... ...........�
. ......�.� .. .............
� Borin terminated at 20 ft,
�
»
0
�
LL
�
J
Z
�
m
w
�
J
Q
�� !
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
9802 Palm River Road
Tampa, Florida 33619
(813)740-8506
PROJECT: FSED Site
2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd.
Clearvvater, Florida
ENGINEER: Surrendra Sagi, P.E.
CLIENT: Little John Engineering
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
PROJECT NO.: 0830.1300279.0000
BORING LOG APPENDIX:
PAGE: 2
BORING DESIGNATION: B-s SHEET: � Of �
SECTION: TOWNSHIP; RANGE:
ELEVATION:
WATER TABLE (ft): 8.0
DATE OF READING; 8/7/2013
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):
DATE STARTED: 8/7/13
DATE FINISHED: 817/13
DRILLED BY: UES
TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT
A Y ATTERBERG ORG
DEPTH M BLOW N SPT-N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS
(ft) L COUNTS (bP� (bPn w � (%) (%) _._ _..___ (%)
� s � LL PL PI
0
Asphalt
Light brown sand (SP)
3.0 1.7
5 . __.,. . _,.,.. .., . ....._ .... ........ ....... . . ....... ...__ . . __ ..___... .... . _.,..., . . _.. .. ..__ .. .. ...
3-5-7-6 12
2.5 18.7
3�-6-8 12 Z
10 �� - - -. .,, ] ._. .�_�_- .,.. .._.. ... . ._,._ ... ... ... ....... ..... . ........ ....._..-....
.. _ . �_.. ... _.. .�_.. ,....._. _.._.... __ ... ..__......
Brown sand with silt (5P-SM)
.., 15 _ A-5-9. 15 _, ,. ......,,. ..., ..... . . ............. . . . ... .. .. ......., ..... _ ._ _ ._...,.. .. .., ...,. . . .... . ..... ......
�
�
a
t7
�
z
�
�
a'
�
u3
�� 15-16.-20.....3&.. .. . . _ . . .... . ..........
20 ... ...... ... . .........
� Boring tertninated at 20 ft,
uwy
N
�
ti
�
t9
2
a
m
N
!11
�
F
�
�� � L
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
Consuftartls in �eotechnical Engineering � Environmental Sciences
Construction Materials Testing � Threshold Inspection � Plans Review
Private ProviderlBuilding Inspection � Geophysical Services
September 11, 201
LittleJohn Engineering Associates
1615 Edgewater Drive, Suite 180
Orlando, Florida 32804
Attention: George Huddleston, PE
Reference: Additional Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed FSED Site
2339 Gu{f to Bay Boulevard
Clearwater, Florida
UES Projeot No. 0830.1300279
Dear Mr. Huddleston:
OFFICES IN:
• Atiantfl
� Daytona
� FoR Myers
• Fort Pierce
• Gaineavtlle
• Jacksornille
• Kissimmee
• Leesburg
• Mlami
• o�aia
• Orlando (Headquerters)
• Pelm Coast
• Panama City
• Pensacole
• Rockledge
• Sarasote
• Tampa
• West Palm Beach
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has completed additional geotechnical exploration on
the above-referenced site in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. This letter should be used in
conjunction with our previously issued geotechnical report dated June 27, 2013.
UES performed a Falling Head Permeability test on remolded soil sample recovered from boring
.
A-5 from a depth of approximately 3 feet below existing grade. Based on the tests results, we
recommend an estimated horizontal saturated conductivity at 10 feet per day and vertical
unsaturated conductivity at 6 feet per day.
Based on visua{ classification of the recovered soils from our borings, we believe majority of the
onsite soils can be classified as Hydrologic Soil Group "A".
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a
continued association with LittleJohn Engineering Associates. Piease do not hesitate to contact
us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.
Certificate of Authorization No. 549
�
S
Surendra V. ;
Geotechnicai
Florida l.ice ;
Date 0 � �
� ��1111! � t u�l����i
`�`\�,,`J ��''DR� S' ,'�f'�'r
`�ti` �,J.. � �,E1VS�,•,'Q�y ,�,,,r
� .� .
.
.
'�. `"" ' ' . °.
, 4� , ...
.
i,,�.S., .E • _
� : .� ;
ina�,er • :
� r�o�,q�,,�rE oF : -
•.
�i�;.� • ,,�.`+�
. ,�
��������J/Iif•1:1:�1 l 1�1111����������
9802 Palm River Road • Tampa, Florida 33619 • 813-740-8506 • Fax 813-740-8706
�� � ,
,, � L � � � �; � � �"�"+` � � �,�`"
}�6^° `�`* ,�" "� =` �; ��,� `�`,�
a, . �x'4 . � ��„� �^ ��� _. � ��_� o- "! "` 'k�� � �'a ����:•��
„
.v. 9: � *�$ � ;,�' �� . .�"'k� '� . � k +� � � � t, �„ ^s.� � #�,x
� , e
: n ,
'�". . . - �+_«., ... �,,,. , . � . , �... > `.� .-.�..� .. • �[..�..��" Z.�� . y ,.,.,�
. . ., m. � : .. . . ».. «,«.r
,�"�, ,�.,-�„.,a� „ ���".;,,��,",,. rr ��� '�` ,w �'� ,�' �� ;� �,z..«..wr,� . e-�.n.� � °� ��'#�
E �
_�� . . � ��- � % �t k s�� ' � . ay"... -.�'t'; � � � > -as:o.� '�''M ��. , . �-�a1 � +�+�. n.k�, e �� '�f 'N"��
�� � �
� ^�.`. ^'� ;�
,�".a � a a ��.C°' `'c�"�� � ^'" ,� ,�",�,��.',�� '%�' "h�` ,rr��p� � � °z � -�'�` �a.#�" � � . = � � �,.m�°?
`"�y. �' � � � a .. , ., ,,� .w.�y� �ir '°+m ; n
x . '� .. ° .- � �� a , . �` . ._ w"°""""r" . ` � -�: `«, `ax.�, . _
� � *� � .. . � � �. � *� ' � " �*�
+�v g.�, ,,r� �
�, � � �,� �'+*� w�'M" , r' , d@ +�m� �.�, �`'�R�� k; ,„ ���g'�r .�*� ' �#��, 'ri� �'t .
�, �'- � �*'" �i r� �ti��'� a��" �`'��' � � � �"
� � •� .r N • �rt��. J�t a �t�,� i #�� ) � { � � -` � _ ' 1't"S�` # M� � �
- x+ .�� w �, ef � ""� . . . _
0
,.
.�'Y"
.
_� � �... . � _"_ '�" _� '�` �__,
� � . *`�� .�, .
♦
� �
� � �
� /
k d,
�,' �
...0 � � � '
.� �q
� r °
i
I P �' ,. ",� .
�
��
� � F� ���
� • � I�'�"s�;� � i'.i • ', � ��
��.
: •.
' ' ' �■�i��� �
,, ,
�, e
.
.�- �
��
� � .
�� — .� � �a
.� _ _ _
� � — ��....�.—
�
��•;�kY"'' ��� �'[.� ' � �t�::wrar$^�- .�, $ P`•�r �;;a, �, �..'.� � .��"a,�.,yw.?'�x°� � "'.''j '.« .
a� *' . � q,'a
b" �^"`� '�'�. : fi �*T- �" '.
