HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-20 City Commission Packet Materials - C10. Res 5150 Accepting Pref Alt for Front St Interceptor ProjCommission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Bob Murray, Project Engineer
Shawn Kohtz, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution 5150 accepting the preferred alternative in the preliminary
engineering report and affirming adequate resources to construct and maintain the Front Street
Interceptor project.
MEETING DATE: February 24th
, 2020
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Resolution 5150 accepting the preferred alternative in the
preliminary engineering report and affirming adequate resources to construct and maintain the
Front Street interceptor project.
BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of Resolution 5150 accepting the preferred alternative in
the preliminary engineering report and affirming adequate resources to construct and maintain
the Front Street interceptor project. The project is being funded in part through a loan from the
State Revolving Fund program. One of the requirements of the program is that the applicant
provide a resolution stating acceptance of the preferred alternative in the preliminary engineering
report and that they have the resources to construct and maintain the facilities. They will not
provide final approval of the plans and specifications without the resolution. Engineering staff
has reviewed and approved the report and the preferred alternative which is in conformance with
the approved Wastewater Facility Plan.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Commission
FISCAL EFFECTS: None
Attachments: Resolution 5150, Preliminary Engineering Report
Report compiled on: 2/6/20
112
1 of 2
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5150
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
ACCEPTING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IN THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
REPORT AND AFFIRMING ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN
THE FRONT STREET INTERCEPTOR PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City Commission did, on the 1st
day of June 2015, adopt the Bozeman
Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update which contains recommendations for the construction of the
Front Street Interceptor; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has adopted a Wastewater Impact Fee Fund Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP), which includes and authorizes the design and construction of the Front Street
Interceptor Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission did, on the 20th
day of May, 2019, approve a Professional
Services Agreement with Stahly Engineering and Associates, Inc. for the construction phase services of the
above referenced project including the preparation of a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER); and
WHEREAS, City Engineering staff has reviewed and approved the PER, the preferred alternative
of which is in accordance with the previously approved Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update and
Wastewater Impact Fee CIP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, that it accepts the preferred alternative included in the PER for the Front Street Interceptor Project
and further that it has the necessary legal, financial, institutional and managerial resources to construct,
operate and maintain the same.
113
Resolution No. 5150, Accept PER and Resource Statement for Front Street Interceptor Project
2 of 2
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 24th day of February, 2020.
__________________________________________
CHRIS MEHL
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
MIKE MAAS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________________
___
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
114
115
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i
LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Definition .................................................................................................................................... 1
Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 2
Project Costs and Budget ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 PROJECT PLANNING .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Environmental Resources Present ............................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Surface Water ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 2
1.2.4 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.5 Farmlands............................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.6 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.7 Floodplains.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.8 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.9 Historical and Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 4
1.2.10 Environmental Justice Issues .............................................................................................. 4
1.3 Population Trends ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Community Engagement ........................................................................................................... 4
2.0 EXISTING FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 History ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Condition of Existing Wastewater Facilities ............................................................................. 2
2.4. Financial Status of Facilities .............................................................................................................. 2
116
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | ii
3.0 PROJECT NEED .............................................................................................................................. 1
3.1 Health, Sanitation and Security ................................................................................................. 1
3.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 1
3.3 Reasonable Growth ................................................................................................................... 1
4A.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 1
4A.1 General Design Requirements ................................................................................................... 1
4A.1.1 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 1
4A.1.2 Applicable Regulations ....................................................................................................... 1
4A.1.3 Construction Permitting ...................................................................................................... 1
4A.2 Alternative Screening Process ................................................................................................... 1
4A.2.1 Trunk Main Replacement Alternatives ............................................................................... 1
4B.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 1
4B.1 Replacement Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 1
