09-08-88 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION INTO
BASEMENT SEEPAGE PROBLEMS IN 6700 BLOCK OF
THOMAS AVENUE AND SHERIDAN AVENUE
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 43
•
II. 7:30-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF SYSTEMATIC MARKETING PROCESS
FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 44
III. 8:15-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RESPONSE TO METROPOLITAN
AIRPORTS COMMISSION PROPOSAL FOR MITIGATION
OF NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY IMPACTS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 45
IV. 9:00-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ITEMS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 46
9:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
0
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 46
Agenda September 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• Runway 4/22
The Eighth Circuit Court has dismissed Richfield's lawsuit challenging MAC's EIS on
Runway 4-22. Pflaum stated that the City of Richfield may consider reactivating its
lawsuit in the Fourth District Court in Hennepin County if the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) proceeds with its plan to use Runway 4-22 to redistribute aircraft
noise. [See Attachment A]
MAC officials are now saying that air traffic off Runway 4-22 will not be returning to
normal levels for at least two months. Because of the heavy usage of the north parallel
runway this summer, the entire runway will need to be closed to remove a build-up of
tire rubber. Additional work on the south parallel runway will also need to take place.
• MAC officials state that the increased level of noise for residents of southeast Richfield
and Bloomington will not be constant but vary from day to day. MAC has not provided
the City of Richfield with details on how many flights will be shifted to Runway 4-22
while the parallel runways are being worked on. Large numbers of complaint calls are
coming into the City by residents of southeast Richfield.
• Proposed Runway 17/35
Three noise mitigation discussions have now taken place between the Met Council,
MAC and Richfield Council Members. The group is headed in the right direction now
since the FAA's decision to mitigate for low frequency noise near the Baltimore-
Washington International Airport. [See Attachment B] The MAC can no longer use the
excuse that the FAA does not recognize or have standards for this type of noise impact.
MAC came to the August 26 mitigation meeting with a draft proposal in hand. MAC
identified the following issues: environmental, mitigation, commercial redevelopment,
transportation improvements recreational assets, and social impacts. Since almost all
of their proposal is based upon legislative and FAA assistance, they included a "good
faith" statement that "MAC will use its best efforts to secure approval of this agreement
by the FAA and other decision makers who have authority or an interest in these
matters." The proposed agreement includes little or no responsibility of the MAC for
mitigation of negative impacts that Richfield will receive at the usage of a new North-
South Runway. [See Attachment C]
40 Mayor Kirsch and Council Member Stokes have told the mitigation discussion group
that the following aspects must be addressed and included within any agreement
between the MAC and City of Richfield:
• Proper mitigation of noise impacts from a runway that is built two blocks from
The Senate Local and Metropolitan Government Committee has canceled its hearing
with MAC and the City of Richfield. MAC's problem with the Northwest Airline's pilot
strike was given as the reason for delaying the hearing. The City will be strongly
encouraging the Senate to reschedule this meeting as soon as possible.
residential neighborhoods;
• Protection against possible air and water contamination from a new runway;
• Improvements are made to arterial streets, interchanges and local streets to keep
non-residential traffic off local streets and handle a projected 42 percent increase in
airport activity;
• Ways to combat the disintegration of the community's appearance that will occur
with the replacement of a golf course and recreational facilities with a runway and
airplane hangers;
• Replacement of lost recreational facilities in a mature, fully developed suburb.
Facilities include: two parks, a golf course, ball fields, community gardens, a
bluebird restoration project, and an archery range; and,
• The loss of residents and loss of tax base during land use conversion.
In light of the decision of the FAA to fund for mitigation of low frequency noise at BWI,
the City of Richfield requested that the FAA delay issuance of a Record of Decision
• until the FAA had (1) analyzed the correlation between the BBN Technologies report
and HMMH Baltimore-Washington report, (2) prepared and circulated for public
comment a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement that addresses low
frequency noise impacts and related mitigation measures, and (3) ensured that any
approval of the project at MSP is conditioned upon effective mitigation of low frequency
noise comparable to the levels of such noise for which the FAA has funded mitigation at
BWI. (See Attachment D]
On August 28 the City received a letter from Frank Benson, Manager of the local FAA.
In the letter Mr. Benson stated that the impacts of low frequency noise will be
addressed in the federal Record of Decision (ROD). In addition he said that Richfield's
studies will also be reviewed and addressed. In response to Richfield's request that the
FAA meet with the City, Benson concluded that, "Since the FAA is currently into its
decision-making process for the proposed MSP expansion project at meeting with your
organization is not considered to be appropriate at this time." [See Attachment El
• MASAC Meeting
This month MASAC took a field trip of the tower facilities at MSP. The tour was given
by FAA staff and was informative. Topics covered were how the air traffic controllers
work, how they bring in planes, why it is so difficult to spread planes around on
approach and departure. Richfield's MASAC representatives did submit a letter to
MASAC this month asking the group to address low-frequency noise issues, especially
in light of the BWI development. The motion was tabled on a procedural move by
Committee Chair Bob Johnson. However, Richfield's representatives plan to press
ahead on this issue, as it is fundamental to MASAC's mission.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of September 8, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam .Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
9
AmGN vnc(&+ X
J
Press Release - CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
For more information, call:
James Prosser
City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Voice: (612)861-9705
FAX: (612)861-9749
For Release: August 17, 1998
Date: August 17, 1998
CITY CONTINUES BATTLE TO STOP NOISE REDISTRIBUTION
MINNEAPOLIS -- The City of Richfield will reactivate its lawsuit in the Fourth District
Court in Hennepin County if the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) proceeds with
its plan to use Runway 4-22 to redistribute aircraft noise.
The City of Richfield made that announcement after a ruling was issued by the U.S.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denying Richfield's lawsuit that challenged the
adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement for Runway 4-22 under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
MAC's intention to proceed with the noise-shifting project has been called into question
by its repeated deferral of that project, which is now included in MAC's Capital
Improvement Program for the year 2001. In addition, the passage of more than three
years from the completion of the previous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
means that another EIS would have to be prepared before the project could proceed.
"While we had hoped to resolve this issue through the federal courts, we are undaunted
and will resolve it in district court if MAC attempts to proceed with the project," said
Richfield's Mayor Martin Kirsch. "The protections that state law provides residents are
greater than those provided under federal law."
Richfield's lawsuit in district court challenges the adequacy of the Runway 4-22 EIS
under the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). It also challenges the EIS
under the Minnesota Environment Rights Act (MERA). MERA requires that if an action
will cause significant adverse impact on the environment, it must be shown that no
prudent and feasible alternative exists.
MAC has proposed that the Runway 4-22 extension be used for long-haul flights, for
diversion of traffic during the reconstruction of the parallel runways and for the
redistribution of noise from South Minneapolis and North Richfield to Bloomington and
South Richfield.
"We have never opposed the use of the Runway 4-22 extension for long haul flights or
for a temporary diversion of traffic during parallel runway reconstruction," Richfield
Council Member Kristal Stokes asserts.
"However using the runway to shift some aircraft so that 3,000 new metro area
residents would be pounded by high noise levels, while providing no significant noise
relief to those already receiving a high level of overflights, makes absolutely no sense,"
she adds.
MAC had proposed spending $30 million in sound insulation in South Richfield and
Bloomington, however Richfield estimates adequately insulating the area would cost
$70 million.
The redistribution of some flights from the parallels runways to Runway 4-22 would
provide the residents of North Richfield and Minneapolis with little or no noticeable
reduction in noise. However they would likely lose noise insulation funding that would
be shifted to South Richfield and Bloomington.
MAC has admitted that the use of Runway 4-22 for noise redistribution would be a
temporary measure because Runway 4-22 would not be able to be used in that manner
once the traffic levels become too high and once the proposed new North-South
Runway is in use.
Richfield had deactivated the lawsuit it filed in district court in April 1995 while it sought
to resolve the matter through mediation. In addition to reactivating that lawsuit,
Richfield could ask the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision, appeal to the United
States Supreme Court, or challenge any future EIS's for the noise-shifting project that
do not comply with state or federal law.
"We wanted to resolve this issue through mediation, and we sought a tolling agreement
when MAC's intention to proceed with the project became doubtful. Unfortunately, in
the end we had no choice but to carry through with this lawsuit," said Mayor Kirsch.
"As before, it will ultimately be MAC's actions that determine whether it becomes
necessary to litigate a project that may never be implemented."
0
f11?"UUn--- B
Airport Noise Report
A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 10, Number 13 July 31,1998
Sound Insulation
•
FAA FOR FIRST TIME APPROVES FUNDING
FOR LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE INSULATION
(Continued on p. 98)
couraged the airpo
posing new noise
TRANS GRANTS NOISE VARIANCE
AIRPORT TO DO PART 161
•
In precedent-setting action. the Federal Aviation Administration has agreed for
the first time to provide additional funding to bolster sound insulation being
applied to homes now Baltimore-Washington International Airport that are
exposed to high levels of low-frequency noise from jet departures.
"We carefully developed and implemented an exterior sound insulation proce-
dure that has proven to be successful against low-frequency noise," said Ted
Mathison. executive director of the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA).
owner and operator of BWI. "This procedure is the first such program in the nation
to be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration."
Wayne Bryant, director of aviation noise and abatement for MAX said, "We felt
we owed it to the community to find a solution to the low-frequency noise that has
adversely affected residents living near the airport. We are very pleased that we
were able to break new ground and develop a unique solution that will greatly
enhance their quality of life."
The low frequency noise problem at BM was causing vibrations, which made
more conventional methods of sound insulation less effective, Terry J. Page,
Burbank
The Calif is Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
Iendale-P a Airport a three-year variance from the
standard on July 2 d strongly en
161 study on the feasi ' 'ty of im
The Part 161 study has g been
in a legal battle with the Bur
construction of a new larger pa.
located within the City of Burbank.
Burbank wants the airport authori
feasibility of a nighttime curfew 1
all-Stage 3 airport. The airpo ut1b1
le
161 study but has td
terminal heated up unfruitful, negotiate
zoning approval ss.
The airpo
the 1
will
d the airport noise
conduct a federal Part
sought by th ity of Burbank, which Is locked
Glendale-P ena Airport Authority over
ere nal at the airport, which would be
must pass its
to deceit
dbility it
, victor
cdlgn p. 99)
In This Issue...
Sound Insulation ... In
precedent-setting action, the
FAA approves additional
funding to sound insulate
homes near Baltimore-
Washington International
Airport exposed to high
levels of low-frequency
backblast noise - p. 97
Burbank ... CalTrans
strongly urges airport author-
ity to do federal Part 161
study in granting variance
from state noise rules - p. 97
Land Use ... ATA con-
cerned about recornmenda-
tions to FAA that non-
proprietor jurisdictions be
given AIP grants to conduct
land use projects - p. 100
Associations ...- N.O.I.S.E.
selects new executive board
at annual meeting - p. 100
Airlines ... DOT an-
nounces that U.S. airlines
have made record profits in
first quarter - p. 102
Amsterdam ... Airport
subdivides Stage 3 aircraft
into three categories by noise
level and imposes tighter
landing fees - p. 102
Noise Grants ... FAA
announces AIP grant awards
for noise projects - p. 103
News Briefs ... - p. 103
Copyrig?w C 1993 by Airport Nome Repeat Ashburn VA 20147
t a Part 161 study to determine the
rule, and cap on operations at the
motion in 1995 to pursue a Part
egal battle over the new
omniex. and thus far
d p6nning the study as
c study became a pawn in
over the terminal, which Bt
ct 4111ing to conduct the Put 161 study if Burbank
Aviation Administration's ruling on the matter (and t
the study) and also agrees to approve the new terminal
08/12/98 WED 17:56 Fag MWE Q003
Wl, from p. 97
manager of the FAA's Washington Airports District Office,
said in a recent letter to MAA.
Following a study of the low-frequency noise problem
done by the acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller
& Hanson, Inc. (HMMH) for MAA, which was submitted to
the FAA last spring, the agency agreed to allow the airport
to use federal Airport Improvement Program funds in an
existing grant to fund the additional sound insulation needed
to mitigate low-frequency noise.
Some 54 wood-frame homes, approximately 25 years old
and located mostly in the 70 dB DNL noise contour around
S WI. are eligible for the additional low-frequency sound
insulation, which costs about $40.000.$50'000 per home,
adding about $15,000 to 520,000 onto BWI's normal cost
for soundproofing a home.
'"The objective of the residential sound insulation program
is to provide relief for those residents based on their unique
local characteristics of airport noise," FAA's Page said in
his letter. "In the case of the residents of Allwood [the
neighborhood subject to back blast noise], it was determined
that the low-frequcney noise was causing vibrations, which
made more conventional methods of sound insulation less
dbctive. Other factors that FAA considered in reaching this
termination included the location and orientation of the
residences with respect to flight tracks, structural character-
istics of the homes, published noise exposure contours for
BWL*and the inclusion of sound insulation in the Allwood
Subdivision in BVVI's approved Part 150 Noise Compatibil-
ity Plan," the FAA official said.
"Approval of this type of mitigation," he stressed, "is
specific to this area and is not considered a blanket endorse-
ment of this type of sound insulation for all areas" Should
BWI desire to apply additional sound insulation to address
low-frequency noise in other locations, "additional coordi-
nation and evaluation will be required," he told MAA.
Allwood Study
The Allwood subdivision is located to the side and re=ar of
BWl's primary departure runway and often experiences the
predominantly low frequency noise events produced by jet
departures, according to Nicholas P. Miller, president of
HMMH. Residents' concerns about the noise and BWI's
recognition that the quality and effects of the sound are
different from those produced by overflights led to the
study. he said.
HMMH's ground-breaking study had three basic objec-
#VS1
o qua
ntify the star(-of-takeoff sound levels at a house
lwood;
- To quantify a resident's judgments of these start-of-
takeoff sound levels, and
- To measure the propagation rate of the sound levels into
the community.
These objectives were accomplished by conducting a
Noise
month of simultaneous sound monitoring at three homes.
together with monitoring of wall vibration levels in one
home and collection of sample tape recordings of the events
at one home. Miller said. A resident provided ratings of the
objectionable nature of the events, as heard indoors.
Analysis consisted of correlating the various sound metrics
of the events with vibration levels and with the resident
ratings.
Measurements of A-weighted, C-weighted, and wall
vibration levels were made during August 1997. Data were
collected simultaneously at three community locations that
were spaced radially at approximately 3,200 feet, 4.600 feet.
and 7.800 feet from the start of takeoff runway end.
At the closest location, simultaneous A-weighted, C-
weighted, and RMS acceleration levels were measured.
Monitors collected continuous one-second C-weighted
levels both indoors and outdoors at this site, with the
outdoor monitor used to trigger three other monitors that
collected A-weighted levels outdoors and vibration levels
from accelerometers fastened to the walls. Sample digital
tape recordings of sound levels were also made simultane-
ously indoors and out. One monitor at each of the two mare
distant locations collected continuous C-weighted outdoor
sound levels.