^. w a'� •,. � �' ' :' #�. �'. '. � _, '' 3 €,v� .� � ��, . e
�° . .. , .. . . . . :s�.� . . . . =rs r, +..� .� . . � _. .
, �`�'Pr ""� ' .. '
I # Y �� �1 �` L
R
LEGEND:
� A-1 Approximate A�ger boring location
$B-1 Approximate SPT boring location
`�% �. yy
:��'� ��°��" + � � �"F"'
� �� °,�«a
���"
� � ; ��,�
�"� `�'�, y� � � .
�� ��,..��.`�`� i �
PROPOSED FSED SITE
2339 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD
CtEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
BORING LOCATION PLAN
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: LITTLE JOHN ENGINEERING DRAWN BY; �G�1 DATE: JUNE 26, 2013
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT N0: 0830.1300279 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: B
�
Unlversal Engineering Sclences, /nc.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
SECTION 1: RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1 Universsl Engineerrng Sclences, Inc., ("UES"), has the responsibility for providing the services described under the Scope of Services section. The
work is to be peAotmed according to accepted standards of care and Is to be completed in a timely menner. 7he term "UES" as used herein
includes all of Unlversal Engineering Sciences, Inc's agents, employees, professional staif, and subcontractors.
1.2 The Client ar a duly authorized representative fs responsible for providing UES with a ciear understanding of the project nature and scope. The
Client shall aupply UE5 with sufficient and adequate information, including, but not limited to, maps, site plans, reports, surveys and designs, to
allow UES to properly complete the specified services. The Client shell also communicate changes In the nature and scope of the project as soon
as possible during performance of the work so that the changes can be incorporated into the work product.
1.3 The Client acknowledges that UES's responsibilitias in prOVfding the services describad under the Scope of Services section is limited to those
services described theroin, and the Client hereby assumes any collateral or a�liated dutles necessitated by or for those services. Such dutfes may
include, but are not limited to, reporting requlrements imposed by any third party such as federal, state, or local entltles, the provision of any
required notices to any third party, or the securing of necessary permits or permissions from any third parties required for UES's provision of the
servlces so described, unless otfierwise agreed upon by both parties.
�.a PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES §558.0035, ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR
AGENT OF UES MAY NOT BE HELD INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE.
SECTION 2: STANDARD OF CARE
2.1 Services pertormed by UES under this Agreement will be conduded In a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of UES's profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the locality of the project. No other warranty, express or
implisd, is made.
2.2 7he Client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those obseroed at Iocations where borings, surveys, or other explorations are
made, and that site conditions may change with time. Data, interpretations, and recommendations by UES will be based solely on information
avaflable to UES at the time of service. UES is reaponsfble for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but will not be responsible for
other partles' interpretations or use of [he Information developed.
2.3 Execution of this document by UES is not a representation that UES has visited the site, become generally famlliar with local conditions under
which the services are to be pertorrned, or correlated personal observations with the requirements of the 5cope of Services. It is the ClienYs
responstbility to provide UES with all information necessary for UES to provide the senrices des+cribed under the Scope of Services, and the Client
assumes all liability for information nbt provided to UES that may affect the quality or sufficiency of#he services so described.
2.4 Should UES be retafned to provfde threshold inspection services under Florida Slatutes §553.79, Client acknowledges that UES's services
thereunder do not constitute a guarantee that the construction in question has been properly designed or constructed, and UES's services do not
replace any of the obligations or liabilities associated with any architect, contractor, or struclural engineer. Therefore it is explicitly agreed that the
Client wlll not hold UES responsible for the proper performance of servlce by any architect, conlractor, structural engineer or any other entity
assocfated with the proJect,
SECTtON 3• SITE ACCESS AND SlTE CONDIT1pMS
3.1 Ciient wiil grant or obtain free access to the site for all equipment and personnel necessary for UES to perform the work set forth in this Agreement.
The Client will notify any and ail possessors of the project site that Client has granted UES free access to the site. UES will take reasonable
precautions to mfnimfze damage to the site, but it is understood by Client that, In the normal course of work, some damage may occur, and the
correction of such damage is not part of this Agreement unless so speclfled In the Proposal.
3.2 The Client Is responsible for the accuracy of Iocations for all subterranean structures and utilities, UES will take reasonable precautions to avofd
known subterranear structures, and 4he Client waives any ciafm agaEnst UES, and agrees to defend, indemniry, and hold UES harmless from any
c4aim or liabitity for fnJury or loss, inGuding cbsts of deisnse, arising from damage done to subterranean structures end utilRies not identified or
sccurately located. In adctition, Client agrees to compensate UES for any Ume spent or expenses incurred by UES in defense of any such claim
with compensation to be based upon UES's prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy.
SEGTION 4' SAMIPLE OWNERSHtP AND OtSPQ3AL
4.1 Sofl orwatersampie& obtained from the project dur(ng performance of the work shall remain the property of the Cfient.
4.2 UES will dispose of or return to Cfient all remalning soils and rock samples 60 days after submission of report covering those samples. Further
storage or tra�sfer of samples can be made at CIIenYs expense upon Client's prior wrltten request.
4,3 Samples which are contaminated by petroleum products or other chemicel waste will be returned to Client for treatment or disposal, consistenf with
all appropriate federal, state, or local regulatio�s.
SECTION 5: BILLING AND PAYMENT
5.1 UE5 will submit invoices ta Client monthly or upon comp{etion of services. Invoices will show charges for different personnel and expense
classifications.
5.2 Payment is due 30 days after presentation of involce and is past due 31 days from invoice date. Client agrees to pay a finence charge of one and
one-half percent (1 '/: %) per month, or the maxlmum rate allowed by law, on past due accounts.
5.3 If UES incurs any expenses to collect overdue billings on invoices, the sums pald by UES for reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, UES's time,
UES's expenses, and interest will be due and owing by the ClienL
SECTIOM 6• OWNERSHip ANp USE OF DOCUMEN73
6.] All reports, bonng logs, fietd data, fietd notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates, and other documents prepared by UES, as instruments
of service, shail remain the property of UES.
6.2 Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Cllent or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not
be used by the Client for any purpose.
6.3 UES will reta3n aN pertinent records relating to the serv�ces performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which
period the records wiil be made available to the CI)ent at all reasonable times.
6.4 All reports, boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, celculations, estimates, and other documents prepared by UES, are prepared
for the sole and exclusive use of Clfent, and may not be given to any other party or used or relied upon by eny such party without the express
wrilten consent of UES.
�
SECTl�N 7� DiSCqVERY O� UNAN7iCIPATED HAZARDdUS MATERIALS
'7.9 Clienf warrantsthat a reasonable effort has been made to inform UES of known or suspected hazardous materials on or near the project site.
7.2 Under this egreement, the term hazardous materlals include hazardous materials (40 CFR 172.01), hazerdous wastes (40 CFR 261.2), hazardous
substances (40 CFR 300.6), petroleum products, polychlorfnated bfphenyls, and asbestos.
7.3 Hazardous materials may exist at a site where there is no reason to believe they could or should be present. UES and Client egree that the
discovery of unantfcipated hazardous materials constitules a changed conditfon mandating a renegatlatlon of the scope of work. UES and Client
also agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials may make lt necassary for UES to taka immediate measures to protect health
and safety. Cflent agrees to compensate UES for any equipment decontamfnation or othet costs inciderrt to the discovery of unanticipeted
hazardous waste,
7.4 UES agrees to notify Client when unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials are encountered. Client agrees to make
any disclosures requlred by law to the appropriate governing agencies. Client also agraes to hold UES hartnless for any and ell consequences of
disclosures made by UES which are requlred by governing law. In the event the project site Is not owned by Client, Client recognizes thal it is the
Client's responsibilky to inform the property owner of the dlscovery of unantiGp&ted hazardous materiels nr suspected hazardous materials.