4B.1.1 Upsize and Replace along existing alignment .................................................................... 1
4B.1.2 Upsize and Replace Using New Alignment ........................................................................ 4
4B.1.3 Lift Station and New Alignment ......................................................................................... 8
5.0 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 1
5.1 Ranking Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 1
5.1.1 Technical Feasibility ........................................................................................................... 1
5.1.2 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 1
5.1.3 Financial Analysis ............................................................................................................... 1
5.1.4 Public Health and Safety ..................................................................................................... 2
5.1.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations .................................................................... 2
5.1.6 Permitting Requirements .................................................................................................... 2
5.2 Scoring of Treatment System Alternatives ................................................................................ 2
5.3.1 Technical Feasibility ........................................................................................................... 2
5.3.2 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 3
5.3.3 Financial Feasibility ............................................................................................................ 4
5.3.4 Public Health and Safety ..................................................................................................... 4
5.3.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations .................................................................... 5
5.3.6 Permitting Requirements .................................................................................................... 5
5.5 Decision Matrix and Selection of Preferred Alternative ............................................................ 6
6.0 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................... 1
117
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | iii
6.1 Site Location and Characteristics .............................................................................................. 1
6.2 Project Design ........................................................................................................................... 1
6.3 Impact on Existing Facilities ..................................................................................................... 2
6.4 Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 2
6.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................................... 2
6.6 Project Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 3
6.7 Cost Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................. 1
7.1 Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 1
7.2 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 1
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 1
118
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | iv
Appendix A PER & Grant Funding Authorization Statement
Appendix B Agency Review Request Letters and Agency Responses
Appendix C Environmental Review Form, Checklist
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan 2015
Bozeman 2018-2022 CIP
Opinion of Probable Cost for Non-Preferred Alternatives
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Geotechnical Report
Engineering Report, Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement
Floodplain Permit & Firm Panels
404 Permit and Wetlands Delineation
Appendix K SRF Priority List Survey
Appendix L Certification of EPA Cost and Effectiveness Requirement
Figure 1.1 Project Planning Area
Figure 2.1 Map of Project Area and WRF
Figure 4.1 Alternative R-1 Layout
Figure 4.2 Alternative R-2 Layout
Figure 4.3 Alternative R-3 Layout
Table 4B.1 Present Worth Costs: Alternative R-1
Table 4B.2 Present Worth Costs: Alternative R-2
Table 4B.3 Present Worth Costs: Alternative R-3
Table 5.1 Treatment Alternatives Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Table 5.2 Alternative Ranking Summary
Table 6.1 Project Implementation Schedule
Table 6.2 Opinion of Probable Costs for Preferred Alternative
Table 6.3 Present Worth Analysis
119
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | E‐1
Introduction and Background
The Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement will be a major upgrade to the
City of Bozeman’s wastewater collection system. The City of Bozeman, Montana provides
centralized water and sewer service to approximately 47,000 residents and is experiencing rapid
growth. The project will upsize and replace a sanitary sewer main and will allow the regional
hospital to build critical healthcare infrastructure.
Problem Definition
As a result of rapid growth and concurrent healthcare needs, the Front Street Interceptor is at
capacity and unable to accept any new flows. Without this upgrade, the regional hospital will not
be able to expand and provide critical healthcare services and further development in the area
will cease.
Problem Summary – The Front Street Interceptor is at capacity and creates a bottleneck:
The Front Street Interceptor has insufficient capacity for planed and future development,
The City will not allow hospital expansions to be occupied until project completion,
Planned developments will not be allowed until the Interceptor is upsized
Proposed Solution – The proposed project would implement this PER as authorized by the
City Council to make changes including:
Replace the existing Interceptor with capacity for full collection basin build-out,
Construct an all-weather access road sufficient to maintain the Interceptor
Alternatives Considered
This report includes an alternative screening process that considers a range of possible solutions
to meet current and future demands. This process utilizes information such as location, soils,
environmental resources, and State & City design standards to develop the initial list for
Bozeman. As required by the grant funding agencies, the no action alternative is also considered.
Major alternatives that were considered and the resulting short list of alternatives receiving a
more detailed review are listed below:
Collection
Alternative R-0: No Action Alternative
Alternative R-1: Upsize and Replace along existing alignment
Alternative R-2: Upsize and Replace using new alignment
Alternative R-3: Upsize, Lift Station and North Broadway alignment
120
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | E‐2
Preferred Alternative
Each of the alternatives were analyzed. A decision matrix was developed to compare alternatives
and help select a preferred alternative. The decision matrix included environmental impacts,
technical feasibility, 20-year life cycle costs, public health and safety, operation and
maintenance. Based upon the results of the decision matrix, the preferred alternative was
determined to include:
Alternative R-2: Upsize and Replace using new alignments.