During the measurement period, Miller explained, one of
the residents at the closest site rated the objectionable nature
of singk departure events. The resident used a scale of 0 to
100 for rating the least to most objectionable events,
generally using multiples of 10 in assigning ratings. Ratings
of 10 to 90 were used for least to most objectionable so that
there would be room for the rare exceptionally quiet or
exceptionally objectionable events.
Study Conclusions
The study report documents the A- and C-welghte&sound
levels, wall vibration levels, typical spectra, and time
histories of the takeoff events, homeowner ratings, correla-
tions of sound levels with vibration levels and with the
ratings, and compares measured vibration levels with
published standard thresholds for human perception. Miller
said.
The following conclusions were drawn from the study:
- It appears that. though low frequency sound energy is
important in determining how a person may react to the
noise, higher frequencies also play a role - if there is
enough energy in the higher frequencies, events also can be
objectionable:
- C-weighted metrics (Lmax and SEL) correlate better
with human judgments of the objectionable degree of an
event than do the same A-weighted metrics;
- Maximum wall vibration levels correlate strongly with
C-weighted maximum outdoor sound levels, and do so
somewhat better than with"maximum A-weighted levels.
- Outdoor C-weighted maximum exceeding about 75 to 80
dBC can produce wall vibrations that can be felt;
- The average drop off of C-weighted maximum levels,
•
•
July 31, 1998
from 3,200 feet from the runway end to 7,800 feet is very
close to spherical spreading - that is, the maximum C.
weighted levels drop. about 6 dB for each doubling of
distance;
• The homeowner ratings of the events, together with
simultaneous sound measurements of the events can be used
to estimate how this homeowner (or person of similar
sensitivity to the events) might rate the events as heard at
greater distances from the airport The homeowner. living in
a home approximately 3.200 feet from the runway, rated
about 75 percent of the events as more objectionable than 40
on the scale of 0 to 100. If the same resident lived at the
furthest measurements site, about 7,800 feet from the
runway, approximately 50 percent of the events would be
rated as more objectionable than 40.
Miller said that the FAA views the data collected in the
BWI study as helpful in beginning the process to assess the
impact of these types of low-frequency aircraft noise events.
and hopes additional similar data will be forthcoming as
other airports address these types of impacts.
Acoustical Treatment
Two demonstration houses were used to test the BWI low
frequency sound insulation treatments. One house was used
to test exterior treatments and the other to test Interior
treatments. It's not that anything new in terms of sound
insulation was used, explained Walter Rullman, assistant
director of real estate for MAX but walls and windows got
almost a double treatment compared to houses not subject to
back blast noise.
For instance, storm windows were added to acoustical
windows to provide three layers of glass to help dampen the
low frequency noise. Likewise, a total of two and three-
eighths inches were added to the thickness of the interior
walls by adding a one-half inch layer of fiber sound board
and three five-eighth inch layers of sheet rock. Usually only
one layer of sound board and one layer of sheet rock are
used in the BWI sound insulation program.
On the exterior of the house, two layers of one-half inch
cement board were added, where usually only one layer is
used. In attics, insulation and sound board were used and
cement board was placed between the trusses.
These acoustical treatments resulted in an average A-
weighted noise reduction improvement of just over 10 dB
and an average C-weighted noise reduction improvement of
4.5 dB, according to a report on the effectiveness of the
acoustical treatments done by Acoustical Design Collabora-
tive, Ltd. of Falls Church, VA. These improvement ex-
ceeded the design goals of the treatment.
The report recommended that a dual lite STC (Sound
Transmission Class) 54 window assembly be used in lieu of
the STC 45 prime windows with the one-quarter inch
laminated glass storm windows. `"the STC 54 windows will
have a greater air space between the glass }ices which will
result in increased low frequency noise reduction, compared
to the STC 45 windows," the report noted. Additionally, it
99
said, "there will be no low frequency mass-air-mass
resonance frequency. due to the supplemental storm
window, to further degrade low frequcncy noise reduction
performance"
"If homeowners are reluctant to accept the STC 54
windows due to their site and potential difficulty in open-
in&. a reasonable compromise is to use the STC 54 window
as a replacement for the large fixed 'picture' window In the
living rooms and use the STC 45 prime windows and the
one-quarter Inch laminated glass storm windows at other
openings," the report noted.
Homeowners are pleased to be receiving the additional
insulation, Rullman said. They were most bothered by
aircraft noise interfering with television and sleep.
MAA has Insulated about 300 homes In the BWI airport
noise zone at a cost of about 549.7 million and has a high
satisfaction rate with its program, he noted. About 900
homes are eligible for sound insulation or purchase assur.
ante.
San Francisco Study
A study on low-frequency backblast noise is also under-
way at San Francisco International Airport, but few details
on it are available.
The Airport Commission for the City and County of San
Francisco recently contracted with GTFJBBN Technologies
for $225,000 to study methods to reduce interior noise in
communities new the airport impacted by low frequency
noise.
Such a study also has been sought by the San Francisco
International Airport /Community Roundtable. The
roundtable's work program has included investigation of the
low frequency noise impact for a number of years.A
from p. 29
Gill, spokesman for the airport authority, said.
The n authority has to weigh carefully whether i
willing to tits credibility on the line with a Part 16
study, he sal It has to study objectively whether ere is
any rational an sis for a curfew that would w ant serious
consideration in a 161 study.
Gil! also said that airport authority " ill be buns out to
dry by its aviation cons ' errs" if it I sed new noise
rules at an all-Stage 3 ai beta of the precedent such
action would set.
Part 161 HoldsAr-West Promise'
While holding that th rport author 'c current noise
planning efforts are " propriate." Ca 1T noted that
..more specific and etailed plans are requir in order to
properly evalua whether the Airport Authori is doing the
best it can" reduce the noise impact area- the CNEL
contour.
Airport Authority has established that it is
good faith measures toward achieving compliance
Airport Prone Rcpon
• hAer oononcei _ RICHFIELD ISSUES (8126198)
Environmental
1. MAC will develop and implement an air quality monitoring and reporting
program.
2. MAC will evaluate surface and groundwater flows, and implement mitigation
measures to insure no off airport impacts.
3. MAC will integrate berms and landscaping with the facility design in the west
cargo area and minimize lighting impacts.
Mitigation
1. Property within the Richfield DNL 65 would be eligible for purchase &
demolition by MAC to be redeveloped for new uses consistent with height and
use restrictions (would require statutory change by MN legislature & value of
completed Part 150 improvements would have to be reconciled).
2. Value of MAC DNL 60 mitigation program could be re-appropriated for other
mitigation uses within DNL 60 boundary at the request of Richfield and with
MAC/FAA approval.
3. MAC would expedite the update of the Part 150 Plan, the effect of which may
expand the DNL 65 boundary in Richfield creating additional mitigation
options for properties within the new boundary.
4. MAC will work with low frequency noise impacted areas and the FAA to
modify the Part 150 Program to address low frequency noise, consistent with
FAA guidelines.
Commercial Redevelopment
1. MAC would assist in encouraging airport businesses that will be relocated
due to airport expansion to the redevelopment corridor along Cedar Avenue
in Richfield.
2. MAC would also assist in encouraging other businesses which must be
relocated due to the Metro Office Park redevelopment or the Runway
Protection Zone (under the north/south runway) to locate in the Richfield
Cedar Avenue redevelopment corridor.
3. MAC would actively support Richfield in a legislative initiative to create a
Special Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District along Cedar Avenue in
Richfield.
0
Transportation Improvements
1. MAC would work with Richfield to develop a joint proposal for MNDOT's
assistance in construction of TH 77166" Street interchange and associated
traffic improvements.
2. MAC would support a request from Richfield to the state/federal government
for any costs not covered to complete the TH77/77" St. tunnel/street
connector and associated traffic improvements.
Recreational Assets
1. MAC will consider a long-term lease of MAC property in the NW quadrant of
TH 77/TH 62 Interchange for community gardens and archery range
(consistent with surrounding land use).
2. MAC will consider long-term lease of MAC property to the north of TH 62 for
ballfields (consistent with surrounding land use).
3. MAC will pay Richfield $460,000 for neighborhood parks affected by
Richfield's request that MAC purchase the homes in New Ford Town and
Rich Acres.
4. MAC will consider long-term lease or transfer of ownership to Richfield of Taft
Park.
9 Social Impacts
1. Consistent with the 1996 Mitigation Committee Report, MAC will work with
affected communities to develop a legislative proposal to be funded by the
state which addresses community/social impacts related to the 1996 airport
expansion mandate by the Minnesota Legislature.
2. MAC will assist affected communities to develop a legislative proposal,
consistent with the 1996 Mitigation Committee Report, for the state to fund
the loss of school and city revenues due to airport expansion impacts.
Good Faith
1. MAC will use its best efforts to secure approval of this agreement by the FAA
and other decisionmakers who have authority or an interest in these matters.
2. Richfield will not pursue litigation or other measures that would delay or have
the effect of delaying the 2010 airport expansion program.
0
y
•
1998 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION BILL (TEA 21 only)
MN HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
(DEMOS)
ATP M+tCOT .
QiBTRICT .. CONC
OIST No
` ftOW10 .
DEBCRIPTIok 4 111L10NS
:. •_ ::.. j ,
F
F '
•AUITCH '
OTAL
M M 4 Pna4n 81W ICOnstruct Pha+en Wild. Between 1-36E and 1.94 12 250. 3.0625 15.3125
M M 4 Restore MN Transportat*r facility, Jackson
Street Roundhouse. St. Paul 07500 0.1875 09375
M M 4 Shepard Rd Construct Shepard Road/UpMr Landj.V
interceptor. St Paul 3.2500 0.81.25 4.0525
M M 5 77th Street Upgrade 77th St, between 135W and 24th Ave. to
four lanes in RlchfreW 17.1000 4.2750 21.3750
i
Conduct study of potential for divers= of traffic
M
M
8
from 1118 135 cortidor to commuter rail, Cnisago i
County noO of Forest Lake along 13S caddor to 0.3750 0.0939 0.4688
Rusn City
M M 3 Undertake improvements to Hennepin County
5 Bikeway
Tnru . 3.0000 0.8750 4.8750
+•.9479 7.w94 4r.u317
M M a TH 8 implarrent TH 8 Corridor P•ro)ects, Chisago Co. 12.4750 3.1188 15.5935
M M 6 TH 13 Upgrade TH 13 between TH 77 and 1494 1.5000 0.3750 1.8730
M M
I 2
3 TH 212 Construct TH 212 construction between 1494 and
Carver Co. Rd. 147
4.0000
1.0000
50000
M M 8
4 1494 Reeonatn,el and replace 1-494 Wakota Bridge
from South SL Paul 10 Newpor!, and approaches
14 2829
3.5107
17 8536
M M 3
- TH 610110
- Construct Trunk Highway 610110 from TH 159 in Brooklyn Park to 1.94 in Maple Grove 23.029G 5.7573 28.7863
D
M
M
F T
135W
esign and Construct Access t0 t35'rV at Lake
SL. Minneapolis
TAT?1
2 0000
0.5000
2.5000
ar-4997 14.3117 71.6086
M M 8B Twin Cities NOrthstar Comdr (Downtown
Minneapolis-Anoka-St. Cloud)
6.0000
I
M M I BS Twin Cites Transkways Corridor 120.0000
M ( M
i :TS Urrveraity Transportat or. Reseath
12.0000 3., O.C
i 6 D300
M ( M I BB Nortrstar Corr.Oor• MN Inlem100411 Facilities and
Buses
18.0000
0000
I?
Earmarked Allocated Funds
METRO TOTAL: 248.9119 26.7280 133.6398
TOTAL of ALL ATPs: 344.3021 48.3255 250.6276
Page 4 of 4
DRAFT ON
rorma: A/Rev. 9
0,17198 12.23 PN
A?rarv??+ ?
CITY OF
'ICHFIELD
CITY MANAGER
JAMES D. PROSSER
MAYOR
MARTIN J. KIRSCH
CITY COUNCIL
SUSAN ROSENBERG
MICHAEL SANDAHL
KRISTAL STOKES
RUSS SUSAG
City Manager's Office
DELIVERED BY MESSENGER
August 27, 1998
Mr. Franklin D. Benson
Manager
FAA Airports District Office - Minneapolis
6020 28th Avenue South
Room 102
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Re: Low Frequency Noise Issue Concerning Proposed Runway at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
Dear Mr. Benson:
Following up on my August 18, 1998 letter and our ensuing conversation concerning FAA
funding of low frequency noise mitigation at Baltimore-Washington International Airport
(BWI), I am enclosing copies of the following reports:
• "Final Report--BWI Low Frequency Noise Analysis for Allwood Neighborhood," by
Acoustical Design Collaborative, Ltd. (July 24, 1997)
• "Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore-Washington International Airport,"
by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (April 1998)
• "Residential Sound Insulation at Baltimore/Washington International Airport," AIP 3-24-
005-39, Engineer's Report (undated)
• "Similarities in Current Low-Frequency Aircraft Noise Exposure at Baltimore-Washington
International Airport and Expected Exposure in Richfield," by BBN Technologies (August
1998)
The report by BBN Technologies demonstrates that the three BWI reports corroborate the
analysis and conclusions concerning low frequency noise impacts from the proposed North-
South Runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (the "proposed runway") that
were reached in the studies performed by BBN for the City of Richfield. The BWI reports
also support the justification and reasonableness of the mitigation plan for the proposed
runway that has been developed by Richfield (the "Mitigation Plan"). Furthermore, the BWI
reports, and the FAA's approval of mitigation measures for low frequency noise at BWI on
the basis of those reports, demonstrate the inadequacy of the failure of the EIS for the
proposed runway to analyze low frequency noise impacts or to propose appropriate
mitigation for those impacts.
The Urban Hometown
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749
-. ci. ric hfield. m n. us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Franklin D. Benson
August 27, 1998
Page 2
Under these circumstances, Richfield respectfully requests the FAA to delay issuance of a
Record of Decision for the proposed runway until the FAA has (1) analyzed these reports,
(2) prepared and circulated for public comment a Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Statement that addresses low frequency noise impacts and related mitigation measures, and
(3) ensured that any approval of the project at MSP is conditioned upon effective mitigation
of low frequency noise comparable to the levels of such noise for which the FAA has funded
mitigation at BWI. In addition, as we discussed, Richfield would continue to welcome
feedback from the FAA regarding the BBN studies and the Mitigation Plan. In particular,
since Richfield is amenable to refining the BBN studies or revising the Mitigation Plan if
necessary, we would like to know if the FAA perceives any shortcomings in the BBN studies
or any feasible alternatives to the Mitigation Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
A1100h YV\e4? E,:E
a
U S. Deoahment
Ot'ra^sportafon
Federal Aviation
Administration
August 28, 1998
Mr. James D. Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Prosser:
AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
6020 - 28th Avenge Soy:I- Roor; • G2
MinneaCotis, h4inneso:a 55450-2736
This is in response to your August 18, 1998, letter expressing concern for low
frequency noise impacts on residents of Richfield from proposed expansion of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and requesting a meeting to
discuss this matter.