7.5 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, Cllent waives any claim against tiES, and ta the maximum exfent permlried by law, agrees
to defend, Indemnify, and save UES harmless from any claim, Uability, andior defense costs foc injury or loss erising from UES's discovery of
unanticipafed hazardous materiais or suspected hazardous materlais including any casts created by delay of the projed and any +cost associated
with possible reduction of the property's value. Client will be responsible fot uliimate disposai of any samplea seCUred by UES whlch are found to
be contaminated.
SECTION 8: RISK ALLOCATiON
8.1 Client agrees thst UES's If2bllity for any damage on account of any breach af cantract, error, omission o� other professional neglige�ce will ba
Umited to a sum not to exceed $50,000 or UES's fee, whichever Is greater. It Clie�t prefe�s ta have higher limits on contrdctual or professienal
Ilability, UES agrees to increase the limits up to a maximum of $1,OQ0,000.00 upon Ciiant's writtcn request at the time ot eccepting our proposal
provided that Client agrees to pay an additional consfderation of four percent of the tatal fee, or $400.d0, whichever is gr8atet, The edditionel
charge for the hlgher liabllity Iimits is because of the greater risk assumed and is nat stricfly a charge for additlonaM professiortal iiabilit3t insa�aace.
SECTION 9: iNSURANCE
9.1 UES represents and warrants that it and 'Rs agents, staff and consultants employad by it, is and are protected by woticer"s compensatian insur8nce
and that UES has such coverage under public liability and property damage IRSUranca policies whlch UES deems to be ed6quate. Gertificates for
ali such policles of insurance shall be provided to Cliant upon request In writing. Within the flmits and conditions of such insutance, UES agrees tp
indemnfty and save Client harmless from and against loss, damage, or IfabilNy ansing from negfigent acts by UES, its agents, stafF, and consultacrts
employed by It. UES shall not be responsible for any loss, damage ar ilability beyond the amounts, flmits, and cotuliiions af such insurence or the
limits described (n Sectlon 8, whichever is less, The Client agrees to defend, indemnity and save UES harrnless for loss, damage or liability arising
from acts by Client, Client's agent, ataff, and other UESs employed by Client.
SECTION 10: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
10.1 All claims, disputes, and other matters in controversy between UES and Client arising out of or in any way reiated to this Agreement will be
submitled to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as mediation or arbitration, before and as a condition precedent to other remedies provided
by law, including the commencement of litigation.
10.2 If a dispute arises related to the services provlded under this Agreemenl and that dispute requires litigation instead of ADR as provided above,
then;
(a) the claim will be brought and tried in Judicfal Jurisdiction of the court of the county where UE5's principal place of business is located and
Client waives the rlght to remove the action to any other county or Judiclal Jurisdiction, and
(b) The prevalling party will be entitled to recovery of all reasonable costs incurred, including staff time, court costs, attorneys' fees, and
other claim related expenses,
SEC710N 11; 7ERMINATION
fi.1 This agceement may be terminated by efther party upon seven (7) days written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to
perform in aCCardanCe wlth the terms hereof. Such termination shall not be effective if that substantial failure has been remedied before expiration
of the period specified in the written notice. In the event of termination, UES shall be paid for services performed to the terminat�on notice date
plus reasonable terminatlon expenses.
11.2 In the event of termination, or suspension for more than three (3) months, prior to completion of all reports contemplated by the Agreement, UES
may complete such analyses and records as are necessary to complete fts files and may also complete a report on the seroices performed to the
date of notice of termination or suspension. The expense of termination or suspension shall include all direct costs of UES in completing such
anafyses, records and reports.
SECTION 12: ASSIGNS
12.1 Neither the Client nor UES may delegate, assign, sublet or trans(er their dutfes or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other
party,
SECTIC}N 13. GOVERNtNG LAW AND SUFtVIVAL
13.1 The taws ofthe State of Ficrbda wlli gpvern the validity of these Terms, thei� Interpretation and performance,
13.2 If any of the provlslons contalned in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceabifity of ihe remaining provisions will not
be impaired. Limitatlons of Ifability and indemnities wlll survive termination of this Agreement for any cause.
SECTION 14. INTEGRATION CLAUSE
14.1 7his Agreement represants and contains the entire and only agreement and understanding among the parties wfth respect to the subject matter of
this Agreement, and supersedes any and afl prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, representations,
inducements, promises, warranties, and conditions among the parties. No agreement, understanding, representation, inducement, promise,
warranty, or conditlon of any kind with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement shall be relied upon by the parties unless expressly
incorporated hereln.
14.2 This Agreement may not be amended or modifled except by an agreement in writing signed by the party against whom the enforcement of any
modification or amendment is sought.
Rev. 07/11/13
�
APPENDIX B
ICPR INPUT CRITERIA
�
A� � �
Oct 1, 2013
Pre-Development Input
Name:
Group: BASE
UPSTREAM
Geometry: Circular
Span(in): 0.00
Rise(in): 0.00
Invert(ft): 0.000
Manning's N: 0.000000
Top Clip(in): 0.000
Bot Clip(in): 0.000
From Node:
To Node:
DOWNSTREAM
Circular
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000000
0.000
0.000
Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
Length(ft): 0.00
Count: 1
Friction Equation: Automatic
Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive
Flow: Both
Entrance Loss Coef: 0.00
Exit Loss Coef: 1.00
Bend Loss Coef: 0.00
Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw
Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc
Stabilizer Option: None
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.
Page 1 of 1
1 � � i
Oct 1, 2013
Pre-Development Input
Name: Runoff Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 67.000
Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000
Type: Time/Stage
Time(hrs) Stage(ft)
0.00 67.000
999.00 67.000
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
1 � � i
Oct 1, 2013
Pre-0evelopment Input
Name: Basin 1
Group: BASE
Unit Hydrograph: Uh256
Rainfall File: Fdot-29
Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000
Area(ac): 2.370
Curve Number: 48.30
DCIA($): 0.00
Node: Runoff Status: Onsite
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN
Peaking Factor: 256.0
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Time of Conc(min): 10.00
Time Shift(hrs): 0.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000
Interconnected Channei and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
� � I
Oct 1, 2013
Pre-Development Input
Name: 025Y029H Hydrology Sim: 025Y024H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\025Y024H.I32
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 30.00
Min Calc Time(sec): 0.2500 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
025 yr / 024 hr �
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
----- -------------
999.000 5.000
Group Run
BASE Yes
--- -- ---- ----- -- --- -----
Name: 100Y024H Hydrology Sim: 100Y029H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\100Y024H.I32
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No �
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 30.00
Min Calc Time(sec): 0.2500 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 �
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
100 yr / 024 hr
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
999.000 5.000
Group Run
BASE Yes
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) �02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
■ � � �
Oct 1, 2013
Pre-Development Input
Name: 025Y024H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\025Y029H.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: FDOT-24
Rainfall Amount(in): 10.00
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
-- ------------
30.000 5.00
Name: 100Y029H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\100Y024H.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 �
Rainfall File: FDOT-29
Rainfall Amount(in): 12.50
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
30.000 5.00
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) �02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
.� � ,
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Input
Name: Basin 1
Group: BASE
Unit Hydrograph: Uh256
Rainfall File: Fdot-24
Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000
Area(ac): 2.370
Curve Number: 67.72
DCIA(�): 0.00
Node: Pond 1 Status: Onsite
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN
Peaking Factor: 256.0
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Time of Conc(min): 10.00
Time Shift(hrs): 0.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.