The preferred Alternative R-2 includes construction of new sanitary sewer main and associated
manholes. In addition, construction of the new sewer main will require two jack & bores,
wetland permits, Montana Rail Link (MRL) permits, a City of Bozeman Floodplain permit,
Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) permits, and new easements through State and
private lands. The minimization of wetland impacts is an important factor.
Project Costs and Budget
The total estimated cost for implementing the preferred Alternative R-2 is $3,650,000. Various
funding scenarios were considered with a variety of grant and low interest loan sources available
to the City. The recommended funding strategy includes a loan from MDEQ State Revolving
Fund (SRF) Program as well as local funds.
121
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |1‐1
1.1 Location
The project planning area is depicted in Figure 1.1. This area is entirely within the incorporated
limits of the City of Bozeman in Gallatin County Montana.
Figure 1.1 – Planning Area
Main Street
Bozeman
122
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |1‐2
The project area consists of developed urban areas, wetlands on private lands, and an MDT
wetland mitigation area.
Bozeman has a relatively dry climate with an average of 20 inches of precipitation annually.
Monthly average temperatures range from a high of 83.4° F in July to a low of 12.7° F in
December.
1.2 Environmental Resources Present
The proposed project is anticipated to require water quality permits due to the presence of
wetlands and other water bodies within the study area. This section identifies and briefly
discusses known environmental resources so that they may be further considered in later sections
of this report. This analysis was prepared by consulting with the appropriate State and federal
reviewing agencies as specified by the Uniform Application (UA) 2017 guidelines. A copy of the
inquiry letter and attached maps and diagrams sent to each reviewing agency is provided in
Appendix B.
A geotechnical investigation found that groundwater ranged from 1 to 15.5 feet along the
proposed alignment. The highest groundwater was found in the wetlands area and dewatering
will be required for the majority of the proposed alignment. No portion of the project in within
the Bozeman Solvent Site.
The proposed project will require a jack & bore to convey the new sewer main under two box
culverts that contain the Mill Ditch. No other surface water will be encountered along the
proposed alignment.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted in the fall of 2018. A total of eight soil borings were
completed along the proposed sewer alignment. The borings encountered a variable soil profile
along the entire proposed alignment ranging from gravels to sands to clays. Gravels were
generally more predominant along the west end of the alignment transitioning to sands and clay
as the alignment moves east. The gravels are generally stable and the clays and loose sands are
generally unstable. The full geotechnical report is included in Appendix G.
Air quality in this area is very good with no known public health risks or pollution impacts.
123
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |1‐3
The project passes through developed urban areas and wetlands. No farmlands will be impacted
by the project.
The project area passes through wetlands. The wetlands were delineated in two segments by
MDT and a private developer. The project will result in 0.23 acres of permanent impacts to the
wetlands therefore a Department of the Army (DA) permit and mitigation have been obtained.
The wetland delineations and 404 Permit are included in Appendix J.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps were reviewed and a copy of
the map was sent to the reviewing agencies. The proposed alignment traverses the floodplain by
Jack & Boring underneath culverts that contain the floodplain. A Floodplain Development
Permit was issued by the Bozeman Floodplain Administrator in August 2019.
All work will occur inside of City of Bozeman limits and as such, no portion of the project lies
within Sage Grouse Executive Order Area. There will be no impact to Sage Grouse habitat.
Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana Natural
Heritage Program identified two threatened species and one proposed threatened species
that may potentially occur near or within the project area. There are no Critical Habitats
for any threatened or endangered species within the project area.
The proposed activity occurs within the City of Bozeman, MT. This area already has
significant development including roads, railroads, residences, and other infrastructure. The
proposed project is adjacent to city streets, railroad, and private developments.
Canada Lynx
The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. No portion of its designated critical habitat occurs within the project area and no
species occurrences were reported (USFWS 2016; MTNHP 2016). Lynx habitat is
generally moist boreal coniferous forests that have cold, snowy winters and high densities
of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) (USFWS 2016). Due to high human activity and
the general lack of suitable habitat, it is extremely unlikely that Canada lynx would use this
area. The proposed activity will have ‘no effect’ on Canada lynx.