The planning and environmental process leading to a pending decision on
expansion of MSP has been extensive. The process began with the enactment of
the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act by the Minnesota Legislature in 1989 and
has continued through with the issuance of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement in December 1995 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement in
May 1998.
Comments that the FAA has received regarding possible low frequency noise
impacts will be addressed in our Record of Decision (ROD) which culminates the
Federal environmental process. Studies on low frequency noise prepared for the
City of Richfield have been submitted to and reviewed by the FAA and they also
will be addressed in the ROD. In addition, to the extent practicable, comments
received on the FEIS, such as your letter, will also be addressed in the ROD.
Since the FAA is currently into its decision-making process for the proposed MSP
expansion project a meeting with your organization is not considered to be
appropriate at this time.
Sincerely,
Franklin D. Benson
Manager
July, 1998
MASAC
Technical Advisor's Report
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Operations and Complaint Summary
July 1998
•
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
Runway Arrival % Use Departure % Use
04 35 0.2% 71 0.4%
22 142 0.7% 9027 45.5%
12 6496 31.8% 3855 19.4%
30 13748 67.3% 6890 34.7%
MSP July Fleet Mix Percentage
Stage Scheduled Scheduled ANOMS ANOMS
1997 1998 Count 1997 Count 1998
Stage 2 42.0% 31.0% 45.1% 31.0%
Stage 3 58.0% 69.0% 54.9% 69.0%
Airport July Complaint Summary
•
Airport 1997 1998
MSP 1426 2004
Airlake 2 0
Anoka 0 6
Crystal 0 1
Flying Cloud 1 0
Lake Elmo 0 0
St. Paul 3 4
Misc. 6 0
TOTAL 1438 2015
July Daily Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record
1997 1998
Air Carrier 887 876
Commuter 327 346
G.A.
-- 172 200
li
tary
--
Ti 1 5
T 11
TAL
o 1401 1433
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
•
0
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
July 1998
Complaint Summary by City
City Arrival Departure Total Percentage
Apple Valle 0 6 6
1
0
0.30
Arden Hills 0 6 6 0.301b
Bloomington 0 243 243 12.101o
Burnsville 1 98 99 4.9%
Eagan 15 61 76 3.8%
Eden Prairie 0 3 3 0.201o
Edina 0 2 2 0.10/0
Golden Valle 0 2 2 0.10/0
Hastings 0 1 1 0.00/0
Inver Grove Heights 13 58 71 3.6%
Maple Grove 5 13 18 0.90k
Mendota Heights 6 42 48 2.4%
Minneapolis 143 941 1084 54.201o
Minnetonka 3 1 4 0.201o
Plymouth 7 23 30 1.501o
Richfield 0 153 153 7.7%
Rosemount 0 1 1 0.00/0
Roseville 1 2 3 0.201o
Savage 1 11 12 0.601o
South St. Paul 0 3 3 0.201o
St. Louis Park 6 4 10 0.501o
St. Paul 86 32 118 5.90/0
aSunfish Lake 0 6 6 0.3%
Total 287 1712 1999 100%
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
n
Time Total Nature of Complaint Total
00:00 - 05:59 94 Excessive Noise 1477
06:00 - 06:59 54 Earl /Late 500
07:00 - 11:59 390 Low Flying 16
12:00 - 15:59 349 Structural Disturbance 5
16:00 - 19:59 309 Helicopter 0
20:00 - 21:59 295 Ground Noise 5
22:00 - 22:59 378 Engine Run-up 0
23:00 - 23:59 135 Freuenc 1
Total 2004 Total 2004
Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Available Time for Runway Use
Tower Log Reports - July 1998
• All Hours
0%
52%
2%
44%
22
D d
12 n fl
?p ov .
30
04
3%
78%
V •
0%
26%
04
.11
2%
000
22
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
V 51%
A57%
Nighttime Hours
0%
V 85%
81%
%
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
u
34.7%
2
U
•
All Operations
Runway Use Report July 19 8
0.4%
Runway Arrival/
Departure Count Percentage July 1997
Count July 1997
Percentage
04 A 35 0.2% 117 0.6%
12L A 3857 18.9% 5425 28.5%
12R A 2639 12.9% 5385 28.3%
22 A 142 0.7% 99 0.5%
30L A 6058. 29.7% 3938 20.7%
30R A 7690 37.6% 4071 21.4%
Total Arr. 20421 100% 19035 100%
04 D 71 0.4% 42 0.2%
12L D 3387 17.1% 5255 28.2%
12R D 468 2.3% 5567 29.8%
22 D 9027 45.5% 562 3.0%
30L D 319 1.6% 3710 19.9%
30R D 6571 33.1% 3531 18.9%
Total Dep. 19843 100% 18667 100%
NOW ARTS data missing for a8 days.
Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report July 19 8
•
•
32.1 %
3
0.3%
Runwa
Runway Arrival/
Dept count. Percentage July 1997
Count July 1997
Percentage
04 A 18 0.1% 60 0.5%
12L A 3204 23.0% 3384 26.5%
12R A 1414 10.1% 3785 29.6%
22 A 111 0.8% 62 0.5%
30L A 3031 21.7% 2858 22.3%
30R A 6172 44.3% 2638 20.6%
Total Arr. 13950 100% 12787 100%
04 D 36 0.3% 8 0.1%
12L D 2469 18.1% 3276 26.0%
12R D 144 1.0% 4076 32.3%
22 D 6618 48.5% 377 3.0%
30L D 156 1.1% 2892 22.9%
NOR D 4235 31.0% 1983 15.7%
L
Dep. 13658 100% 12612 100%
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 5
e opo ttanirports Commission
Nighttime -All Operations
Runway Use Report July 19 8
J
•
34A
0.5%
Runway ArrivaV
Departure Count Percen a July 1997
Count July 1997
Percentage
04 A 14 1.3% 12 1.3%
12L A 200 18.5% 133 14.5%
12R A 27 2.5% 129 14.0%
22 A 60 5.5% 41 4.5%
30L A 106 9.8% 295 32.0%
30R A 675 62.4% 310 33.7%
Total Arr. 1082 100% 920 100%
04 D 7 0.5% 2 0.5%
12L D 401 27.3% 149 33.6%
12R D 51 3.5% 147 33.1%
22 D 504 34.3% 45 10.1%
30L D 13 0.9% 48 10.8%
30R D 493 33.5% 53 11.9%
Total Dep. 1469 100% 444 100%
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Page 6
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
l
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report July 19 8
?J
•
A/"
V
0.3%
Runwa
Runway Arrival/
Departure Count Percentage July 1997
Count July 1997
Percentage
04 A 5 0.6% 10 1.3%
12L A 181 20.9% 103 13.8%
12R A 17 2.0% 105 14.1%
22 A 49 5.7% 37 5.0%
30L A 67 7.7% 237 31.9%
30R A 546 63.1% 252 33.9%
Total Arr. 865 100% 744 100%
04 D 3 0.3% 1 0.4%
12L D 262 26.6% 87 31.3%
12R D 16 1.6% 94 33.8%
22 D 354 36.0% 34 12.2%
30L D 9 0.9% 33 11.9%
30R D 341 34.6% 29 10.4%
Total Dep. 985 100% 278 100%..j
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 7
•
00
O
O
CO)
rn
Q
rn
o
co
C
M
Q.
0
U
a
a?
L
U
w
•
co
3: w
0
c
E L
.!A
2
3
o
.0 T-
-a U)
c(D aNi
o E 3 c Co c
0 (D
Lo m
c 0
Q > o «.
c4 v
? -a
c L o
c4 m L
a
o
m
c o
c
o
a
i
r- CC
0
L co
_
)
0 0
CL
o
4
C:L -0
M +-' c4 o c .o voi c c
I sZ Q c4 m 3 c4 -0 >
C
O
'O N
O
M
0
Co -O O
L.
O
U
.0 O
-0
U N
N
f4
i O p) N p N N? 0
• L N L C c4 C `-'
C
G)
C O
r
a) ~
-
"
f
to to O
0
? O
0 -0
N
N N
N
C'. N
C
O 0
) c
)
O> L O 75 p co L M r- C M -0
O 0 -?? 'p >% Co
L rn O N cr :3 cr co p .? O -O
V Q c o? 3cv (- ,
n.,E.0 0 Z w rn ? oo h ? U E-a ti p 3a) M
:=
N
co co
L
i
U)
c
c 06
v
v
c
v
c
0)
c
.a
. p L L L ' N
a E i c
7
ti
Q
I ti ti co N 0 r- .? N co N
O
104 o
'Z3 V co
C c4
C o
? c4
C 7
?? c4
C d'
'o c4
?
d 75 ca (D a) O ? LI ? o 0 'o W 0
-
p t 4 4
--
m V
N o
O O N N
14 N
> >
Z I ?
y
N moN
/
1 r rN
y
1 t••' ?N
/
1 LL ?N
y
{.L Q {L I.L Q I.L
l V- M M to Uf to O O O
w+
R I 61 c M ? ?
D! 7 =
Q Q Q Q ;
Q Q? Q Q Q Q
?- N M v In co r co O O
O
a
•
0
•
ao
rn
rn
a)
O
Q
CD
O
J
c
Cc
Q
0
U
a
m
U
w
?
c
a
N .-+
~ ca O
U
0 > ° ° is
(D
C
-
7 m L
co = a)
U
°- c
p
-
w ?
c
m 3
.r Y
3 0
U) o
:3
o
- -
L
N L CO Q ca m
C
°
°
0
c 0
-C
° a)
N o
?
.
(D
c >
a) .0
a) o
C .
Q
ca t o
Q r- 3 c
w cc v
C N -CO o-0
.
(D U -a `
3
a)
= a
cc (D m 0)
° ° o
c a) o c c 3 •a 'Q -
c 0)
as
rn o
c
w a E a)
?, a= v °) E E
rn o
°
D) .-
c
c o
cC
-0 C,4
n
a)
r
'cc >,
cC
Q
L >, a)
m 0) ca
r./1 L 0
t t
a)
a V C .O O O.
co a) °° 3
N
. m
O Ln 'O Cu O LM O O
-0 O O
? O O
0 N O> O co c3 ?0 0 m N 0
- 0 0
?
J U m -i m U 0 0 o mtC/o cc 3
a m
c
O
c aj
> c
m c C,6
m c
m c
m o c
a) c
L
m O c
a)
'? (D o
N
()
O
0 a)
? N
m N >
) Q N
a) N Co
a M
) .c w L .c
ca
a) a
cc
a)
M
?- I
V
"
" t
"
U C j
"
.•- w O rr to
-
0 M
-
C I O a co a a a a .
O c a
m U m a) a) ?- m a) ots m 06 m a) CD od
a)
a)
t `_ "' I L In t .4c co
CV) t O
Cf) L N O
L w
3 4=
U ca U U? U U U U L p 0 N U
Eco w? ip- Eco 0co cn?
O
r
r
t- r
r
r
T-
l-
r
r
N
r i
Ni M?
r l-
t-
rni v); ? ? rn ? ? I
rn rn? rn
??
Q? 77
Q' Q O!
Qi O
Q O
Q 7
Q O' 7
Qi Q 7
Q
r N cn
r I ?-
r
r co
?- r--
r co O
.-- r
i O
N
N
N
a)
fa
a
•
•
•
co
rn
rn
rn
rn
O
J
c
E
O
U
N
t
U
w
(B ?.
16
O t
O
E
_
c
-0 c v ?.
m O 3 S 2% c =
cC m "--0 Z
O
4- =
(4 L
= m
?+ M
3
n cC C O
., C N c
L U _ rn L
C ca O
C c ca cn
L 4, Co
CO C f N
G L N
> N J Q
C L
N .0 c
o =3
m N :
m
CL e , ;a
C L
o m o
?
-a
«.
m
°
o IM
>
o c
N O
U
L
?.
-? -
Co Q. L Co
M 3 p ?+ 0 > p 0 a) U N co 0 N? N G
C
,
co
o C (D
CO -0 CL
(D CO SUN
> 'O C (D N ?
.. O m
A 3
U
t
Q
L
co
O
2 L
N .
0 4i
c0 N fl. ca L c
a) cr o M a)
. O N (C c
-
p
E co
O
O O
O
co V
C c
L +. Q-
O N E
O C C
Y C
O' m O Co
C
c a) C O CC N O C >,
O
O
C °' c 0) CL c O N L Qcc
. 0
O E 75
H O ca O
Q
c.
U 3
¢ .
.. .... E
u. m
¢ rn rn
ca
J C
ca
c v v > .?
m m
m
m
m c
O
N
m
c o c c c c N °? c °
N p •.
c
_
U) U) U)
m
) US a
a)
(D
Q)
c
W
c
Q Q' it N > c Y
O N
>
'O O N L c 'O N N (n 'O .0.
5B
co m m? o
l aD cn o
N Q)?-
C
a a?cn
00
t E L
t
E?
M a?cn
co
``-
T-
U
Uco -C
.2
U M O
a co
? cam
QO O
O S
UN
R i- c0 J U ?' S ?' co U m co
i
l-
i I
i
i
rn
a
O
A
o
o
i
N N N N N
O
O
O
Oi
O'
3 cm
3 0)
7
7
7
¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ j Q I ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q
N CO tt c7 Cfl t? co 0-) O
N N N Ni C-41 N N N N M
M
am
tm
ca
n.
00
rn
rn
0
rn
0
Q
a)
. o
J
C
CL
0
U
a)
LP
c-
0
w
•
a)
,F,
aD
3
0
0 C -0 t m =
j 0 -C
_
Co 0 C CL 0 C
0 M N Q. 00 0
a Nom, o
CL
.
N E
Q.
t
a)
N
Vj
a)
y
CL
o o
cu
> w L
C
C-4
c
N
C,4
>%
C7
0) C
% 0
0
a) Y
a)
0
,c'
E
v 3
c N
N CO 3 a) > c > .
uD a>
a)
U 0 v U -aa C 3 cm E 3
m m m
c c c c c
a) ai
u?
a) w >
Q w >
a) Q
a)
-a a co - co ? -o
0 a) `- 0) T- 0
Ca
i
U 4
M
U c
co
C M
U 4
-_
72
A co U
r
M r
M r
M r
Cl? r
M
Q Q Q Q Q
M M M M I M
a)
a)
ca
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 45
Agenda September 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Response to Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) proposal for mitigation of the
north-south runway impacts.
Background:
MAC has presented a proposal for mitigating the impacts of the north-south runway. A
copy of the proposal is attached. The proposal was a result of discussions including
representatives from the Metropolitan Council, MAC and the City of Richfield. The
proposal has been reviewed by special airport legal counsel Steven Pflaum; Chuck
Dayton, local airport counsel; and Don Brauer, who prepared the mitigation plan.
Summary conclusion of the proposal includes the following points:
• MAC has taken a positive step forward in acknowledging some responsibility for the
mitigation of low frequency noise impacts.
• MAC's proposal requests that the City agree not to litigate any issues regarding the
• north-south runway in return for their agreement to provide good faith efforts for the
more costly portion of the mitigation plan.