Page 1 of i
,� � �
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Input
Name: Weir 1 From Node: Pond 1
Group: BASE To Node: MH
Flow: Both Count: 1
Type: Vertical: Mavis Geometry: Rectangular
Span(in): 6.00
Rise(in): 19.00
Invert(ft): 69.900
Control Elevation(ft): 69.900
TABLE
Bottom Clip(in): 0.000
Top Clip(in): 0.000
Weir Discharge Coef: 3.130
Orifice Discharge Coef: 0.600
Name: Weir 2 From Node: Pond_1
Group: BASE To Node: MH
Flow: Both Count: 1
Type: Horizontal Geometry: Rectangular
Span(in): 29.00
Rise(in): 24.00
Invert(ft): 71.000
Control Elevation(ft): 71.000
TABLE
Bottom Clip(in): 0.000
Top Clip(in): 0.000 .
Weir Discharge Coef: 3.130
Orifice Discharge Coef: 0.600
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) OO 2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
,� � ,
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Input
Name: Discharge Pipe
Group: BASE
UPSTREAM
Geometry: Circular
Span(in): 18.00
Rise(in): 18.00
Invert(ft): 69.000
Manning's N: 0.013000
Top Clip(in): 0.000
Bot Clip(in): 0.000
From Node: MH
To Node: Discharge
DOWNSTREAM
Circular
18.00
18.00
67.880
0.013000
0.000
0.000
Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
Circular Concrete: Square edqe w/ headwall
Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
Length(ft):
Count:
Friction Equation:
Solution Algorithm:
Flow:
Entrance Loss Coef:
Exit Loss Coef:
Bend Loss Coef:
Outlet Ctrl Spec:
Inlet Ctrl Spec:
Stabilizer Option:
223.00
1
Automatic
Most Restrictive
Both
0.00
1.00
0.00
Use dc or tw
Use dc
None
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Modei (ICPR) �02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
1 � ' � �
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Input
Name: Discharge
Group: BASE
Type: Stage/Area
Stage(ft)
---- ---
0.000
60.000
❑
Name: GW sink
Group: BASE
Type: Time/Stage
Time(hrs)
0.00
999.OD
❑
Name: MH
Group: BASE
Type: Stage/Area
Base Flow(cfs): 0.000
Area(ac)
67.0000
67.0000
Base Flow(cfs): 0.000
Stage(ft)
67.000
67.000
Base Flow(cfs): 0.000
Stage(ft) Area(ac)
68.000 0.0010
70.000 0.0010
❑
Name: Pond 1 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000
Group: BASE
Type: Stage/Area
Stage(ft) Area(ac)
68.000 0.0149
69.000 0.0673
70.000 0.1304
71.000 0.2086
72.000 0.9083
Init Stage(ft): 66.000
Warn Stage(ft): 0.000
Init Stage(ft): 67.000
Warn Stage(ft): 0.000
Init Stage(ft): 68.000
Warn Stage(ft): 71.000
Init Stage(ft): 68.000
Warn Stage(ft): 71.000
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamiine Technologies, Inc.
Page 1 of 1
� 1 ' � �
4
Oct. l, 2013
Post Development Input
Name: 025Y029H Hydrology Sim: 025Y024H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\025Y029H.I32
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
Alternative: No �
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 30.00
Min Calc Time(sec): 0.2500 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
025 yr / 024 hr
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
------------ --------------
999.000 5.000
Group Run
------------ -----
BASE Yes
--- --------------- ------- - --------------- --------------------------------- ------------
Name: 100Y024H Hydrology Sim: 100Y024H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\100Y029H.I32
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 30.00
Min Calc Time(sec): 0.2500 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
100 yr / 024 hr
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
------------ ------------
999.000 5.000
Group Run
BASE Yes
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
� t � � �
oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Input
Name: 025Y029H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\025Y024H.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: FDOT-29 �
Rainfall Amount(in): 10.00
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
------------- --------------
30.000 5.00
------
Name: 100Y024H
Filename: G:\Projects\2013\20130505\Engineering\ICPR\100Y029H.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: FDOT-24
Rainfall Amount(in): 12.50
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
30.000 5.00
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) �02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
11 � � �
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Input
Name: Perc_1
Group: BASE
Surface Area Option:
Vertical Flow Termination:
Aquifer Base Elev(ft):
Water Table Elev(ft):
Ann Recharge Rate(in/year):
Horiz Conductivity(ft/day):
Vert Conductivity(ft/day):
Effective Porosity(dec):
Suction Head(in):
Layer Thickness(ft):
From Node: Pond_1 Flow: Both
To Node: GW_sink Count: 1
Vary based on Stage/Area Table
Horizontal Flow Algorithm
0.000 Perimeter 1(ft): 529.200
67.000 Perimeter 2(ft): 850.000
0.000 Perimeter 3(ft): 5027.000
10.000 Distance 1 to 2(ft): 50.000
6.000 Distance 2 to 3(ft): 750.000
0.200 Num Cells 1 to 2: 10
0.000 Num Cells 2 to 3: 70
3.000
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) OO 2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
�� � ,
o�t. i, 2ais
Post Development Input
Name:
Group: BASE
UPSTREAM
Geometry: Circular
Span(in): 0.00
Rise(in): 0.00
Invert(ft): 0.000
Manning's N: 0.000000
Top Clip(in): 0.000
Bot Clip(in): 0.000
From Node:
To Node:
DOWNSTREAM
Circular
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000000
0.000
0.000
Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
Length(ft): 0.00
Count: 1
Friction Equation: Automatic
Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive
Flow: Both
Entrance Loss Coef: 0.000
Exit Loss Coef: 1.000
Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw
Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) OO 2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
,, � � ,
APPENDIX C
ICPR RESULTS
;�I�I
1 � , � i
Oct 1, 2013
Pre-Development Basin Max
Simulation Basin
025Y024H Basin 1
100Y024H Basin 1
Group Time Max Flow Max Volume Volume
hrs cfs in ft3
BASE 12.02 0.930 3.326 28616.248
BASE 12.02 1.460 5.093 43816.424
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) OO 2002 Streamiine Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of i
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Node Min/Max
Max Time Max Warning Max Delta Max Surf Max Time Max Max Time Max
Name Group Simulation Stage Stage Stage Stage Area Inflow Inflow Outflow Outflow
hrs ft ft ft ft2 hrs cfs hrs cfs
Discharge BASE 025Y024H 30.00 68.008 0.000 0.0000 2918590 12.58 0.773 0.00 0.000
Pond 1 BASE 025Y024H 12.58 70.525 71.000 0.0050 7467 11.99 1.708 12.58 1.291