124
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |1‐4
Grizzly Bear
The Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. No portion of its designated critical habitat occurs within the project area and no species
occurrences were reported. The proposed activity will have ‘no effect’ on Grizzly Bear.
North American Wolverine
The North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) is proposed for listing under the
Endangered Species Act. It is limited to alpine and forested habitats at high elevations.
In addition, wolverines rely on snow for long distance movements. Given the high level of
human activity and the lack of suitable habitat it is unlikely that the wolverine would
frequent the area. The proposed activity will have ‘no effect’ on the North American
wolverine.
The Montana Historical Society conducted a file search on the property and determined
that the Story Mill Ditch is in the project area and has been recorded and determined eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. The Sewer main will be bored underneath a culvert
containing Mill Ditch and there will be no impact to the Ditch.
There is no known increase in environment or public health risks to minority or low-income
persons due to the improvements proposed in this PER. All customers and residents would
benefit from improvements to the wastewater system.
1.3 Population Trends
The City of Bozeman is currently experiencing rapid growth. Bozeman has a current population
of 46,596 people according to the most recent population estimate from the US Census Bureau,
dated July 2017. This represents a 25.0% increase in population since 2010, or roughly 3.6%
growth per year. In recent years, the growth rate in Bozeman and the surrounding Gallatin Valley
has ranked among the highest in the nation and there is little indication that growth rates will
slow in the coming years. This growth necessitates expanded healthcare infrastructure which will
be served by this project.
1.4 Community Engagement
The City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection System Facility Plan (Appendix D) outlined the
plan for future service to the areas east of the City and included the plan for the Front Street
Interceptor Sewer Main Replacement. The facility plan was a public process and presented to the
Commission. Further, the Capital Improvement Plan process is public and included this project
(Appendix E).
125
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |2‐1
Existing facilities relevant to this project are the City of Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility
(WRF) and the existing sanitary sewer main between the Tamarack St. connection point and the
connection point adjacent the hospital.
Figure 2.1 – Map of Project Area and WRF
126
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |2‐2
2.1 History
The City of Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is a cold weather biological nutrient
removal plant that utilizes a 5- Stage Bardenpho process. It was last upgraded in 2011. The
average daily design flow for the WRF is 8.5 MGD; it currently operates at approximately 6
million gallons per day (MGD).
The existing Front Street Interceptor consists of 8, 12, and 14-inch asbestos concrete sewer
mains that were installed in 1962.
2.3 Condition of Existing Wastewater Facilities
Currently, the Bozeman WRF has an average daily influent flow of 6 MGD. The WRF was
designed for an 8.5 MGD average daily flow, leaving room for roughly 2.5 MGD in additional
capacity before the plant will need to be upgraded. The secondary treatment processes at the
WRF are all designed for 10.6 MGD, which is the current maximum month flow. The hydraulic
components are sized for 19 to 25 MGD to pass peak day and peak hour flows.
The Front Street Interceptor is expected to provide an average of 4 MGD of additional flow at
full build-out of the Upper Bozeman Creek Basin and the WRF will need to be upgraded before
that time.
2.4. Financial Status of Facilities
The City of Bozeman has the legal authority and financial capability to operate the existing
WWTP and maintain the wastewater collection system.
127
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |3‐1
3.1 Health, Sanitation and Security
The Front Street Interceptor Replacement will provide the wastewater collection capacity
necessary for critical healthcare infrastructure and future development in the Upper Bozeman
Creek collection Basin.
3.2 Infrastructure
The majority of the existing Front Street Interceptor was installed in 1962. The 8, 12, and 14-
inch asbestos concrete sanitary sewer mains are at capacity.
3.3 Reasonable Growth
The City of Bozeman is currently experiencing rapid growth. Several portions of the City's
wastewater collection system are at risk of becoming inadequate as the population increases. The
southeast portion of the City falls into this category. This area of the City includes the expanding
regional hospital campus and large tracts of developable land, both of which will be sources of
significant flows into the City's wastewater collection system. It is necessary to upgrade the
wastewater collection infrastructure in this portion of the City before these new connections
come online.
A number of infrastructure improvements that would address deficiencies in the City's collection
system were identified in the 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan
Update. In regard to the southeast portion of the City, it was recommended that the Front Street
Interceptor be replaced with piping sized for the complete build out of the basin.