Recommended Motion:
The consensus recommendation regarding the response to MAC's proposal includes
two alternatives:
• Request that MAC, FAA and EQB agree not to take final action approving the final
EIS (this would also mean that MAC would agree not to proceed with any
construction) until state legislative and/or FAA approval of necessary funding for
implementation of the mitigation plan.
Request MAC, FAA and EQB approve a tolling agreement with the City of Richfield.
The tolling agreement would provide that the signatories would work to identify an
appropriate funding package for the mitigation plan and the MAC would agree not to
initiate construction until such a financing plan had been approved by appropriate
agencies.
Under both alternatives MAC and the Metropolitan Council would be requested to meet
with Richfield to develop an agreement regarding the funding proposals to be presented
to the FAA and the State Legislature.
•
Basis of Recommendation:
Both recommendations basically accept MAC's good intentions, but also recognize the
reality that MAC is not in a position to guarantee FAA or legislative approval. Without
such guarantees, Richfield would be in a vulnerable position regarding potential funding
of the mitigation plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could accept the proposal as is.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session of September 8, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
4na Pros ser
ger
JDP:cak
0 MAC PROPOSAL- RICHFIELD ISSUES 18/26/981
Environmental
1. MAC will develop and implement an air quality monitoring and reporting
program.
2. MAC will evaluate surface and groundwater flows, and implement mitigation
measures to insure no off airport impacts.
3. MAC will integrate berms and landscaping with the facility design in the west
cargo area and minimize lighting impacts.
Mitigation
1. Property within the Richfield DNL 65 would be eligible for purchase &
demolition by MAC to be redeveloped for new uses consistent with height and
use restrictions (would require statutory change by MN legislature & value of
completed Part 150 improvements would have to be reconciled).
2. Value of MAC DNL 60 mitigation program could be re-appropriated for other
mitigation uses within DNL 60 boundary at the request of Richfield and with
MAC/FAA approval
3. MAC would expedite the update of the Part 150 Plan, the effect of which may
expand the DNL 65 boundary in Richfield creating additional mitigation
options for properties within the new boundary.
4. MAC will work with low frequency noise impacted areas and the FAA to
modify the Part 150 Program to address low frequency noise, consistent with
FAA guidelines.
Commercial Redevelopment
1. MAC would assist in encouraging airport businesses that will be relocated
due to airport expansion to the redevelopment corridor along Cedar Avenue
in Richfield.
2. MAC would also assist in encouraging other businesses which must be
relocated due to the Metro Office Park redevelopment or the Runway
Protection Zone (under the north/south runway) to locate in the Richfield
Cedar Avenue redevelopment corridor.
3. MAC would actively support Richfield in a legislative initiative to create a
Special Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District along Cedar Avenue it
Richfield.
0
Transportation Improvements
1. MAC would work with Richfield to develop a joint proposal for MNDOT's
assistance in construction of TH 77/66 h Street interchange and associated
traffic improvements.
2. MAC would support a request from Richfield to the state/federal government
for any costs not covered to complete the TH77/77¢ St. tunnel/street
connector and associated traffic improvements.
Recreational Assets
1. MAC will consider a long-term lease of MAC property in the NW quadrant of
TH 77/•TH 62 Interchange for community gardens and archery range
(consistent with surrounding land use).
2. MAC will consider long-term lease of MAC property to the north of TH 62 for
ballfields (consistent with surrounding land use).
3. MAC will pay Richfield $460,000 for neighborhood parks affected by
Richfield's request that MAC purchase the homes in New Ford Town and
Rich Acres.
4. MAC will consider long-term lease or transfer of ownership to Richfield of Taft
Park.
Social Impacts
1. Consistent with the 1996 Mitigation Committee Report, MAC will work with
affected communities to develop a legislative proposal to be funded by the
state which addresses community/social impacts related to the 1996 airport
expansion mandate by the Minnesota Legislature.
2. MAC will assist affected communities to develop a legislative proposal,
consistent with the 1996 Mitigation Committee Report, for the state to fund
the loss of school and city revenues due to airport expansion impacts.
Good Faith
1. MAC will use its best efforts to secure approval of this agreement by the FAA
and other decisionmakers who have authority or an interest in these matters.
2. Richfield will not pursue litigation or other measures that would delay or have
the effect of delaying the 2010 airport expansion program.
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 44
Agenda September 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Status of systematic marketing process for the City of Richfield.
Background:
At the request of Council, the City of Richfield has proceeded through a concerted
marketing effort. Businesses have always known that a well thought out marketing plan
keeps them focused, generates a host of practical ideas, motivates internal staff, and
provides returns that are many times over their invested money. Marketing not only
keeps employees focused on goals, it improves communications across departments.
Why does Richfield need marketing?
The City needs to promote an image of a healthy vital community to retain and attract
new residents to Richfield, and to successfully compete with other suburbs in the metro
area. Marketing is needed to gain acceptance for projects and to increase confidence
in the community. Promoting the community and the services the City renders are
essential to increasing confidence in the market.
What will systematic marketing do for Richfield?
Marketing helps the City in a variety of ways. It is a thoughtful process that:
• identifies "customers" and understand their needs;
• organizes and prioritizes activities;
• focuses daily activities;
• save money through better targeted marketing; and
• will ultimately generate more new residents, increase stay-length for current
residents, increase property values, and improve Richfield's quality of life.
Where is the marketing process at?
The City has been engrossed in the marketing process since June 1997. At this time,
every department should now have a completed marketing plan. While putting
departmental plans together, employees have found that marketing challenges
assumptions about their department. Most people also found out that thoughtful
marketing increases awareness about what can be improved and provides a written
roadmap to help accomplish objectives and goals.
What does it take to put together a marketing plan?
All of the employees who helped to create their department's marketing plan can attest
that a good marketing plan is not developed in a day. This year, each department will
be bringing before the City Council a plan that portrays:
Vision - what we want to be.
Goals -what do we want to do; when do we want to do them.
• Competition - who we compete against.
• Strengths and weaknesses - what makes us different; where do we need to
improve.
• Position - how do we want to be remembered.
• Target Markets - who we service.
• Strategies - what do we need to do.
• Tactics/Timelines - how and when we'll be accomplishing our strategies.
• Budget and Analysis - did we accomplish what we needed to.
Overview of Council Study Session Presentation
At the September 8 Study Session, Jay Lipe, consultant from Emerge Marketing, will be
making a brief presentation to the Council. He will speak about:
• Why the marketing process is needed.
• What could happen if no action is taken.
• A summary of the process.
• The marketing process - to this date.
Each department director (or representative) will then explain to the City Council what
was learned by developing a marketing plan.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the City's marketing process.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding marketing
procedures.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of September 8, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 43
Agenda September 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of results of investigation into basement seepage problems in the 6700
block of Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Avenue.
Background:
Residents in the 6700 block of Thomas and Sheridan Avenue contacted staff in the late
summer/early fall of 1997 to discuss a common problem of water in the basements.
The residents told of a long running problem of water seeping into basements from the
floors and walls. They were not certain of the cause of the problem. The problem was
particularly noticeable in 1987, 1993 and 1997. Some residents speculated that the
Jefferson Park project seemed to make the problem worse. Several residents received
grants from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Assistance) program to recover
losses in 1997.
As follow-up to a September 29, 1997 neighborhood meeting, the City ordered a series
of soil borings to be conducted within and around the block. The results of the borings
were reported in a letter dated January 22, 1998. The letter indicated the
recommended long term solution to the basement inflow problem was for each home
owner to install a storm water collection system below the elevation of the basement
floor to collect the trapped water and a sump pump to pump the water up and out into
the yard so the water can find its way to the City street drain.
In May of 1998, residents were indicating continued concerns about water in the
basements of residences in the 6700 block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue.
Soil borings had verified that there are alternating layers of water bearing sandy soils
and impervious (water tight) soils which are holding the water table high enough to
reach the basements. In an effort to resolve the concerns of the residents, the City
hired Pete Willenbring of WSB and Associates, Inc. to meet with the residents and
perform his own analysis.
A copy of the report from WSB and Associates, Inc. discussing the results of hydrologic
analysis of the Jefferson Park area was attached to the August 3, 1998 agenda, Study
Session Letter No. 37. City staff and Pete Willenbring of WSB and Associates, Inc. will
be at the September 8, 1998 Council Study Session to discuss the report including
summary of findings/conclusions and improvement alternatives. Residents of the 6700
blocks of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue have been informed that this topic will
be discussed at the September 8, 1998 Council Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
• This is a discussion item. In the event Council should decide formal Council action is
needed, such action will be scheduled for a regular City Council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Residents in the 6700 block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue have
experienced water seepage in their basements.
2. Following City investigation and recommendation related to the problem, residents
continued to express concern.
3. WSB and Associates, Inc. has met with the residents and conducted a hydrologic
analysis of the Jefferson Park area.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for Council discussion at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 8,
1998. Residents of the 6700 block of Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Avenue have
received copies of the report which is the item of discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
9
Public Works Department
• (? 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin J. Kirsch Susan Rosenberg Kristal Stokes
Michael Sandahl Russ Susag
January 22, 1998
Dear resident of the 6700 block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue:
As a follow-up to the September 29, 1997 neighborhood meeting, the City ordered a series of
soil borings to be conducted within and around the block. The unusual widespread nature of
the basement inflow problem prompted the tests. The soil borings are now complete and the
results are available for your use.
The results of the borings indicate that this area is built in an old wetland bed and that there are
layers of impervious soils (silts and clays through which water cannot move) underlying the
homes. Some of the impervious soils occurred naturally and some were placed as fill. When
we get unusually heavy rains like we had last July, the downward migration of storm water
reaches an impervious layer and cannot go any farther. Thus an underground pocket of
saturated soils is formed. If the top of that layer of water-bearing soils is at a higher elevation
than a basement floor, the trapped water (which cannot migrate downward) migrates through
the basement wall and onto the basement floor. Because trapped storm water cannot rapidly
pass through a layer of impervious soils, it takes a long time for the water level to go down far
enough to let the basement dry out.
This underground problem is widely spread in the 6700 block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas
Avenue. The recommended long term solution to the problem is for each home owner to install
a storm water collection system below the elevation of the basement floor to collect the trapped
water and a sump pump to pump the water up and out into the yard so the water can find its
way to the City street drain.
If you wish to see the soil boring reports or have any other questions relative to this problem,
please phone me at 861-9191.
Sincerely,
George L. Atkinson, Engineering Supervisor
Public Works Department
GLA:sdr
Copy: Mayor and Members of the City Council
. City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Community Development
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 861-9700 •Fax (612) 861-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
&Associates, Inc.
B.A. Mittelsteadt, P.E.
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Peter R. Willenbring, P.E.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Ronald B. Bray, P.E.
Memorandum
To: Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
From: Pete Willenbring, P.E.
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: June 22, 1998
Re: Results of Hydrologic Analysis of Jefferson Park Area
WSB Project No. 1000.33
L Introduction
It is the purpose of this memorandum to outline the results of an investigation into
basement seepage problems that have been identified to be present along homes in
the 6700 block of Thomas and Sheridan Avenues within the City of Richfield. As
part of this investigation, background information concerning the problems that were
experienced by these homeowners was gathered at a meeting with homeowners in the
area on June 2, 1998. In addition to the information furnished by the residents, plans
for Jefferson Park before and after the 1992 improvements were reviewed,
topographic information for the watershed was analyzed, climatological data was
gathered, estimates of evapo-transpiration were developed, and options associated
with improvements to correct or address the problem were identified. This
information is further provided in the body of this technical memorandum.
H. Description of Problem
Based on information submitted by the property owners in attendance at the meeting
on June 2, 1998 at the Jefferson Park building (see Appendix A for list of names and
addresses of attendees), the following constitutes their general description of the
problem:
• Residents within the 6700 block of Sheridan and Thomas Avenue experienced
water seepage into their basements. In most cases, water was observed
entering the basement from the northwest corner of the structure. In most
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
612-541-4800
FAX 541-1700
F:\WPVIMI000.33\062298-res
Infrastructure Engineers Planners
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22, 1998
Page 2
cases, the area in which the basement walls become damp does not exceed a
height of one foot above the basement floor.
• Residents indicated that the problem has become more pronounced since the
park was recently reconstructed in 1992. Basement seepage problems were
typically experienced a day or two following a heavy rainfall event or
following a period of wet weather. Following these events, water is found
seeping into the basements of many of the structures in the area.
• Residents indicated the problem was most severe in 1987, 1993 and 1997.
• Surface water inundation has not been a problem, even during the major
rainfall event that occurred in 1987.
• Homeowners have put on gutters and landscaped around the homes to direct
drainage away from the foundation, but this effort did not correct the problem.
M. Notes / Observations
• The homes constructed along the 6700 block of Thomas and Sheridan
Avenues did not originally have drain tile or sump pumps installed at the time
of construction.
• The residents at 6733 and 6713 Thomas Avenue installed sump pumps in the
spring of 1997. Since installation, these pumps have operated very frequently,
but have kept their basements dry. It was also noted that homes in the
immediate vicinity of the homes with sump pumps were experiencing less
frequent problems than in the past.
• Residents noted that the skating rink area in the park, which was added during
park reconstruction in 1992, now has water standing on it during periods of
rainfall. In the past, water would sheet-flow drain from this area.
• Based on residents' input, no sanitary sewer backups have been experienced
in the study area.
•
FAWPW W \1000.33\062298-res
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22,1998
Page 3
• A resident at 6717 Russell Avenue indicated that they have a problem with a
wet basement until approximately mid-September until the problem then
dissipates over the winter months.
IV.. Anabgis Results
• A review of surficial topography information for the study area indicates that
surface elevations from west to east, and north to south drop approximately
30 feet over a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. The land form then levels
off into a plateau. It is also noted that these steep slopes direct surface water
and ground water from west to east and from north to south in this area. It is
likely surface water infiltration from over a 50-acre area contributes to the
groundwater elevations in this problem area. (See Appendix B for ground
surface profiles and Appendix C for a watershed map)
• A review of precipitation data indicates that years in which most of the
problems were experienced (1987, 1993, and 1997) had total annual
precipitation values of 32.16, 32.21, and 34.43 inches, respectively. As can
be observed on the attached precipitation tables included in Appendix C,
these three years had rainfall amounts that were in the top 20% of all annual
rainfall events recorded from 1836 to 1997.
• A review of typical evapo-transpiration, surface runoff, and infiltration rates
for open space areas in central Minnesota indicates that typically, 76% of all
precipitation is taken up through evapo-transpiration, 22% is directed to
surface runoff sources, and 2% infiltrates into the soils. Based on this
equation, if 30 inches of rainfall occurred in a given year, only 6/1 Oth's of an
inch would be anticipated to infiltrate into the soils. If we were to assume that
this infiltration rate in the vicinity of the skating rink would triple, increasing
the amount from .6 inches to 1.8 inches, the 1.2 inch increase in infiltration
over the 140-foot by 80-foot skating area would add approximately 8,400
gallons of water to the ground water. At an average pumping rate of 10
gallons per minute, which approximates many submersible sump pumps, a
single sump pump could pump this water from the area in approximately 12
hours.