Discharge BASE 100Y024H 30.OD 68.014 0.000 0.0000 2918592 12.29 1.331 0.00 0.000
Pond 1 BASE 100Y024H 12.29 70.798 71.000 0.0050 8397 12.00 2.335 12.29 1.914
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1
�,�w
ro�m
,� o
F°. .�
0
>
rl G W
N H f0
1�
O r1
E O
7
rl 3 N
roow
y� .i U
O W
F 1�
a
0
� 3 N
�6 O w
1� rl U
O W
F H
N ttl N
U N 1�
rotiw
w �2
u
7
�
�v,�
c o� w
� ro
G 1�
N �/]
3
w
tn �
m w
�
E iV
H �
a
N
�
N
N
�
u v
v b
�n 2
�
�
F
N
�
O
2
,�
C G
Ol O
� �.i
�, a +�
� o ro
O r-1 rl
N U) a
> �
� � N .i
ti o �
• �
+' JJ N
U O
� O W
ooa00000000000000aoaa000000000000000000000000a000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000a000000000000000000a000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000aoa0000000000000000000000000
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fh l0 rl 1� M 01 N N N l0 N O f"1 �O O� M 1� O C W(h f ti N Ol f"1 I� .ti lO O M f N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rl rl N N Cl C d' d' d' N u1 N N�D lD 1� [� [� N W O� 41 a1 O O ti.-1 N N N M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,� .-i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r-I M lO r1 l� M Ol �D N O O N W O N M C N N N u� t0 ifl C M M r� O N l� N M rl O
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 00o.-��cvc�ric �nioro�o,�cvr�c�nior mmo �--iNm c a� �n�or rom
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rl f-I f-1 rl ri rl rl N N N N N N N N N N N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri ri fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 o O O o 0 o O O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 o O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0
0�0�01TTO�O�OiT0�010�O�0iTO�O�O�0iTT0�0�6i010�O�0�O�0i0iOlOi0�0�6�0�O�0iTO�O�0�0�0� OiO�O�O�0�0�6�O�00ti.tiNtnM�d�u1r rMMiotit")O�NNO�iOt"lOiot+l O N.tit�N f�
C C d� C G' G' C d� C G' G' C C d� C Q' G' C C C[T G' G' d' d� d� Q' C C d' d� d� C G' G` G' C C C' C C C G" C G' d� C d� C G' G' C C ifl � if] �� N N N lD OJ f-1 N O N O l0 r� � N 61 C O l0 M W d' O l0 (V f� M Ol
�O \D �O \O lD lD �n \O \D l0 \o �n \o lD lD \D l0 l0 \D \O lD �D l� lo \O lD �D lD lD lo t0 \O lD l0 \D \D l0 �o \O i0 \D �D l0 lo \o lo i0 l0 l0 l0 lO \o �o �o \O l0 �D lD lo �n �o \D l0 1� 1� N W T O� O O rl .y N(") t") C' G' � l0 �O [� [� OJ OJ
,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� �+ � r. ti ,� .� ,� ,�
000000000000000000000000000000a00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000a000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000a0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000a000000a000000000000
����������ti���ti���tititi�����titi������ti����ti�ti����ti��ti����ti��������ti�ti������ti���������ti��
r � r r r r r r r r r r r � r r r � � r r r r r r r r r� r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r� r r r � r r r r r � r r r � r r r r r r c� r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000 ���.-+NN�n�ioot�r mNromrnrorimmn�r cv r�nocm r
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000oo,-�r� c�om.-�rnioroori�om �a�orn,ti c rrnti c
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r-1 rl r1 N N N N M f�"1 M M C C�I' C N�Il
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0o mmaom w mmmm wmm mroro oom mmror000 mmm m mroao mmmro mw mmo�mro m ro mw mm rom rom w ro mo� m roro aowmm m m roro mao 0o mo�mro ro wro �o W m eo m mw ro ro
io io �o to �o io io io to io io �o �o �o io io io io �o �o io io io �o �o �o io �o io io io io io io m io �o �o io �o to io �o �o �o �� �o �o io io io io �o �o to �o �o �o �o �o io �o �o io io �o io io io �o �o to �o io io io io io �o �o io �o io m
O W 00 lD C' M rl O N�D if) f`l .-1 O W l0 N(h � O CO lD N M.� O OD �O if/ M.� O OD �O N M rl O OD l0 tn M rl O OJ lD N f"1 r-� O �D lD tn M r� O W l0 ifl f�"1 rl O N lO ul f"1 ti O CD lD d' N rl Ol f � C N O 00 OD lO C N N
O O rl N M d' �Il l0 l0 (� OJ O1 O rl rl N M Q' ��O �D 1� N O� O rl r-1 N(�'1 C' tn l0 lD I� OJ Ol O r1 rl N M d' � lO lO f� W Ol O.ti rl N M C�f1 �D l0 [� N O� O�--I r-I N f�"1 d' N l0 l9 1� W 01 O O rl N M a' ul �l lO f� N 01 O
O O O O O O O O O O O O.-� rl r1 .-I rl r� �-I rl N ti ti r� N N N N N N N N N N N N M M t"1 Cl Cl f"1 M M M M Cl (n C' C G' d' d' d' C' �i' G' C' d' d' N N�� N�tl N N N ifl N� lo \O �O �O t0 �D l0 �D l0 lO �D �O I�
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
V1 U1 �/1 U] U] U] V] [l1 [n U] N U] U] �/] U1 U1 fn U� u] !n fn U] [/I �/] [n c/] U] U] U] Vl U] U] U] v1 U] Vl V] �/1 �/] U] U] tn !/] U] V] �/] � Ul U] U] [n U] fn [/] N U1 U] U] uI [n VI [/I Vl U] tn tn In U] U] V] N N v] cn u] U] U] u] [n V1 �/l �/] U] tn U]
aaaa��aaa���aa��aa�����aa����aa����aaa�����aaa�a���a�aaa��a��aaaa����aaaaa����aaa����
wmwwwmwwmmromwwrorowwwmmmwwwmwmmwwwromrommwwwmrorommwoammmwmwwwmwwrowrowwwwmmroromwmwwmmmrowrommwmm
rl r1 N ,y ,ti ri �-i ti r1 r-1 ti ti N .i rl rl ti .H ti ti .-i r1 ,1 ti .ti .-I f-1 ti ti ,H ti ti ,H .-1 .-� .y ,H ti N ,H ti ri r� .� r1 N ,ti ,ti ,H N .-1 �1 r1 r� ,ti ,ti .ti N .y .-i ,ti .-� ri .H ti ,ti ,ti �1 N rl .y �1 ti ,ti .H ,ti ,H .H .ti ri ,ti �-i ti ,H ,ti
v� ro� v� b� v� ro� v� v� b� b� b� b� b� b� b� v� -a� b� b� v� v� b� b� v� v� b� ro� v� v� b� o� �o� b� v� b� b� b� b� b� b� Ts� b� v� b� b� ro� b� b� o� v� o� �o� b� v� b� -o� b� b� v� v� b� v� v� b� b� v� v� �o� o� b� b� v� b� �� b� b� b� �� b� '�s� b� 'd� �� �� b�
C G G C C G C C C G� C C C C G C C C C G G G G G G G G G C G C C G G G G C G C C C C G C G G G C C C C C G G G C C C C C G C G C G G C C C G G C C G G G C C G G G G C G
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
aaaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
mxxxxxxx�xxxxx�xmxx���c�xx�xxxxxx���xmxxxxxxxxx�mmxxxxx��mxxxxxxmmxmxxmxx�c�x�cxm�xmxxx�
c G' c rn c a v� C c c c c d' a c m c v� d' d' c c c G' C d' c T G' c C c� c m m c c c v� C c�� O� C m c c a' C d' v' rn C m c c c C c c m c�r c v� d� O� �� d� rn rn c� rn m m c c rn C O� c
(V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N(V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N>+�+>+]� ]�>+>+N ]� N>+N>+N>+>+>+N Yi T� N>+?� �+�+>+]� N�+>+N?� ]� �+N>+N N]�>+>+N �+N N>+N �+>+�+NN>+�+]� N N� N>+�+]� N�+T r N�+N N N N N�+N �+?�>+>+ ]�>+�+>+?+
N N N �l ul if1 N ifl � N N� N ifl u� N N N ul u� u� N N ifl ul � N ul N N� N u� � N N N N N� N ul N N u� u� � N� i+l �+l N N if] N N ifl N N N��� N N N N N N �l ul ul N� u� � it] N N�fl N u� u] ul �
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�
w
0
�
N
�
a
�
1--I
�
�
.�
Q
O
C
,i:
U
N
F
�
a
i.i
cd
N
�.