128
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |4A‐1
This section will describe the most reasonable alternatives available to correct the deficiencies
and will then determine which ones are most appropriate for a detailed analysis. The detailed
alternative analysis is presented in Section 4B of the report.
4A.1 General Design Requirements
Alternatives identified to correct deficiencies will need to be sized to handle anticipated future
wastewater flows. Additionally, any improvements to the system will need to comply with
applicable local, State, and federal regulations as well as accepted industry standards for the
design of wastewater collection facilities. Values for these design criteria, including design
flows, are based upon the previously presented information.
The design of any improvements to the sanitary sewer system will need to fully comply with the
latest edition of Circular DEQ 2 and City of Bozeman Design Standards. Plans and specifications
will need to be reviewed and approved by the MDEQ before construction can begin.
The proposed alignment passes through private, Montana Rail Link (MRL) and MDT properties
and will require easements and occupancy permits from those organizations. The alignment also
passes through wetlands and an Army Corps 404 permit will be required.
During the construction of any improvements, a storm water discharge permit will be necessary.
Permits from the state building inspector and electrical inspector may also be necessary
depending upon final design.
4A.2 Alternative Screening Process
The Alternative Screening Process will discuss the available alternatives and determine which
ones are viable for detailed consideration in Section 4B Alternative Analysis. An opinion of
probable cost for the preferred alternatives is included in Section 6 and detailed opinions of
probable costs, for the non-preferred alternatives, are included in Appendix F.
As discussed in Section 2, the existing system is at capacity and addition capacity is required.
129
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |4A‐2
No Action:
The no action alternative is included and considered in the alternative screening process in
accordance with the UA and feasible alternatives. No health care infrastructure projects or
private development will be permitted until the Interceptor is upsized. The no action alternative
is not considered a viable option and not will be considered further.
Existing Alignment:
Perhaps the most straightforward of the replacement alternative, this option would use existing
pipe alignment and manhole locations for the new sewer main.
New alignment:
This alternative would deviate from the existing alignment and manhole locations and use a new
alignment for the majority of the project. The new alignment would minimize wetland impacts
and result in one less jack & bore.
Lift Station and New alignment:
This alternative would employ a lift station and force main to reroute the sewer main along Main
Street to North Broadway Avenue until it intercepts the existing alignment.
130
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page |4B‐1
4B.1 Replacement Alternatives
Three replacement alternatives were carried forward from the screening process presented in
Section 4A. They are the following:
Alternative R-1: Upsize and Replace along existing alignment
Alternative R-2: Upsize and Replace using new alignment
Alternative R-3: Upsize, Lift Station and North Broadway alignment
Description and Schematic
This alternative will use the existing sewer main alignment and manhole locations for the new
and upsized interceptor. The existing alignment and grades are sufficient to meet DEQ design
standards and, although the increased pipe sizes will result in less bury depth to top of pipe, no
bury depth would be less than 4 feet. All slopes are sufficient to carry the anticipated full build
out flows in the upsized sewer main. An all-weather access road would be constructed so that all
manholes can be reached for maintenance and emergency operations. This collection system
alternative would meet all identified deficiencies as well as MDEQ and City of Bozeman
requirements. A layout is shown in Figure 4.1.
Operational and Energy Requirements
As a replacement gravity sewer, these improvements will not result in a change in energy
requirements for the collection system.
The all-weather access road will improve collection system operation and maintenance by
allowing the City’s vacuum truck to access every manhole. The access road will require
additional maintenance including weed control and infrequent grading. It is thought that the
addition costs of maintaining the road are offset by the benefits of gaining access to manhole that
are presently inaccessible.
Regulatory Requirements and Permits
Construction of this alternative would result in permanent and temporary wetland impacts. An
Individual Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers would be required along with the purchase of
either Upper Missouri Mitigation Bank credits or an In-Leu Fee. Since more than one acre of land
would be disturbed during construction, a storm water discharge permit is necessary. The selected
contractor would be responsible for obtaining a storm water permit, as would be indicated in the
project specifications. All permits must be submitted and approved prior to construction according to
the City of Bozeman.
131
132
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 4B‐3
A floodplain construction permit will be required for this project.
Land Requirements
This alternative would be constructed entirely in existing utility easements and would not require
any new land or easements.