• A review of park maintenance practices indicates that the City has not been
irrigating the turf on the Jefferson Park area as a routine practice. Preliminary
FAWMM1000.33\062298-ros
M Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22, 1998
Page 4
analysis results indicate that if homeowners water their lawns one inch
weekly, this watering has the potential to have a much greater impact on
infiltration and groundwater elevations than the grading activities that were
undertaken within the park.
• Soils information in the area was developed based on undertaking 18 borings
in a variety of areas in the vicinity of Jefferson Park. (See Appendix E.) At
the boring locations, water was found at a depth ranging from 5.2 to 10.2 feet,
which appears to be consistent with a range of elevations that could impact
property owners in this area. The report noted that fine and medium-grained
sands were encountered overlying less permeable clay layers in most drilling
locations. This clay layer could result in a perched groundwater condition to
be present in this area. It is noted that in many of the areas, this clay lens was
found at a depth ranging from four to seven feet. Based on this soil
information, it is apparent that this layer of clay is likely limiting foundation
drainage for the structures in this study area.
• An analysis of the impact of regrading the park and loosening the soils that
may otherwise have been compacted as a result of years of traffic over these
surfaces was undertaken. Based on this general analysis, if it was assumed
that the infiltration over these surfaces again tripled and the infiltration
increased from .6 to 1.8 inches of water over the entire 5 acres of park surface,
this water could be pumped out of the area by a 10-gallon per minute sump
pump within 10 days.
Y. Improvement Alternatives
Based on a review of the above information, please find outlined below a listing of
improvement alternatives that have the potential to address the problems identified:
1) Construct sump pump and drain tile system around the foundations of
structures experiencing problems with wet basements.
This improvement alternative typically provides homeowners with the highest
assurance that the basement should remain dry during foreseeable periods of
wet weather. The estimated cost for such improvements may range from
$4,000 to $8,000 per home, depending on the type of installation utilized.
FAWMIN\1000.33\062298-res
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22, 1998
Page S
2) Waterproof structure utilizing waterproofing materials to prevent water
from working its way through porous block, cracks, or the basementfloor.
Although this alternative has been attempted in many areas, it is not
considered a reliable fix as concrete is a porous building material and as such,
past attempts utilizing this methods have proved only partially effective in
most cases.
3) Install a regional drain tile system to lower the water table for the entire
area.
This option consists of installing lateral tile systems throughout the boulevard
areas, along with a centralized pump to lower the regional water table so the
elevation would be maintained below the lowest basement floor elevation in
the study area. Although this option has the potential to correct many of the
problems, no guarantees could be provided that the zone of influence of a
drain tile system in this area would be adequate to protect all of the structures
experiencing problems. The only way to provide this assurance is to install
a drain tile system immediately adjacent to the footings of the structures. The
cost associated with a regional tile system would signiflcantly exceed the cost
of installing tile systems around the structures experiencing problems.
4) Install a well point dewatering and/or irrigation system for Jefferson Park
to reduce the impact of infiltration through soils in the park and/or areas
up-gradient of the park property.
This option could be utilized if the City wishes to construct a private
improvement to address the property owners' concerns relative to stormwater
infiltration occurring within the park property. It should be noted it is my
opinion the updated park design has not caused the problem, and if it did
contribute to the problem, the magnitude or frequency of the problem would
only be extended to a very minor degree. It is also noted that the current park
grades appear to constitute a reasonable use for the park property. For the
above reasons, we believe the City should not feel obligated to construct this
improvement unless they believe the improvement represents a win/win
scenario.
•
FAWMM1000.33\062298-res
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22, 1998
Page 6
S) Prohibit watering lawns in the up gradient and problem areas to reduce the
potential for further groundwater infiltration.
This alternative does not have the ability to correct the problem and only has
a limited potential to reduce the magnitude or frequency of the problems if
significant watering is now utilized by homeowners in up-gradient areas.
VI. SummM of Findings / Conclusions
Residents in the 6700 block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue are
experiencing wet basement problems, primarily due to the presence of a layer of lean
clay that is present at or slightly above many of the basement floor elevations present
in the study area and due to the absence of foundation drain tile systems for their
structures. Surficial topography also contributes to this problem as these homes are
located on a plateau which is at the base of hills that are present both west and north
. of the plateau. Stormwater runoff that infiltrates from all of these areas, both west
and north of this plateau, would tend to direct infiltrated surface water toward the
plateau.
A review of the changes to the park as a result of an improvement project in 1992
indicates that although some increased infiltration could take place as a result ofthese
improvements, these improvements did not cause the problem and could only have
a very minor impact on elevating groundwater elevations in this area. It also seems
apparent that the changes to the park constitute a reasonable use for the property.
Computations indicate that any increase in infiltration would be anticipated to be very
small, and if such an increase did occur, a 10-gallon per minute sump pump could
pump away the additional infiltrated water generated over the park area in less than
30 days.
A review of precipitation data indicates that the major problem years (1987, 1993,
and 1997) had rainfall amounts in the top 20% of the wettest years on record. Based
on this information, I believe it is reasonable to infer that the problem with wet
basements is for the most part related to heavier than normal precipitation patterns
as opposed to any changes to the park.
• Our observations indicate that the area contributing water to this perched water table
includes more than a five-acre area within the park. The area likely extends over an
FAWMINU 000.33\062298-ra
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22, 1998
Page 7
area of at least 30to 50 acres to the west and 10 to 20 acres to the north of this study
area.
The impact of the grading activities on the park over that of the park in its pre-1992
condition indicates that the area in the vicinity of the ice skating rink has the potential
to increase infiltration over that which previously could have occurred in this area
(.25 acres) but that the remaining 4.75 acres of park area should not contribute
significantly greater amounts of infiltrated water to the groundwater table,
particularly after the park has been utilized for a few years following the park
reconstruction.
VII. Recommendations
In order to address the wet basement problem in this area, it is recommended drain
tile and sump pump systems be installed at the foundation of structures experiencing
problems. The other options identified within this memorandum may have the
potential to reduce the magnitude or frequency of the problem, but do not have the
ability to provide the level of assurance for a dry basement that the foundation drain
tile system would provide.
I hope this information assists the homeowners and the City in reasonably responding to the
problems that are experienced in this area. If you have any questions concerning this
information, please feel free to contact me at 512-9854.
run
FAW MM 1000.33\062298-res
•
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ATTENDEES AT JUNE 2ND, 1998
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33 APPENDIX A
•
•
List of Thomas and Sheridan Avenue Residents In Attendance At June 2, 1998 Public
Information Meeting
Name Address Phone Number
Ray Frounfelter 6709 Thomas Avenue South 866-2820
Sig Larsen 6729 Thomas Avenue South 866-0836
Terry Garrity 6721 Thomas Avenue South 869-2921
Judy Regenscheid 6725 Thomas Avenue South 869-7048
Tony Weiland 6733 Thomas Avenue South 866-8096
Shell Mechl 6713 Thomas Avenue South 869-2095
Kevin & Kathy McKeon 6717 Thomas Avenue South 861-6988
Jo & Pete Penoncells 6708 Sheridan Avenue South 869-6657
Susan Rosenberg Council Member/City of Richfield 866-2683
F:%WP WIMI000.33%060298-mtgattudees.wpd
APPENDIX B
GROUND SURFACE PROFILES
E
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33 APPENDIXB
•
•
•
d
0
a
m
m
s
ti
co
a?
0
a
v
ca
0
s?
OS
S?
O?
SS,
6!
O6
OS
s!
c!
ss,
S!
m
s!s U.
!
0
s
d
o
! C
3
O! z
m
o!('! c
ea
S? n
0! D
0190e
s6
6
00
6
0
s?
c
O?,
c
o?
9
9
00
S
W co co Go co co CO co
;ae:J u! uol;en613
•
LU
J
LL
0
a
W
D
Z
w
Q
N
Q
O
a?
0
^L
f.i
No
I.i..
I
rM
O
M
N
co
N
ti
N
co
N
LO
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
0
N _
? 0)
LL.
00 0
r H
r ?
(p C
r ?
2
to _
? V
r ?
e0
M w
r H
0
N
r
r
r
O
0)
•
00
ti
co
Lc)
IT
M
N
Tl-
00 0 000 00 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 O 0 0 00 0
0 00
0
;aa=1 u! U014RA013
P-j
APPENDIX C
WATERSHED MAP
•
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33 APPENDIX C
N %
~ i i ?U I %'V4 XERXES \A E. '
o drySOgy 1 HBUR S. W BURN AVE. S.
flR. Y/NCEN AVE _ S. t t V/NCEN AVE. S.
UPTON AVE. S. UPTON AVE. S.
THOMAS THOMA !k AV - N c THOMAS KAVI' LA•
uAd DAN wti S. n FR DAN C/R S CUMBER
S. RI(MMOM CV,
RUSSEL A S. OUEEN AVE. S. OUEf ` OUE£N AYE.
' S. PE AVE. S a
OLIVE ti S, a r OLIVER AVE. S. v w
NEWTO S. ? w ?, ~ NEWTO AVE. S. a a
o ~ R6AN VE. A h S. n o MOROA
A r N : a N ?^ y v. ?. b v N 106A
L06AN AVE. '4 '' S. # AVE. S.
VE 1 ?p9 S v h KNOX AVE $ .
o = AT JAME = AV?. !t ' y JAMES
= =
? N HUMBOLOT Ay a ! NJ T AYE' a ° S uai w d• 11 ! RV/ N
9sSS yC
~ 'a LUM BOLD Z' AVE. a S. j ^ In AVE. HUM BOLOT
Gy
?G/RA / N To AVE. ti y ARD AVE. S. ?? G9 Did, /RAR
: E.
FRf MONT FR MONT AI's. S. FR EMONT a
4t
AV E.?, R = AVE. = S. _ ?O r fRSON EM ERSON
• '.
% M DUPON AVE. S. y? ?0 a O o ! O °' ??• DUPONT s s' AVE.
° it
COLE N AVE. ° o rn Q _ N a COLFA AVE.
' BRYANT = AVE .", S. BRYAN AVE.
I N O ; B N ? so
`? v v AL OR/C z AI's. S. yE D ` M q 4 '?^ AL
h h Q,
LY DALE 7 NAVE AVE.
6 BURG: VE.
f7R F/ELD1 AVE. n S. ?. O ARF °^ _ ' `" 6A FIELD
v r
' !r > A R/fT O AVE. S. `? ?` NAVE a ?n '" MAR RlET rt AVE,
GRAND AVE. S. a : 6RANO?!Cl ;p :4 AVE w °'~ S. i a GRAND AVE.
' PLEASANT AVE. S. ~ ~ v CO.
a OO L E W• PLf SA = AVE R, S." '" c c N = PLEA SANT AVE.
P/L ABU PLEA ANT AV E. S. PILL BURY a AV E. PLE SANT AVf ~ w .
AVE. S. S. PILLSBURY AVE.,
w ..
ti 4ENT WORTH ti AVE y+ S. WENT WORIN AV S..?, WENT WORTH AVE..
r VV BLA/ DELL AVE.
a ( = S, -?i
A/ DELL AK 4. S. v „ „??, a BLA/ DELL AVE.
w
-yi N/C '' y ' _ o aN' AVE.
1st -4 AVE. k 1st AVE. S.
STf VFNS AVf May S. v°, T l STEVENS(il AVE. S.
Ind AVE~
AVE. S. 3rd AVE. = A ?nd AVE. S. AV
e a .n T ?, CL/ TON a CL1 TON E.
S. ee } ,Z, CL/N ON AVE
<th -• tAVEE <th AVE. S 5th . V S. N M Sth AVf. S. 4n -
AYE D D
AVE..
PORT LAND AVE.
?OAK LAND AVE % OAK LAND
? A
PARK AVE V1 $, PARK
F rn "' PARK
1 1 ,1 00 COL UM!{t/S w N AVE. o A y S. .3 a COLD BUS AVE' 0 CO'LUM
a a
CA60 OIL AVE. S. l o "'e Y CH/CAO
M ELL10 VE. n S. O m 0 -a0 a
fLCIOT
0 f
H lot .", A .? S. T "' a
N
X f i t a AVf S. b A 1 N -4 '4 o `a
f 2 to V S.
vAtc- Z4
N f3th '>, AVE S. 1 "' N 13th AVE.
14th # AVE. S w fAth AVE
0
10 y AV Owl 15th AVE.
BLOOM 6TON Q. ' c BLOOM 1#670 JM?d
10
10 f ^ a lith AVE.
10 Vt.
10th w Lp ., VE. S. = 1 f f8t Z l?py
CEOA S, A VE. v, s.
d _ CEDAR
a
a O Q
AVE. f9 S. F4tLLO6Aj LLO ArE.S :4 L ON6FEL OW AYE.
II ?OfA A S. N ( 20th AVE.1 th AV E.
?1st ( -AVE =
W_Q f O ?fsl AVE.
22nd AVE. t`oo
p
O YE. ST NDlSH AVE.
1 I ?3r AVE. S f
23tA AVE. S.
I h
Z $ $ a I< th AVE.
S.
z • I I I ?' r
I a ?5th AVE.
'D oo N 'n V1 -0 N W (A -0 0 -V 07 (A .(A m
m
c -mo
+ r -I m -I oc;v ?-? o oc 0C
ro
co ? 0 00 o c oo O -? z coo moo Z o
`z m • v f m-0 ? Z* -0 -< v z* zZE
p
--I
o v
m m mr- v N D-1 U) co D-4 ?? _
V1 M (A m m m O mm
-n m
mm rm m my m _<?v c -<M ...? v
s
vrn 0 m m m v m am
_
_q ;0 m my m my --mv T
0-4
o o
z
z
Orr „oo ,am, rm to MI varm m a aaer
soheien CITY OF RICHFIELD OAMS%t Associates, Inc. COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER TAW Tm FIGURE 3
•
•
E
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33
APPENDIX D
AIRPORT PRECIPITATION DATA
1836-1997
APPENDIX D
N -0 1,- t- n 0 V V O O W O C >N r- t- O M N M O O MM r M LO V M 0 V r M M r
O h r r (p r t-. . . . . U. . U. . . N M r CO r q LO V: O V to t? O O tt) O O O N? Cfl r CM O q to q N V
. . . . . . . .
V• t- -M r LO M O to CO r CM 0 LO mu.) O o v N N r` m o O O to M w ? M r m r N n
N N N N N N N M N N N N V' N N r N N N N M N N M N M r r M N M V' M M M N
C
C
Q
M V' to t` M N O 1-- M CO r 0 O LO V• to to r V 1- r LO O to r O 1,- O r O M 00 LO V O M V•
CO M V: O r V: O N LO O N CO V: 0 0 0 r r 0 0 O O O t- V r M M t- r M 0 Lo 0 CO r 0
O N O r O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 O r N N r 0 0 0 r r O N O r O 6 6 r 6
C)
N
? M VM' ? N OHO ? V• n 0? 0 0 0 Ln r N CO O O O tO Ln r N V' O O O M to O M O f0 t` LO
V' (0 M N to O M? h N 0 to LO tO N O N M O r O ti O?