..�
�
N
O
N
�
�^
W
HH
�
b
0
tn
�
.�
O
�
b
�
a°
�
a�
�i
�
.�
U
b
�
�
U
a�
�
Q
0
U
�
�-�+
�
1-N
1 f � I �
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Node Time Series
Simulation
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
Node Group Time
hrs
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
7.09
'7.17
7.25
7.34
7.42
7.50
7.58
7.68
7.76
7.89
7.92
8.01
8.09
8.17
8.25
8.39
8.42
8.51
8.58
8.67
s.�s
8.89
8.93
9.00
9.09
9.17
9.26
9.39
9.43
9.50
9.59
9.67
9.76
9.84
9.92
10.00
10.09
10.17
10.25
10.34
10.43
10.50
10.59
10.67
10.75
10.83
10.92
11.00
11.08
11.17
11.25
11.33
11.42
11.50
11.59
11.67
11.75
11.84
11.92
12.00
12.09
12.17
12.26
12.33
12.42
12.50
12.58
12.67
12.75
12.83
12.92
13.00
13.08
13.17
13.25
13.33
13.42
13.50
13.58
13.67
13.75
13.83
13.92
14.00
14.08
Stage Warning Surface Total Total Total Total
Stage Area Inflow Outflow Vol In Vol Out
ft ft ft2 cfs cfs af af
68.571
68.594
68.616
68.646
68.669
68.692
68.715
68.742
68.765
68.788
68.810
68.836
68.860
68.888
68.922
68.960
68.999
69.039
69.073
69.113
69.152
69.191
69.229
69.262
69.299
69.336
69.371
69.407
69.991
69.471
69.505
69.538
69.570
69.603
69.631
69.662
69.695
69.731
69.768
fi9.809
69.852
69.890
69.933
69.972
70.013
70.049
70.085
70.118
70.150
70.183
70.218
70.251
70.287
70.318
70.347
70.375
70.403
70.429
70.453
70.475
70.494
70.507
70.516
70.520
70.523
"10.524
70.525
70.529
70.524
70.523
70.522
70.521
70.520
70.518
70.515
70.511
70.506
70.502
70.498
70.494
70.490
70.486
70.483
'70.480
70.477
71.
71.
71.
71.
71,
71.
71.
'71
71,
71,
71.
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
'71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
�1
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
'71
71
71
71
71
71
71
'71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
"] 1
71
71
71
71
71
'71
71
"] 1
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
'71
71
71
71
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1951
2006
2060
2123
2176
2229
2282
2343
2395
2447
2498
2556
2613
2675
2759
2840
2929
3038
3133
3242
3350
3457
3562
3653
3754
3854
3952
9049
4194
4226
4319
4410
4500
9588
4665
4752
4841
4940
5042
5156
5272
5378
5496
5609
5723
5847
5970
6083
6191
6305
6423
6537
6656
6762
6863
6959
7053
7191
7224
7298
7364
7407
"]438
7952
"]461
7466
7467
7466
7464
7461
7958
'7956
7453
7495
7433
7420
7405
7390
7375
7361
7348
7336
7325
7315
7306
0.297
0.305
0.312
0.320
0.327
0.334
0.341
0.348
0.355
0.361
0.368
0.379
0.414
0.471
0.518
0.552
0.580
0.603
0.622
0.641
0.658
0.673
0.666
0.697
0.708
0.719
0.730
0.740
0.750
0.759
0.769
0.779
0.788
0.'797
0.805
0.815
0.866
0.954
1.015
1.061
1.097
1.124
1.150
1.172
1.192
1.208
1.222
1.235
1.291
1.390
1.461
1.512
1.554
1.586
1.615
1.640
1.662
1.680
1.697
1.705
1.637
1.513
1.420
1.371
1.339
1.310
1.291
1.277
1.269
1.266
1.266
1.269
1.249
1.204
1.175
1.156
1.145
1.138
1.132
1.129
1.127
1.128
1.129
1.131
1.134
J.136
�.139
�.143
0.147
D.151
0.155
0.158
0.163
0.166
0.170
0.173
0.178
0.181
0.186
0.191
0.197
0.203
0.211
0.218
0.225
0.233
0.240
0.297
0.259
0.261
0.268
0.279
0.281
0.288
0.293
0.300
0.306
0.312
0.319
0.324
0.330
0.336
0.343
0.350
0.358
0.366
0.373
0.391
0.920
0.457
0.496
0.539
0.582
0.626
0.679
0.727
0.780
0.838
0.892
0.945
0.996
1.048
1.098
1.146
1.189
1.228
1.254
1.273
1.282
1.287
1.290
1.291
1.290
1.289
1.287
1.286
1.284
1.282
1.278
1.270
1.262
1.253
1.244
1.235
1.227
1.219
1.212
1.205
1.199
1.194
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 2 of 5
�� t � +
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Node Time Series
Simulation
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024A
025Y024H
Node
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Group
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
Time Stage Warning Surface Total Total Total Total
Stage Area Inflow Outflow Vol In Vol Out
hrs ft ft ft2 cfs cfs af af
14.17
14.25
14.33
14.42
14.50
19.58
14.67
14.75
14.83
14.92
15.00
15.08
15.17
15.25
15.33
15.42
15.50
15.56
15.67
15.75
15.83
15.92
16.00
16.08
16.17
16.25
16.33
16.42
16.50
16.58
16.67
16.75
16.83
16.92
17.00
17.08
17.17
17.25
17.33
17.42
17.50
1'7.58
17.67
17.75
17.63
17.92
18.00
18.08
18.17
18.25
18.33
18.92
18.50
18.58
18.67
18.75
18.83
18.92
19.00
19.08
19.17
19.25
19.33
19.42
19.50
19.58
19.67
19.75
19.83
19.92
20.00
20.08
20.17
20.25
20.33
20.92
20.50
20.58
20.67
20.75
20.83
20.92
21.00
21.08
21.17
70.475
70.473
70.971
70.469
70.468
70.967
70.966
70.465
70.465
70.965
70.466
70.467
70.966
70.465
70.462
70.460
70.457
70.955
'70.452
70.450
70.448
70.947
70.445
70.444
70.441
70.436
70.932
70.426
"l0.421
70.416
70.912
70.907
70.403
70.399
70.395
70.392
70.389
70.387
70.385
70.383
70.381
70.379
70.378
70.377
70.376
70.375
70.374
70.374
70.373
70.373
70.373
70.373
70.372
70.373
70.373
70.373
70.373
70.373
70.374
70.373
'70.372
70.368
70.364
70.359
70.354
70.349
70.345
70.390
70.335
70.331
70.328
70.324
70.321
70.318
70.315
70.313
"]0.310
70.308
70.306
70.305
70.303
70.301
70.300
"70.298
70.295
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
�i.aoo
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
'71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
'71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
7298
7291
7285
7280
7275
7271
7268
7265
7263
7264
7267
7270
7269
7263
7255
7247
7238
'7229
7221
7214
7207
7202
7197
7192
7182
7167
7150
7133
7115
7098
�osa
7067
7052
7039
7027
7017
'J007
6998
6991
6989
6978
6972
6968
6964
6960
6957
6955
6953
6952
6950
6950
6949
6949
6999
6950
6950
6951
6952
6953
6953
6946
6934
6920
6903
6887
6870
6854
6838
6823
6809
6796
6784
6773
6763
6753
6745
6737
6730
6723
6718
6712
6707
6703
6697
6685
1.136
1.138
1.141
1.193
1.196
1.149
1.151
1.154
1.156
1.159
1.161
1.136
1.084
1.051
1.029
1.015
1.005
0.997
0.992
0.989
0.987
0.987
0.987
0.962
0.909
0.874
0.651
0.836
0.825
0.817
0.811
0.807
0.804
0.804
0.804
0.809
0.805
0.805
0.806
0.806
0.807
0.808
0.809
0.809
0.810
0.811
0.812
0.812
0.813
0.814
0.815
0.815
0.816
0.817
0.818
0.818
0.819
0.820
0.820
0.792
0.737
0.700
0.6"!6
0.659
0.698
0.638
0.631
0.626
0.624
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.623
0.623
0.623
0.624
0.624
0.624
0.624
0.595
0.538
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1.