Environmental Considerations
Implementation of this alternative would have the largest impacts to wetlands. The construction
of the new sewer main and all-weather access road would result in approximately 0.62 acres of
permanent wetland impacts and 0.37 acres of temporary wetland impacts.
Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period; however, it
would be temporary and the contract documents would require that the contractor provide dust
control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during construction. Once construction is
complete, there will be no noise or dust problems arising because of the improvements. The contract
documents shall also require that BMPs be employed before, during, and after construction until all
areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. There will be some changes to
the landscape in the previously undisturbed area on private land due to the all-weather access road
construction. For these reasons, environmental impacts are a prominent concern with this alternative.
Constructability
No major construction problems are anticipated with this alternative. High groundwater through most
of the project area will necessitate a significant dewatering effort and three jack & bores will be
required.
Capital Cost Estimates
Preliminary capital and cost estimates for Alternative R-1 have been prepared for guidance in
project evaluation and comparisons such as present value analysis. Final project costs will
depend on a variety of future factors including, but not limited to, regulatory approvals and
requirements, actual labor and material costs, and site conditions present at the time of bidding.
As a result of all the factors described above, final costs and user rates are expected to vary from
those shown. A detailed opinion of probable costs (OPC) is included in Appendix F.
Construction cost estimates are in 2019 dollars and include labor, materials, equipment,
overhead, bonds, insurance, and profit. Estimates were based on actual costs for other similar
facilities, equipment quotations from suppliers, and published cost curves. Factors were applied
to electrical and instrumentation/control costs as appropriate. Each alternative was assigned a 10
percent contingency. Bozeman Health agreed to pay Engineering Design fees.
Present Worth Cost Estimates
A present worth analysis that includes the capital, annual, and facility replacement costs was also
prepared for each alternative. This computation, commonly referred to as a life cycle analysis,
133
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 4B‐4
equalizes the O&M costs of the alternatives and then adds them to the capital cost. The result is
the total present worth cost. The present worth of the operating costs was computed for twenty
years using factors developed on the real discount rate published by the United States Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The facility salvage value was determined by classifying the
design life of various assets as appropriate. The salvage value at the twenty-year point was then
discounted to present value using a present worth factor based on the current OMB discount rate
of 1.5%.
Table 4B.1 presents the capital, annual, and present worth cost for the implementation of
Alternative R-1.
Table 4B.1
Present Worth Costs R-1
Capital $3,923,000
PW Salvage $276,000
Present Worth $3,647,000
Description and Schematic
This alternative will upsize and replace the existing sanitary sewer main along a new alignment.
The new alignment is routed in order to minimize environmental impacts and meet landowner
requirements. All grades are sufficient to meet DEQ design standards and no bury depth would
be less than 4 feet. All slopes are sufficient to carry the anticipated full build out flows in the
upsized sewer main. An all-weather access road will be constructed through private and MDT
land so that all manholes can be reached for maintenance and emergency operations. This
collection system alternative would meet all identified deficiencies as well as MDEQ and City of
Bozeman requirements. A layout is shown in Figure 4.2.
Operational and Energy Requirements
As a replacement gravity sewer, these improvements will not result in a change in energy
requirements for the collection system.
The all-weather access road will improve collection system operation and maintenance by
allowing the City’s vacuum truck to access every manhole. The access road will require
additional maintenance including weed control and infrequent grading. It is thought that the
addition costs of maintaining the road are offset by the benefits of gaining access to manhole that
are presently inaccessible.
134
135
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 4B‐6
Regulatory Requirements and Permits
Construction of this alternative would result in permanent and temporary wetland disturbances and
impacts. An approved Nationwide Permit 12, for Utility Line Activities, would be required from the
Army Corps of Engineers. It would also be necessary to purchase either Wetland Bank mitigation
credits or an In-Leu Fee for wetland mitigation. Since more than one acre of land would be disturbed
during construction, a storm water discharge permit is necessary. The selected contractor would be
responsible for obtaining a storm water permit, as would be indicated in the project specifications. All
permits must be submitted and approved prior to construction according to the City of Bozeman.
A floodplain construction permit will be required for this project.