M 6 m O N . . O . rN . O . 6 6 N . 6 . O N . O . O O N . 6 v . O rN .
O r O r r O r r r r N r r
O
Z
U') 0 0 r r tO O O h 0 tO f- O LO N O N r M O 1- O O CO V' O CO V• O O It N N LO r V to
to r r r N U) O tO CA qV' Cl O Cl Cl r CO O N CA O? O (O V; CO CO O V Cp Cl O O q (p LO M It
O M O N N r 0 0 00 N O O LO 0 0 0 r O M O -0 V N r r r N r O V O N N 0
U
O
O Lo O r r M O Cl) V O r M 0 CO to N V N v Lo co V• CO ti cM N h O M v O CA O N LO CO LO CO
? LO r? (D M r M r N N CO O V' 1- CO CO t- r LO N N IT r CO t? CO O N r 0) r CO O V: O N O
V tO O r N co v O V• N N 4 N N r CM O N (O O CM CV M M 4 N N r r r N to N r 4 N M
Q
N
Cn
LO N 00 V' O? r'-t r CO O M 0 O 1- M to t` 0 r 0 M 0 N O h W O O O V N r N O CC)
M LC) M O O' r CO CO M N O V' r O O N O tO h V' O O r h CO O Lo 7 O r 1? n CO O V O
i (Y) to r M r M - V' r V M M N Cl) CA N Cr) O CV r It r N Cl) CV 0 N V' Cl) N CA tO N N `- 6 Lp 6
M O
? Q r
CO M O O CA ti CO CA O CD LO O O CA LO O V LO N N h LO O If) CD Cr LO M O Lo CA O O LO tO M N
N 1* r to O Un P'.: O CO O O O CO LO r Cp h Cp q M V' (O V; O ti Cp r (0 O UC Lo V' O O CO 0> N
V' Ih N CO N r r N It N V Cr) IT t- CO N CV r th r N O M CV r N O O T N r LO M N M r Ln
0 r r
10 0
. r
`L O 7
O -)
CO O O O V- M N O O CO M N LO 00 O r CO CO V V• O O CO N N N 1- V M U) CO O
? V: 1- O0 LO N O N CO CC) aD r CO CO - r CO r O tO M Mr- n O V V' O O CO O (O ti N N N O <n r t
t Q? ti M 4 r M 4 CM tO r (O CM N N CM 4 N O 1? 6 N O CO M to 6 4 N O r 6 h O V C7 r M M
O
J (V
M n
M Lo o CO r 0 dD N O r 0 C) OO n ti CO N 00 O M N lO r to LO Cp u f` ti O M h N Lo N M
^ N CO O N M LO CO r LO LO O CA N LO LO CA 1- O M N Co O V: 0) 00 M co CO V N O (O M tO O r CA
(` y co N N M 6 N r r (M r (V V LA CO O M V V V r r N M V (O CO r N O V' C; M 4 N M M V:
f N 2
r tO r r LO O t- LO CO 0 O Lo 00 N O 00 CA M r CO ^ LO CA O N O t- O CO CA 0) r r r CA O CO
N O V' h Lo V; r r- r r CA Nt r CO CO CO V' 1- LO N IT N 1` 1` O LO CO CO LO N Lo V O M r O 1-
I O N N r r N C7 L6 6 N O O tO N N N O N O V V C7 r N N N O C V' N O N r r- Ln
CL
Q
LO M LO r LO Cl) IT N h O r V r r M M V N M t- N O> N M W LO Lo t` M O h 00 O CO CO LO O
M M r h CO IT IT CD CA 00 h V t- r N N 0 0 0 W N
lqt t? N M O r CA CA N r O N 0 CA CO O r
O O 0 6 6 r O C O N r O r 4 N r N C r r 0 0 r CM r 0 0 ?- r N r r ci c; N V' N
co
LO CO CO O r N W N O CO r CO) r CM CM V r M r O V M O to V O M O tO CA LO tO O (O O LO
M n M V' N h V; ti V O r r fp CO r r 0 0 V r O h Lo V7 O LO O CO OR r 0P,: CO Lo N V
? G O G O O O r O r O O r O G O 0 0 0 0 0 C G C ? r O 0 0 r O r r (V 0 0 0
Q tt_
f` tO V CA V tO tO O O N O N O f` O CO O N ti O O ti O V• LO to N M Lo tO tO (O CO tO N O
O NOM V•NOrLOV'u')NOO(ONOO?(OO V'OOrMCMrggqqqOr(0M
(q O O r 0 0 0 r r O 0 0 0 r r O 0 0 0 r O M O 0 0 0 r r O O N r r O N r 0
C
0- cc
H M
(O t` CO 01 O r N M LO CO h CO O O r N M O CO r CO CA O r N M s? ? O? O O O r N
MMM(hetd tt?etV ??et1AtAIAto?tolAto?tD(??t0? tfl(OCGCC???ti
CD ao 0o ao 0o ao w ao ao w w 0o ao 0o ao aD aD 0o co 00 op ao ao aD ? oo ao co ao 0o ao aD aD co ao ao ao ao
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
J L
d ?
I.- r CM O O V I,- M1.- to 00 h O I` O N 0 to r N M V V to ? N CM O) O r O M O V O O to M IC)
MP,: O O M O O N O O 00 h O to f". `- . . CM f?. . OD fl. . . CA C0 ? CO M O O CC) M O r. . . . . . . N V. ' r M r Cn to r
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
to Cl) O CO tt) r CO N V N 00 ti (0 O N O 00 CO V M O N r O 00 O V It N N O r M O CO V• O) r O
Cl) C') M N N N N N M N N N N N M Cl) r N N M N N N M N N N M N M CM CM PM M N M N r V
O N to to M NV V to r N r O (- O r CO M (O O r O O h M h r- ti O r v r C0 t0 M M M r 0
M O (O CO O O N n M O M M CO M 00 CO N r r?? V' r to r O M M tt CO O t0 O? tt') M M M O
.
O N O O . . O r. . . . O . C6 O N . . r. O . 6 6 6 . r N O . . O . . O 6 6 6 6 rN . . . O r.
to to r O r N r N M O r
M N M M N r r 00 O O 00 C0 O 00 O to ao O E M u7 O O O O O M r 0 'cr r O h N CO N V• O O
O r t0 W at M N C0 N M f0 CO O V' O V' O M 00 V' r a h 00 h V' M O O h M r 0 to ? O? to N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r r O O r O r r N r O O r N O O r O 6 0 r O O M O r O O r r O O M N O r N O r
CO O O 00 N N N O V r O ti O CO O O CO (O r- to h V to to f*- r ti N It O 0 V' fl- M 0 f- to O N
O M O 00 V' to to to O O O r?? V' O O V' O V• (O Co O to CO O r O O tl' M O r O N N O M V'
. N . . . . M . N . 6 ctivi NN . . . . . . O . O . O . . r. O . r 4 . . . O M . r. t . c6 V' . O . . v . st . . r. . . . . O .
MrNrrNrNNm
M d' ? ti r r r O O !o CA ti ti V' ? M N In to to O N CO M Y? M r V• O M r` O O eh (O r M M M
N to O O t` O CA h O r O N N V' r to O M B V' O to N to O CD M? CIO O h r O V' N O O to lp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N4NNNNrO W Ortototo V•r6C6 V'NrOrIhM V'f`Mmtn44CNN6
M M r V' N r ti n O M ti r O M h? O O OD r 0 M N r V' O O h to V' r r N N W N O (O O
M V' O O O O N E O N V' O Co M r N M O r h M M O CA O (O r O O O O O M M to O O Co O
.
M . . . to . . . . V• . N . O . . M . . 4 . . . CM . . . . . . . . 6 6 N . 6 4 6 4 6 6 6 C. . .
M?NrrN MNNNN V (OOrMrN r
O It N v m M CO O 00 0 M to N 0 O 0 CO O O n 0 O h O f- r V 0 V 0 O 00 N r O O M V N
rn Cp r r V: CO N V V: V: V (0 u) V' V' to r CA O O (O N M M N CA On T7 CO O N f' O O N r O t` CO
N r r N O Cl) CO N r N V r V' N Ch tf) M r CV r r 0 V r V CV r 00 r CO h V Cl) M sf N O O V
r
r W th M 0 O r O r M to W V to ti O M f- V V M O I` M O O M r to O N r r (0 M 00 O V M
CA O to ? O O O M h O to r M M `- to to O V' ti M r O (0 O CO O N N O O 00 r O O CO (O N O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V' O V' N to M r st M N (O V' M to M N r to M CO r r M N O N CO N CO N r M n N V' CO N r (O
O r N (O O O r r 0 O M O 00 LA to r CO O? CO O ti O M h ti O M? M O h M r ? to O O
O CO V; O O V' N r O O to CA O? O N O r N O an n O O aD r M V: 1A M V' ? V' M O r O M r
. . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
tor MM V MCOM46C CNNONCOC64':6N V•NMrOMOr44 V•ONCOMr4
r
to CO M O N r M CO CM O M M fl- N O N M to N h r r O N W 0 h CO W O N M V r ti ti V V 0
M f` N V M W (O to CO O h O CO h r to h V N O 0 (O r V: V: to f` to 1- O W r- N M O N 0 to
. . .
. . . M N N O . . . rO N M . . . rN M M to . . . . r r N . rto . V' r . r rO . r rN M . . r O N . . r V• N O N
N O N to
to VN O M M N CO N O N O V r r 0 h CC) N r-to N v O to t- O O V• O O V M (O O 00 O O to
q CO r CO O to q n O r Cl CO to r`
. V. . . . . O (0 'q: O O?? h O O V' O CR Cl CO t` n to V: S O N
. . . . . . . . . . .
r r N r r r r r O r 0 0 0 r O N r r r O N N O N M r N r r O N r O 0 0 r O O r
to N to O O N O O to N N N M 0 N r O O n ti 00 M N V' CM h h r O I` O to O 0 0 O V r O
toO V:aDOanf`Od' V•ONMtnNrchNCOMOO V''-O V:OON?Of`OMti?rtt')O
. . . .
r rN . r O N N . . O . O . . r r r r . . . . . . . . . . . .
r O 0 0 0 r r r O 0 0 r r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0
M 1O') N tC') N CD V' V' O O N M O r h (0 V' V' Y` to h N teo h (0 to h N r N M r O M O h ao r
OD O O N O CO r O V' to N h M O M N 0 0 0 0 CC) r O CO (O O ti CO M? N V' f? to O V• M O B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r O O r 0 0 0 0 r O N O O M r r r r O 0 0 r O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O O r r 0
titi1??f???t0000N0000?00D00C00?0CO000?tA?0?0)??OOOO?OOOOO?r
M O O c0 O CO 00 00 aD tp 00 00 00 00 OO 00 00 c0 tO) O C0 O O 00 a0 t0 CGO O O O O W O O O O CA 01 O)
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
M O t() N O h O N M lO ti !A O r V- O r V• CO M O tO M 0 f? 0 t0 O V' O O r M O f? 0 l(') V' r
N O r f` V. <p O r M n O M V' ? CO r h CO r O M CO h tO ? tO f` tO l0 O to (? O N O O O r (p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O CO r M f? t0 O h h M CO r M O to O 6 M 4 N M M N h 6 N O 4 6 ti O N O n 6 r CO to r
N N M M N N N N N N N N N r N M N N N N N N N N r N N N N N M N N N N N r N N
M O N O GO r r 00 N O S ?-- M 00 QO r M CO CO r N r M V' M M t? h N tO t0 O O r M O h 0 0
O O M V' O V' ti O O N r V• O? V' M t* M O B tC) h N O h tO ? O O O O 0 0? O CD O 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N O 0 0 0 r O r r r O 0 0 r O 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 r
M tb O N O CO (0 M V' O??? M N O t0 CO r O M f? M O (0 r O N tO lO ? V' O M N lC') O N O
p? r O lp O O h N tO tO V' (0 O 00 tO M M V' N N t0 M O CO t0 N O r O N O r O N O O V' 00
O . . O . O CM N . . O O . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . . . O . O . 6 6 . . . . O . rN . . . O rN . . 6
. . r r M 0 0 0 r r O O N N N r p tO r r 0
M to M O O D r 0 0 h r 0 CO tO r 0 f- r ,-,qt 1'? O CO v 0 CO 0 v CO 1?- N 00 O O O r 0 0 N N
N O tO tO 0 f- M 0 h M N r 1- 0 CO M r r r M O N 0 O 0 M M tO tO tO F- M N M O r tO f- N
. . . (Ni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r N r r r N r N O r V. 0 0 r N M N r r O r t0 M O r O r r l0 O r O O N r O r r
O N CO 11-N O O n tO tO W r M 0 W N f- ti V N O VW O O H V r r n M r- h M W W V h 0
tO r h t0 V. ' r N V. ' O 00 r O V. ' M r M r Lq r V' 00 V. ' OR O 1`. . . . O N M V. ' V. ' U. . . . U. . . V' O r t0 V. ' O O V'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r V N N N N r r r Cl) N r M M t0 V' N M V N O M It r O r M N O M? N O N CO r r N r
CO 0000 MM O M O W 0 O N r V ON h f- O r N W O to to V• tO r tO lO h• M- f- V V•
t0 V' h V' CO CA h 0D r O CO O M N t` r O r h O O O CO O V' r' V' (0 t0 CO r h O N V' V' M O 00
tO . r. 06 . M r. N . M . r. . . . . . O . M . . . t0 . O . N . M . r. . M . M . V• . . M M . V' . . (Ni M N M N . . . . O N . . . .
r N r r h N N r M r
tb tO h N CO ti O O CO ti N N M O CO M M N N CO CO O O r M O 0 CO O O O O M O CO V
r V
O r O N O O r Ch r 0 r N O V CO M O r M r V tC) r V M t` V O O h M r O M O h
Ihti,- trirV 661: 6 16 r4 MrMM6 4CN CNCCvi CV NrCMM44CN6 6
V• r M r V- P. M V CM r M V 0 CO to n O r M W CO r a N O r O 0 Cl O O CM O h 0 0 M V CO
O N Co 0 tO fl- O O v w 0 O Cl) h I- f- t0 N CO f- 0 M M M N r O 0 r N CO N CO 0 M M 10 r- N
. . . V• . . . . . . . V' N . . . . . . . . . .
ONc6 44c6N ODMtntnh V McON4c6 V• rrN CMN V'h6CN4COO?tcnNNr
M m O O h V N r fl- O V ? M CO M N O r W tO lO h r r 0 N f- tO V r O n 0 O V h V O f-
O O 00 O O N M h O V' O O O O r N CM O M M 0 00 N 00 N V' O t0 O O t`. . . . . . N r 0 0 tO . . O C R
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V- N r M 0 V V r N M N N r N M N r M r N f- O M N t0 CO M r N CO V CO M M N O O N
N o00 COO O~O O r0 O V N O M M M N t0O W M M M N 0 M t j " 0 M N 0 N O~0 V OOi N M M V ti 0 M
. .