1,
1.
0.
0
0,
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
189
185
181
178
175
173
171
170
164
142
131
123
113
101
089
077
066
056
046
038
030
023
017
O10
000
986
972
958
945
932
920
909
899
890
881
879
867
861
855
850
846
841
.838
.834
.831
.829
.826
.824
.822
.820
.819
. 81'7
.816
.ais
.814
.813
.813
.812
.812
.810
.803
.793
.782
.771
.760
. "749
.739
.729
.720
.712
.705
.698
.692
.686
.681
.676
.672
.668
.664
.661
.658
.655
.652
.698
.640
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
l.l
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
l.4
J.4
).4
�.4
J.9
�.4
�.4
D.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0 . '7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0 . "7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 3 of 5
P 1 � ( s
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Node Time Series
Simulation
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
Node
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Group
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
Time
hrs
21.25
21.33
21.42
21.50
21.56
21.67
21.75
21.83
21.92
22.00
22.08
22.17
22.25
22.33
22.42
22.50
22.58
22.67
22.75
22.83
22.92
23.00
23.08
23.17
23.25
23.33
23.42
23.50
23.58
23.67
23.75
23.83
23.92
29.00
29.08
24.17
24.25
24.33
24.42
24.50
24.58
24.67
24.75
24.83
24.92
25.00
25.08
25.17
25.25
25.33
25.42
25.50
25.58
25.6'7
25.75
25.83
25.92
26.00
26.08
26.17
26.25
26.33
26.42
26.50
26.58
26.67
26.75
26.83
26.92
27.00
27.08
27.17
27.25
27.33
27.42
27.50
27.58
27.67
27.75
27.83
27.92
28.00
28.08
28.17
28.25
Stage Warning Surface Total Total Total Total
Stage Area Inilow Outflow Vol In Vol Out
ft ft ft2 cfs cfs af af
70.290
70.289
70.277
70.271
70.269
70.258
70.252
70.296
70.290
70.235
70.229
70.222
70.214
70.204
70.195
70.185
70.175
70.166
70.157
70.146
70.140
70.132
70.125
70.118
70.112
70.105
70.099
70.094
70.089
70.089
70.079
70.074
70.070
70.066
70.061
70.055
70.047
70.037
70.027
70.017
70.007
69.997
69.987
69.977
69.967
69.958
69.949
69.940
69.932
69.924
69.916
69.908
69.900
69.892
69.885
69.877
69.870
69.862
69.855
69.847
69.840
69.832
69.825
69.818
69.811
69.803
69.796
69.789
69.782
69.775
69.768
69.761
69.754
69.747
69.740
69.733
69.726
69.720
69.713
69.706
69.699
69.693
69.686
69.680
69.673
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
6667
6646
6624
6602
6560
6556
6537
6517
6498
6980
6961
6437
6908
6376
6343
6310
6278
6246
6215
6186
6158
6131
6106
6083
6060
6039
6019
6000
5982
5965
5949
5934
5919
5905
5890
5868
5839
5807
5773
5738
5703
5671
5643
5616
5590
5569
5540
5516
5493
5470
5498
5427
5406
5385
5369
5343
5322
5301
5281
5260
5240
5220
5200
5180
5160
5140
5120
5101
5081
5062
5042
5023
5004
4985
4966
4997
4928
4910
4891
4873
4854
9836
9818
9800
4781
0.500
0.975
0.958
0.446
0.436
0.429
0.424
0.421
0.419
0.418
0.3B9
0.332
0.294
0.268
0.251
0.239
0.229
0.221
0.216
0.213
0.211
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.180
0.122
0.084
0.059
0.041
0.029
0.019
0.011
0.006
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.626
0.615
0.602
0.590
0.577
0.566
0.555
0.545
0.536
0.527
0.518
0.505
0.489
0.472
0.456
0.940
0.425
0.411
0.398
0.386
0.375
0.365
0.355
0.347
0.339
0.331
0.324
0.318
0.312
0.306
0.301
0.297
0.292
0.288
0.282
0.273
0.261
0.248
0.236
0.224
0.213
0.202
0.193
0.189
0.176
0.169
0.162
0.157
0.152
0.197
0.199
0.190
0.138
0.137
0.136
0.135
0.134
0.132
0.131
0.130
0.129
0.128
0.127
0.125
0.129
0.123
0.122
0.121
0.120
0.119
0.118
0.117
0.116
0.115
0.114
0.113
0.112
0.111
0.110
0.109
0.108
0.107
0.106
0.105
0.104
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
l.l
1.1
1.1
l.l
1.1
1.1
1.1
l.l
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Interconnected Channei and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 4 of 5
♦ I 4 1 ■
Oct. 1, 2013
Post Development Node Time Series
Simulation Node
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y024H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y029H
025Y024H
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Pond_1
Group
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
BASE
Time
hrs
28.33
28.92
28.50
28.58
28.67
28.75
28.83
26.92
29.00
29.08
29.17
29.25
29.33
29.42
29.50
29.58
29.67
29.75
29.83
29.92
30.00
30.01
Stage Warning Surface
Stage Area
ft ft ft2
69.666 71.000 4763
69.660 71.000 4746
69.653 71.000 4728
69.647 71.000 4710
69.641 71.000 4692
69.634 71.000 4675
69.628 71.000 4657
69.622 71.000 4640
69.615 71.000 9623
69.609 71.000 9605
69.603 71.000 4566
69.597 71.000 4571
69.590 71.000 4554
69.584 71.000 4537
69.578 71.000 4520
69.572 71.000 4504
69.566 71.000 4467
69.560 71.000 4470
69.554 71.000 4454
69.598 71.000 4437
69.592 71.000 4421
69.542 71.000 9921
Total Total
Inflow Outflow
cfs cfs
0.000 0.104
0.000 0.103
0.000 0.102
0.000 0.101
0.000 0,100
0.000 0.099
0.000 0.098
0.000 0.098
0.000 0.097
0.000 0.096
0.000 0.095
0.000 0.094
0.000 0.094
0.000 0.093
0.000 0.092
0.000 0.091
0.000 0.091
0.000 0.090
0.000 0.089
0.000 0.088
0.000 0.088
0.000 0.088
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) OO 2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.