N r CM r M r O M N N r r M r . O N . N r . O . r . N r . r . N r . N . M . N r . V-; M . O . N N O N . . .
r r N
tO 00 M O V' M V' r r 0 t- M r CM M r 00 O N tO 00 M CO ? r r O f*- V' r 0 t0 O n M ti O
CO O O ?- f? O 00 ? N CO r N CO T O M V V V r CO CO CO O r CO r? f- 00 N O N It V M N
. . . . . . . .
O r O O r N O O N . N r . r . r . O . r . N O . r . O . r . r . N O . r . N r . N O N O r . O . r . r . r . O r . M .
O V' tC') r N M M N fO r tO r M r lO l0 r t0 O O V' ?? r t0 O N O r O tO h O V' l0 O? V' fb
r ti V' O M V' IO O V' lC') N V' CO V' l0 M t0 O CD f? h h r N 1(7 V' O O O OD V' tO r O r N M r CO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O . . O O . . O . O . . O . . O . O . . O . O O . O . . O . . . N O . 0 6 6 0
N N M r r r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r O r 0 0
?NMh00hMMV V'Or3(Or V'M00MOOM V•f-V'f-(Of- V 0 V M V•r00r-
V 00 M 00 t0 M IT co v co O IT ^ t0 M CO 0 r 1,- O 0 V; h N M O M h r O N CO O r r 0 N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O O O r N r 0 0 r O O r 0 0 0 0 0 r O O r O O r O r O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r
• N M V' t0 CO h O O O r N M V' O CO h O O O r N M v O fO ti 0D O O r N M t0 O h O O O
.-??re-?rrNNNNNNNNNNMMMC9?t?MC0MC9??fV'V'?V'?t?' V??
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn O rn O O O
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
Ohr W rO l)OaOO V Mt•h V V V MOO V r`MrtoOOOr-t-t-M V V(ONCOON
CO CO O (0 r h CD N CD v h CO 0 O O M st O N CD v, t-: r r r O OR N O t: 0n N 0 CU (O CO r O CM
v M r- M co r` m Co r to CO O to O v LO t- 0) CA O (M O tO CO V O r r h O CA CO r CO N CT M
M N N N N N N r N N N N r N V) N N M r N N N N r M r M M CM N N M fM M M M Cl r N
r to (O M O O d' r CO U) O t0 O 0 M N tO r CO M O N O to O r tC> d0 M A N h M? O r O h N
Nd'tiMNNNNN to(ONOONO?NOVntnrM?OrOMNON ONNMNO?'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r O r O r 0 0 0 r O r O O r r r O N . O O r . r . O 0 0 r . O 0 0 0 4 r . N r . O r . 0 0
N 0 V' r 'R U) O ?- M ti t0 N N O 0 O O ?t U) N? r? (O O CO N d' 0 O CO h M O N N? O CO
r N to CO O C7 U) O CO Cq O to to r 0? M O tO to Cp q r 0> CO CO `- : CO O N r N Ol N ti CO O CD M
N r r O r r r r 0 0 r 0 0 r r 0 0 0 0 M N r r 0 ?7' O r r O O N CM tt O r O N N r
tt r tC') M r to O to M r M O r ?? O M M N M? 0 h 0 0 ti 0 st O CO O O U) r 0 CO X 0 0 M
?' O r N N O d' to M O O (o to O u7 ? O to O f0 ? N t0 N st M r r O CO V' O? CO ? O 0 to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r 0 0 r N r r r N O M r 0 0 0 M r to N V to r r r 0 0 N O 6 O N M N Co M r 0 0 O
COO v u COO m N co O N N O Opt v N N 0 00 Cr0 V- r- N O LO M V ,-t VV' N CO Opt LO M 0 M M N?
. M . . 4 6 : . .
. C. 6 6 4 r MN . O . CO . . O . . r. N . O . r. r NN . 4 . . . . M r. r NCN
O O M O O T r N ('M M N
to
It w to CO ? N U') M O O CO I,- tO N 0 0 tt) O O CO CO 0 0 N O r t. V (D CM O N U) N V h O N
O r? O CO N O CO O Cl to et O a r t`. . . O r t`. . . . V: O n O Cl Cl O N? CO r r 0? (O N O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r? N M N to an M CO M N M r to v ar N O O N r N M N? r 0 to ? M v M M to to ? M et N
? CO r M O N r to O M? N M N O h O (0 to O? N O? 0 tO N O 'ct O O N? M O r O h o
st O QD M r M M r O O O r to O (0 st M A O (O O r O r O? h r M M 0 Cn O O N r? r lC')
to CO r r: tO (O CM N r N to r N 4 N r (O (Ni 6 M 6 N r 0 (V M M N N? O CM M N v r- r M
r
O 0 O r M 0 N r h 0 h 0 r CD r r M O M? N r CO r 0 l0 ti O CO N N ? N to 0 V' to N O
to O r (? UC to r O O O CO 1 r O U) ? t.. O N to Cl N Cn CO O O h to 'V'Q: N r Cl ? N U)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to M? ?' r (O dN st M r r r N? M? O N r M M r to h M M h st M et r O n N U7 r O M
r COO 00j . ? M Cl . Cl . . . . . . . . O 7"t O O ? COO ? CO ? N ti r O 0 O 0 r M O O W' O 0 O to O M CO CO O CO
?t CD r O ti. . to N r O r N t0 d' O ti M
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . OR . . . . . . . . . .
d' N r N O N M r to M M CO to M? r O M r tt M N N N M r N M it N N sf OO N M M r r M
COO M O 0 N (~p N M It O M M O N U COD O q tp CNO r M M COO OR M CO CMO I,- M q COO CO COO r tOO (00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OR . . . . . . . . . . . .
r O N M O O r r O N N r N N M 0 st N r N r r N N to O r M O O N r M M r U7 O r N
O O r Cl N N r N O r r 0 to U) CO O O O O r to N O? M 0 0 0 N r O N r- 0 M O O
O O to r to (O M M O 0 0 0 r M h? 0 CD O O N N r 0 O 0 O ? tC) r ?? O N?? O CO N r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CM CM r N 6-:-:66 6N r r r N O r O N r r r r r N N O N r O N M r t}' N O r N
r 0 M N Q O M ? r N O h r O O to O M r (O ? O st CO O O M A O ^? M r? O? M 0?
h N N M O N Ct7 N (O N 0 O? O O U7 to r M r h? 0 O h O O N M CO r st N t0 U) CO ?- M O
r r r O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O r . r . r . O 0 0 r . O O r . O 0 0 0 r . O N . O r . r . O 0 0 0 .
r
V O 0 N V V M N ? 00 N CLO V V V N (MO r- O V N M M r CND W 00 M O 00 M y W COD 000 N CCOO M LO
.
O . . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 0 . CM . O N . . O . 0 . . 0 0 . N . . O 0 . . 0 . O . . O . O . . 0 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0
r r r N r
r N M to O CO O O r N M to CO 0 O O r N M st LOW h MOO- N MV O CO ? 0 O
to ? a ?i a to ? U? ? ca co co co c`? co co co co co r ? n ? ti n n ti r ?? w a0 w w w w ao ao w ao
O rn rn 0 0 0 0 rn rn O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O O rn rn rn rn rn w rn
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
? p ?t1 t'P1
tnrnti,F-- j B
O O CO N
M(OO)N 0)
O
y
M M N M N N M
r U) !f) U) M
O O O to UA
r r r O O
U) O O 1,- O
(O N a) U) M
O 1n - - -
M N O LO
N M ?- ti (O
(V N O IT
00
CR ? N O ti
r to U7 N V
V V O O
-: U' tf) O
r CO V (O (V
CO O O N
O O N N tO r
tp N LO U) It
N r- Co M O)
O UU (O N O
O N M O M
LO 0 l O
O cc
cM N
M CO V N
O co O O I-
O M O O) Ill-:
M M r r M
(O 0) O ED N
(O N to N M
Cl) N - 0
1,- M h tT O
1? O Up M h
0 0 0 0
(00 N r
000.-.-
O ?- N M IT
M 0) 0) 0) 0)
O O O O O
r r r r r .r .?
Pete Willenbring
From: Greg Spoden [gspoden@soils.umn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 10:05 AM
?ro: pwillenbring@wsbeng.coin
Subject: precip data
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport precipitation (inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann
1994 1.17 0.78 0.32 3.77 2.21 3.09 4.12 2.90 4.74 4.651.39 0.53 29.67
1995 0.36 0.25 2.11 1.90 2.43 3.38 2.72 4.59 2.21 3.68 0.881.15 25.66
1996 1.87 0.24 1.39 0.76 2.37 4.76 2.09 1.43 1.30 3.01 5.08 1.75 26.05
1997 1.71 0.30 1.18 1.01 1.70 3.7012.60 6.01 3.19 2.03 0.69 0.31 34.43
Greg Spoden
State Climatology Office
DNR - Division of Waters
S-315 Bodaug Hall, University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
phone: (612) 296-4214
e-mail: gspoden@soils.umn.edu
http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/climatology
0
0
•
APPENDIX E
SOIL BORING RESULTS
ALLIED TEST DRILLING
E
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33 APPENDIX E
J
City Manager Mayor
James D. Prosser Martin J. Kirsch
November 3, 1997
SOIL BORINGS
A) Sheridan / Thomas area. (503-30-575-440.10)
1. Front yard 6741 Thomas. - El-' O 5 ";;*7'3
•
2. In the park across from 6741 Thomas
3. Front yard 6729 Thomas.
4. Front yard bet e n 671_7 and 6721 Thomas. -
5. In the park across from #4 above.*
6. Front yard between 6709 and 6713 Thomas
7. Backyard 6725 Thomas.-
C-8. Front yard 6708 Sheridan.
TOTAL=8
B) Washington Park. (101-3 5-610-440.10)
1. South side of sliding hill.
2. South side of sliding hill.
TOTAL=2
Council
Susan Rosenberg Kristal Stokes
Michael Sandahl Russ Susag
7? r,? v ?j d?.-•??7?s1- 6 7d l
C) 70th St. ( 401-30-547-440.10)
1. Three spots, mid-block between Chocago and Elliot. (B-l, B-2 and B-3)
2. Two spots, 150 ft. east of 11 th Ave. north side. (B-4 and B-5)
3. Two spots, mid-block between 13th and 14th Ave's. north side. (B-6 and B-7)
4. One spot, 60 ft. west of 14th Ave. south side. (B-8)
5. Two spots, mid-block between 14th and 15th Ave's. One north and one south.
(B-9 and B-10)
6. Three spots, west of Bloomington Ave. (B-11, B-12 and B-13)
7. Two spots, 100 ft. east of Elliot Ave. one north and one south. (B-14 and B-15)
8. One spot, 150 ft. east of 11th Ave. south side. (B-16)
9. One spot, mid-block between 15th and Bloomington Ave's. north side. (B-17)
10. One spot, 60 ft. west of 13th Ave. south side. (B-18)
•
TOTAL=18
The Urban Hometown
An Equal Opportunity Employer
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
AD 40W BEAU D'RUE DRIVE
EAGAN, MN 55122
Exploration - Evaluation - Foundation Engineering
(612) 452-6913
November 24, 1997
City of Richfield
300 West 78th Street
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attn: Mr. George Atkinson
Subj: Sheridan-Thomas Area
P.O. No. 35731
Account Code: 503-30-575-440.10
Richfield, Minnesota
Allied No. 97190
Dear Mr. Atkinson:
This letter and the enclosed boring logs present the results of our drilling work in the 6700
block of Thomas Avenue South and at one location on Sheridan Avenue South in Richfield,
Minnesota. The borings were put down at the approximate locations requested to depths ranging from
11.5 to 30 feet. This letter and the enclosed information present the complete results of our drilling
and engineering work.
The Standard Penetration Test, (SPT), borings were drilled in accordance with ASTM D:
1586-84, "Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". As the samples
were obtained in the field, they were visually and manually classified. Representative portions of the
samples were then returned to the laboratory for further examination and for verification of the field
classification. Logs of the test borings indicating the depth and identification of the various strata,
penetration resistances, soil classifications and the results of water level checks are enclosed with this
letter. The surface elevation at the boring location was not measured and the depths shown on the
boring logs are with respect to the ground surface at the time of the field work.
At the boring locations, groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 5.2 to 10.2 feet
as indicated by the presence of standing water in the hollow-stem auger cased bore holes and the
condition of the recovered soil samples. We understand that piezometer installations are being
considered to obtain additional water level information. The results of water level readings in
piezometers should be considered together with the results of the water level checks obtained in the
hollow-stem auger cased bore holes.
In general, fine and fine to medium grained sands were encountered overlying less permeable
clay layers at the drilling locations. Clay layers were not encountered in B-4 and B-7 which were
SUBGRADE EXPLORATION
SHERIDAN-THOMAS AREA
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
ALLIED No. 97190
NOVEMBER 24th, 1997
•
drilled in the front yard area between 6717 and 6721 Thomas Avenue South and in the rear yard area
at 6725 Thomas Avenue South to depths of 11.5 feet. The results of our drilling work may indicate
the presence of a "perched" groundwater condition. This might be confirmed by the installation of
piezometers at different depths in relation to the existing clay layers. Where it is possible to install
the screened portion of the casing in the sand strata underlying the clay with an adequate seal above
the screened portion of the casing, and in the sand strata overlying the clay layer, additional
information regarding the hydraulic flow regime could be obtained.
It may be possible to provide drainage improvements in the exterior backfill zones of the
existing structures in order to provide an outlet for water accumulating in these areas and to minimize
the potential for water infiltration into the below grade, (or basement), spaces. Attached is a sketch
showing some of the elements of a properly installed exterior backfill zone drainage system.
Particular care should also be taken with regard to positive surface drainage away from the existing
residences. Where losses of positive grade have occurred due to settling of sidewalk slabs in toward
the structures, this may provide a direct route for surface water to enter the back fill zones. The
enclosed detail shows a clay cap at the top of the backfill zone with a minimum slope of 1/4" per foot
away from the structure. Additional factors may need to be considered in the design and installation
of an exterior drain tile system. Where possible, it would be preferable to provide a gravity outlet
for the drain tiles, (such as to the existing storm sewer), since this would eliminate the need to
convey the water into the interior of the residences and for the construction of sumps and the
installation of sump pumps.
Soil samples recovered from the test boring will be retained in our office for a period of thirty
days from the date of this report. After that time they will be discarded unless prior written
instructions to the contrary are received. I hope that this letter and the enclosed boring logs provide
the information required at this time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 452-
6913.
ALLIED TEST D LING COMPANY
Mike Roach, P.E.
Soils Engineer
encl: Log of Boring B-1
classification chart
general notes
hereby certify that this plan, speci-
fication, or report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of innesota.