Sotal Total
Vol In Vol Out
af af
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.2 l.l
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.1
Page 5 of 5
�� � � .
APPENDIX D
PondPack Draw Down
�
� I � � Y
Proiect Data
Project Name:
Simulation Description:
Project Number:
Engineer :
Supervising Engineer:
Date:
Aquifer Data
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method
Copyright 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E.
Clearwater Medical Clinic
20130505
Garrett George
George Huddleston
09-23-2013
Base Of Aquifer Elevation, [B] (ft datum):
Water Table Elevation, [WT] (ft datum):
Horizontal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, [Kh] (ft/day)
Fillable Porosity, [n] (%):
Vertical infiltration was not considered.
Geometrv Data
Equivalent Pond Length, [L] (ft): 266.0
Equivalent Pond Width, [W] (ft): 18.4
Ground water mound is expected to intersect the pond bottom
Staqe vs Area Data
Stage
(ft datum)
68.00
69.00
70.00
71.00
Area
(ft2)
650.0
2932.0
5679.0
9088.0
0.00
67.00
5.00
20.00
Clearwater Medical Clinic 09-30-2013 18:18:29 Page 1
M � � :�
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method
Copyright 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E.
Scenario Input Data
Scenario 1:: 5909 ft3 slug load
Hydrograph Type:
Modflow Routing:
Treatment Volume (ft3)
Slug Load
Routed with infiltration
.•�•]
Initial ground water level (ft datum) 67.00 (overridden)
Time After
Storm Event
(days)
0.100
0.250
0.500
1.000
1.500
Time After
Storm Event
(days)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
Clearwater Medical Clinic 09-30-2013 18:18:30 Page 2
�: h � �
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method
Copyright 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E.
Modflow Loq
MODFLOW CONTROL PARAMETERS
Perimeter boundary condition: constant head
Maximum iterations of outer loop: 150
Maximum iterations of inner loop: 60
Horizontal conductivity within pond: 1000000 (if ground water mound is expected to intersect pond bottom)
Instantanerous storage coefficient: Volumetric balance
Default head closure tolerance: .01
Default residual closure tolerance: .5
Target water budget error: 1
On failure to converge: Rerun limiting inner loop to one iteration
> Maximum number of iterations of outer loop: 500
Running Average Porosity is active
> Starting on pass: 2
> When outer iteration reaches: 50
> Number of data points: 4
Running Average Pond Stage (for discharge structures with tailwater) is active
> Starting on pass: 2
> When outer iteration reaches: 50
> Number of data points: 4
Grid size: 1000 ft (from pond centerline)
Mound Output: none
Begin Scenario 1 9/30/2013 18:16:45
Default GWT has been overridden. Using 67.0 ft.
End Scenario 1 9/30/2013 18:16:45
Cleanvater Medical Clinic 09-30-2013 18:18:30 Page 3
,! R , �
Detailed Results
Elapsed
Time
0.000
0.002
2.400
6.000
12.000
24.000
36.000
48.000
60.000
72.000
84.000
96.000
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method
Copyright 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E.
Scenario 1:: 5909 ft3 slug load
I nstantaneous
Inflow Rate
984.8333
984.8333
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Outside
Recharge
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Stage
Elevation
68.00000
69.95966
69.20833
68.69122
68.20583
67.77781
67.58594
67.47508
67.40233
67.35056
67.31156
67.28110
Infiltration
Rate
6.37915
6.37059
0.17234
0.08485
0.02648
0.00211
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Combined
Instantaneous Cumulative
Discharge Inflow
0 0.000
.3660029 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
0 5909.000
---- 5909.000
Cumulative
Infiltration
0.00000
38.24924
1866.45000
3333.44000
4145.74100
4327.86800
4327.86800
4327.86800
4327.86800
4327.86800
4327.86800
4327.86800
Combined
Cumulative
0 N.A.
1.098009 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 S
1581.132 N.A.
Clearvvater Medical Clinic 09-30-2013 18:18:31 Page 4
� �;r
PONDS Version 3.3.0265
Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method
Copyright 2012
Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E.
Summarv of Results :: Scenario 1:: 5909 ft3 slug load
Stage
Minimum
Maximum
Inflow
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Infiltration
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Sim�lation
Combined Discharge
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Discharge Structure 1- simple weir
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Discharge Structure 2 - inactive
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Discharge Structure 3 - inactive
Rate - Maximum - Positive
Rate - Maximum - Negative
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Positive
Cumulative Volume - Maximum Negative
Cumulative Volume - End of Simulation
Pollution Abatement:
36 Hour Stage and Infiltration Volume
72 Hour Stage and Infiltration Volume
Time Stage Rate Volume
(hours) (ft datum) (ft3/s) (ft3)
96.000 67.28
0.002 69.96
0.002
None
0.002
None
96.000
0.002
None
24.000
None
96.000
0.002
None
2.400
None
96.000
0.002
None
2.400
None
96.000
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
36.000 67.59
72.000 67.35
984.8333
None
5909.0
None
5909.0
6.3706
None
4327.9
None
4327.9
0.3660
None
1581.1
None
1581.1
0.3660
None
1581.1
None
1581.1
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
disabled
4327.9
4327.9
Clearwater Medical Clinic 09-30-2013 18:18:31 Page 5
n
N
v
�
d
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a�
E
7
O
d
�
�
�
7
U
0
�
w
0
N
O
W
OD I
�
w
�
v
�
�
�
Plot of Cumulative Volumes and Pond Stage vs Elapsed Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elapsed Time (hrs)
Y1 Axis: Cumulative Inflow-- Cumulative Infiltration--�� Cumulative Discharge— Y2 Axis: Pond Stage
�
�
�.
�
�
C
0
a+
�6
i
�
W
�
�
rt
�D
7
v �
�
o �o
o Z
� C�c'.v
�� �y
� � n c�D
� � <�
N.
3,?rN0
7
3 � ' W
vN� o
� � c�n
m a
. 3
c�
�
�
0
a
i
n
,�
�
�
�
d
�
�
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
0
i-.
�
�
a�
�
e�
�
�L
�+
41
�
0
>
0
�
w
0
N
O
W
W
�
w
N
v
m
�
m
�
1
Plot of Flow Rates and Pond Stage vs Elapsed Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elapsed Time (hrs)
Y1 Axis: Inflow Rate--� Infiltration Rate--� Discharge Rate— Y2 Axis: Pond Stage—
�
7
�
c�
-a
�
c
�
�
�
W
m
a�
e�
�
�
�
<D
�
N
7
�
v °
�
v
° °z
�oQ"c�n
m � � �
��cy
� � 0
3
N �
S O . W
o"'� o
. _
� ��
Fn a
. �
m
�
3
O
Q.
.F
-,C.
�
Y