Date _u-11 Registration No. 21169
2
•
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, A innesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING
20 40
60 80
B O
W 2
TEST
a o CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT RESULTS
w
z
w
O u DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
"a l x
•, `3
O
G Z a. u a OF MATERIALS
H
N' VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT REMARKS
10 20 30 40
1 SS TOPSOIL: 2' SILTY SAND
fine grained with roots
^A : ,
d organic matter, black, moist, (TOPSOIL/SM)
" SILTY SAND, very fine grained with a trace of coarse
AA' : :. grained SAND, brown, moist, loose to medium dense
then loose, (SM)
2.5 2 SS A^
^A
A
A
A
A
A
A" :. 8
5.0 3 SS AA
^
"
A
A
A
A"
-
- 11
4 SS AA 3
7.5 AA
A
A"
A
A
A'
-
-
5 s SS
" SANDY LEAN CLAY with a trace of GRAVEL, g
10.0 A
AA
A brown, moist, soft, (CL)
6 SS AA 6
12.5-
A
AA
AA
A
A
ls.o 7 SS ^A
AA
AA 4
End of Test Boring at 16.5 Feet
17.5-
6741 Thomas Ave S: front yard
20.0 ---- -- - -- ----------------------------------------------------- ii -------- ------ -------- ------- -------- --------
WATER LEVEL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 1/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
11-7-97 9:50 14.5 14.4 None Sampler
11-7-97 10:05 14
5 4
14 None STARTED COMPLETED
. . 11/7197
11/7/ 7
11-7-97 10:17 14.5 14.2 None RIG
11-7-97 10:27 Out 12
6 12
0 DS
E::? CME-55
. ,
11-7-95
14:25
Out
11.5
10.2 BY
MR APPROVED Mt?
t
•
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 20 40 60 80
w ? B-3 O 2 TEST
CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT
z a o RESULTS
w z w cJ DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
U. v a OF MATERIALS OTHER
w
' V REMARKS
v, N
ALUE -BLOWS PER FOOT
10 20 30 40
TOPSOIL: 4' SILTY SAND with roots and organic elf I
lb SS %. . after, black to dark brown, moist, (TOPSOIL/SM)
A"
A = . SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, moist, loose, (SM)
2 SS ^^ SAND, fine grained, brown, moist, loose, (SP) 6
2.5 %
3 SS A^ : SILTY SAND, fine grained with a trace of coarse 7
5.0 ^A grained SAND, reddish-brown, moist, loose, (SW
4 SS ^ LEAN CLAY with laminations of fine grained SAND 1
7.5 ".
"A
AA
AA and SILTY SAND, reddish-brown, moist, stiff, (CL)
5a SS ^" LEAN CLAY with a little coarse grained SAND and a 14
10.0 ^A trace of GRAVEL, mottled brown and gray, moist, stiff,
CL
5b SS A )
(
SILTY SAND, very fine grained with laminations of
SILT, brown and gray, moist, medium dense, (SM)
End of Test Boring at 11.5 Feet
12.5-
6729 Thomas Ave S: front yard
15.0
17.5
20.0 ---- -- - -- ----------------------------------------------
WATER LEV EL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 31/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
11.7.97 10:50 9.5 10.6 8.9 Sampler
11-7-97 11:00 Out 7
6 2
5 STARTED COMPLETED
. . /7 7 1117197
11-7-97 14:19 Out 8.1 5.8 DRII .I.ER RIG
DS CME-55
DRAWN B
Y APPROVED
B
0
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 20 40 60 80
B-4
W v 2 TEST
0 ? O CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT RESULTS
W z w v DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
U, L'
o z °a iL 0. OF MATERIALS Z?s OTHER
' REMARKS
O N
VALUE -BLOWS PER FOOT
H Q
10 20 30 40
la SS ^ FILLITOPSOIL: 5' ORGANIC CLAY with roots, 6
lb SS black, moist, (FILL/TOPSOILJOL)
FILL: SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, moist,
(FILL/SP)
2a SS ^^ BURIED TOPSOIL: ORGANIC CLAY with SAND, 14
2.5 2b SS ^^ black, moist, (BURIED TOPSOILIOL)
SAND, fine to medium grained with SILT and a little
coarse grained SAND, brown, moist to waterbearing at
about 6.8 feet, medium dense to loose, (SP-SM)
5.0 3 SS ^^ : 10
7.5- 4 SS ^^ 5
5 SS ^^
10.0 ^
End of Test Boring at 11.5 Feet
12.5
front yard between 6717 and 6721 Thomas Ave S
15.0
17.5
20.0 ---- -- -- -- -----------------------------------------------
WATER LEVEL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 1/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
11-7-97 11:15 7.0 7.2 6.9 Sampler
11-7-97 11:22 9
5 4
9 7
7 STARTED COMPLETED
. . , 7 7 11/7/97
11-7-97 11:30 Out 6.3 None DRH T RR RIG
DS CM><55
D
W ROVED
RA
N BY APP
M Q
E
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, ATinnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 20 40 60 80
B-S O
w 2 TEST
Z o CONE PENETRATION - TONS/Fr RESULTS
x
w z w DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
A z °r' v 0. OF MATERIALS
X OTHER
?n w
°4
N' VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
h
10 20 30 40
Ia SS TOPSOIL: 1.0' SANDY ORGANIC CLAY with roots 14
lb SS and organic matter, black, moist, (TOPSOIL/OL)
5-
2 2 SS ^
^ SAND, fine to medium grained with SILT, brown to
. ^ : gray at about 13 feet, moist to waterbearing at about 7
feet, medium dense to loose, (SP-SM)
5.0 3 SS ^^ 6
7.5 4 SS ^^ 5
10.0 5 SS 3
12.5-
6
SS
-
15.0
17.5-
-
20.0 7 SS ^^
5
22
. SANDY LEAN CLAY with a trace of GRAVEL, gray,
moist, stiff, (CL)
25.0 8 SS ^A 3
27.5-
--
-
9 §S
30
0-
. End of Test Boring at 30.0 Feet
in the park across from 6717 and 6721 Thomas Ave S
32.5-
35.0-
37.5-
40.0-1 ----- ---- --- --- ------------------------------------------------------ j ------- -
WATER LEV EL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 114" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
11-10-97 11:33 7.0 7,7 7.0 Sampler
11-10-97 12:10 28
0 29
7 11
7 STARTED COMPLETED
. . . 10/97
1 97
11-10-97 12:22 Out 3.6 None DRn.L
R RIG
DS CME-
MFr
55
VED
DRAWN BY APPRO
Mr
MR .,
0
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, NEnnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 20 40 80
B-6 O
w 2 TEST
CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT RESULTS
w w V DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Pl. MC LL AND
Z 0 w OF MATERIALS X E3 OTHER
v? w
a
N" VALUE -BLOWS PER FOOT REMARKS
Q
10 20 30 40
la SS TOPSOIL: 0.5' ORGANIC CLAY with roots, black, 6
lb SS ^^ moist, (TOPSOIL/OL)
FILL: SAND, fine to medium grained with SILT,
brown, moist, (FILUSP-SM)
2.5
2
SS ^
^^
^
10
3 SS A
^ : . 7
5.0 ^
^
^
4 SS ^ LEAN CLAY with a little SAND to about 9 feet, black 3
7.5 ^? and dark brown to gray at about 10.5 feet, moist, soft,
^^
^^
^^
^ (CL)
10.0 5 SS ^^
^ 5
6 SS A^ .: SILTY SAND, mostly fine grained, brown, moist, 3
12.5
^^
. loose, (SM)
7 SS ^
15.0- ^
A
^^ .
^
^
:
End of Test Boring at 16.5 Feet
17.5
front yard between 6709 and 6713 Thomas Ave S
20.0 ---- --- - -- ----------------------------- ----------------------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- L --------
WATER LEVEL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D• 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 1/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
11-7-97 12:02 14.5 14.2 9"5 Sampler
11-7-97 12:29 Out 13
0 7
3 STAR COMPLETED
. " 11/7/97
DRILLER RIG
DS C
ME-55
DRAWN BY APPROVED M?
MR
0
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridaiimomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Nnnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 20 40 60 80
B-7 O
2 TEST
O CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT
> O RESULTS
w J W ? V DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
G Z °. a u
2 OF MATERIALS X E3 OTHER
REMARKS
? N' VALUE
BLOWS PER FOOT
O -
10 20 30 40
la SS ^^ TOPSOIL: 0.5' SILTY SAND, fine grained with roots 5
lb SS ^ and organic matter, black, moist, (fOPSOIL/SM)
SAND, fine to medium grained, brown to gray at about
10 feet, moist to waterbearing at about 6.5 feet, loose,
' (SP)
2.5 2 SS AA
^ 7
3 SS
5
55.0- ^" ..
4 SS
7.5 AA
A
•
SS SS AA
10.0
AA
A -
. .
5b SS "A
A
A
AA :.
-
End of Test Boring at 11.5 Feet
12.5-
6725 Thomas Ave S: back yard
15.0
17.5
20.0 ---- --- - -- ------------------------
WATER LEV EL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 114" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
11-7-97 12:50 7.0 7.2 6.5 Sampler
11-7-97 13:05 9
5 8
3 7
3 STARTED COMPLETED
. . . 11/7197 11/7/97
DRILLER RIG
DS CM&55
DRAWN B
YY APPROVED Mp
B
•
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 20 40 60 80
B-8
TEST
z a O CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT 2 RESULTS
w a w v DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
W w °" a u a OTHER
Q
?. w OF MATERIALS REM
RK
a:
' V A
S
v? O N
ALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
Q
10 20 30 40
1 SS FILL/TOPSOIL: 2.0' ORGANIC CLAY with roots, 1
black, moist, (FILL/TOPSOIL/OL)
2a SS ^^ FILL: SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, most, 5
2.5 ^^
^ (FILL/SM)
2b SS
3a SS ^^ BURIED TOPSOIL: ORGANIC CLAY with a little q
5.0 "^ coarse grained SAND, black to dark gray, moist,
(BURIED TOPSOIL/OL
3b
SS
7A )
1
LEAN CLAY with a trace of SAND and fine roots,
gray, moist, soft, (CL)
4 SS SAND, fine grained with SILT and laminations of SILT
7.5 to about 9 feet, brown, moist, (SP-SM)
5 SS ^^ 5
10.0 ^
End of Test Boring at 11.5 Feet
12.5-
6708 Sheridan Ave S: front yard
15.0
17.5
20.0 ---- -- - -- ----------------------------- ----------------------- --------
LEV EL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 1/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
11-7-97 13:30 7.0 7.7 7.0 Sampler
11-7-97 14:05 9
5 9
1 7
5 STARTED COMPLETED
. . . 11/7/97 11/7197
DRILLER RIG
DS CM&55
DRAWN BY APPROVED tdttt
E
N N N
W W W
_. =
N N N
coo
N O O
r a
ava
H N H
N C H
C
J.'
•
0
G trt? a-? RtG-tt?1 ?! ..D
L'
r
MIVA
?,. t'7
1
-'s
v
Y.
Al
.
-A. I
• ;?
" I a/ a r 9
Au.t-T- b W c::77 i Ico
i
i
to A? GbKC. S?`?'.D P;?:- ?o? g>~!ssW
Yt `tj -
v 1
,7 ??tY 14-4 3? +?i 15?? ?G'kG•(-?'
11-Z6 -97
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
GENERAL NOTES
SAMETING SYMBOT S
SS - 2" OD SPLIT - BARREL SAMPLE
FA - FLIGHT AUGER SAMPLE
HA - HAND AUGER SAMPLE
ST - 3" SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE
CONSISTANCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
N - R LOW S/FT C_ONSTSTANrY
2 VERY SOFT
2 - 4 SOFT
4 - 8 MEDIUM
8 - 15 STIFF
15- 30 VERY STIFF
30 HARD
RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS
N - RTX)W SIFT RELATIVE DRNSTTY
0- 3 VERY LOOSE
4- 9 LOOSE
10- 29 MEDIUM
30- 49 DENSE
50- 80 VERY DENSE
> 80 EXTREMELY DENSE
CONSISTANCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
UNCONFINED COMPR.
STREN GTH Qn_ TSE C ONSTSTANC'Y
<0.25 VERY SOFT
0.25 - 0.49 SOFT
0.50 - 0.99 MEDIUM
1.00 - 1.99 STIFF
2.00 - 3.99 VERY STIFF
4.00 - 8.00 HARD
> 8.00 VERY HARD
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY - r-OFTE4TONT F44 CY)MMNENTC
COMPONENT SIZE RANGE TERM % BY WEIGHT
BOULDERS OVER 8" TRACE 1-5
COBBLES 811-31' WITH A LITTLE 5-15
GRAVEL 3" - #4 SIEVE WITH 15 - 30
SAND #4 - #200 SIEVE SANDY/GRAVELLY > 30
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SYSTEMS
Unified Soil Classification
ASTM: D 2488 - 84
Group
Major Divisions Symbol Typical Group Names
COARSE- GRAVELS Clean Gravels GW Well graded gravels, Well graded gravel with sand.
GRAINED SOILS <59 passing
More than 509 No. 200 sieve GP Poorly-graded gravel, Poorly graded gravel with sand'.
More than 50% of coarse
retained on the fraction retained Gravel w/ fines GM Silty gravel, Silty gravel with sand.
No. 200 sieve. on No. 4 sieve. > 12% passing
No. 200 sieve GC Clayey gravel, Clayey gravel with sand'.
SANDS Clean Sands SW Well graded sand, Well graded sand with gravel.**
<59 passing
509 or more of No. 200 sieve SP Poorly graded sand, Poorly graded sand with gravel. **
coarse fraction
passes No. 4 Sands with fines SM Silty sand, Silty sand with gravel. **
sieve. > 12 9 passing
No. 200 sieve SC Clayey sand, Clayey sand with gravel. **
FINE-GRAINED SILTS AND CLAYS ML Silt, Silt with sand'. Sandv silt".
SOILS
Liquid Limit less than 50. CL Lean clay, Lean clav with sand'. Sandv lean clavs".
Cohesive soils
OL Organic silt. Organic clay.
50% or more
h
N SILTS AND CLAYS MH Elastic silt, Elastic silt with sand', Sandy elastic silt".
asses t
e
o.
00 sieve. Liquid Limit more than 50 CH Fat clay. Fat clay with sand.
OH Organic clay, Organic silt.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.
Boundary classifications are designated by dual group symbols. For example (SP-SM), Poorly graded sand with silt.
* - More than 159 sand, ** - More than 159 gravel.
!1- 159 to 309 retained on No 200 Sieve, ##-More than 309 retained on No 200 sieve
AASHTO Soil Classification System
Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials
(359 or less assin No. 200 sieve ( >359 Passing No 200)
A-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-? A-8
A-1-a A-1-b A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7
Sieve Analysis:
9 Passing
No. 10 50 max
No. 40 30 max 50 max 51 min
No. 200 15 max 25 max 10 max 35max 35max 35max 35max 36min 36min 36min 36min
Characteristics of
Fraction Passing No 40:
quid limit 40max 41min 40max 41min 40max 41min 40max 41min
astic limit 6 max NP IOmax IOmax llmin l lmin 10max 10max 11min llmin
sual Types of stone fragments fine peat, highly
i ificant Constituents gravel and sand sand silt or cla a ravel and sand silt soils cla ev soils organic soils
eneral Subgrade
atin excellent to good fair to or unsatisfactory