Land Requirements
This alternative requires the City to obtain new utility easements from private landowners. The
existing sewer line pass through private land through established easements. The City and landowners
have negotiated new easements that meet the City’s and landowner’s requirements.
An existing easement on MDT land has been altered, at MDT’s request, in order to locate a proposed
manhole outside of delineated wetlands. This new easement takes up the same area as the existing
easement and the existing easement will be abandoned at the completion of the project.
The northern most tie-in point lies within five feet of private property and it is anticipated that
construction equipment will be required to encroach on the private land in order to construct the sewer
main. A temporary construction easement has been obtained from the land owner for this project.
Environmental Considerations
Although the proposed alignment minimizes wetland impact as much as possible, there will still
be some loss and alteration of existing wetlands. This alternative employs six more manholes than
the existing alignment in order to stay out of wetlands as much as possible. The construction of the
new sewer main and all-weather access road would result in approximately 0.23 acres of
permanent wetland impacts and 0.37 acres of temporary wetland impacts.
Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period; however, it
would be temporary and the contract documents would require that the contractor provide dust
control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during construction. Once construction is
complete, there will be no noise or dust problems arising because of the improvements. The contract
documents shall also require that BMPs be employed before, during, and after construction until all
areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. Due to the new all-weather access
road, there will be some changes to the landscape in the previously undisturbed area on private land.
Environmental impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible and are not a major
concern with this alternative.
136
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 4B‐7
Constructability
No major construction problems are anticipated with this alternative. High groundwater through most
of the project area will necessitate a significant dewatering effort and two jack & bores will be
required.
Capital Cost Estimates
Preliminary capital and cost estimates for Alternative R-2 have been prepared for guidance in
project evaluation and comparisons such as present value analysis. Final project costs will
depend on a variety of future factors including, but not limited to, regulatory approvals and
requirements, actual labor and material costs, and site conditions present at the time of bidding.
As a result of all the factors described above, final costs and user rates are expected to vary from
those shown. A detailed OPC is included in Section 6 of this PER.
Construction cost estimates are in 2019 dollars and include labor, materials, equipment,
overhead, bonds, insurance, and profit. Estimates were based on actual costs for other similar
facilities, equipment quotations from suppliers, and published cost curves. Factors were applied
to electrical and instrumentation/control costs as appropriate. Each alternative was assigned a 10
percent contingency. Bozeman Health agreed to pay Engineering Design fees.
Present Worth Cost Estimates
A present worth analysis that includes the capital, annual, and facility replacement costs was also
prepared for each alternative. This computation, commonly referred to as a life cycle analysis,
equalizes the O&M costs of the alternatives and then adds them to the capital cost. The result is
the total present worth cost. The present worth of the operating costs was computed for twenty
years using factors developed on the real discount rate published by the United States Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The facility salvage value was determined by classifying the
design life of various assets as appropriate. The salvage value at the twenty-year point was then
discounted to present value using a present worth factor based on the current OMB discount rate
of 1.5%.
Table 4B.2 presents the capital, annual, and present worth cost for the implementation of
Alternative R-2.
Table 4B.2
Present Worth Costs R-2
Capital $3,642,000
PW Salvage $296,000
Present Worth $3,346,000
137
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 4B‐8
Description and Schematic
This alternative would use a lift station and force main to route the interceptor along Main Street.
The interceptor would then return to gravity sewer and continue in Main Street until turning
north in North Broadway Avenue.
The lift station would consist of a valve building and a wet well. The building would house
valving equipment, a backup power generator, and electrical components, and the pumps will be
located in the wet well. The force main would extend from the lift station 2,000 feet to a manhole
in East Main Street.
The first step in the analysis for the lift station and associated force main will be to establish
design criteria including the wide range of flows that the lift station will be expected to handle. It
is expected that the initial flows at startup will be small in comparison to those that may be
encountered once the area is fully developed. Consequently, the lift station must be designed to
handle both the initial startup flows and the expected future flows. Pump selection and the sizing
of the force main will be impacted by these varying flow rates.
The lift station pumps can be sized for the initial influent flows, and be replaced as their capacity
is exceeded, or additional pumps can be installed once the original pumps can no longer meet
demand. The advantages of replacing the lift station pumps as influent flows increase versus
installing additional pumps to meet increased flows will be assessed.
Another key design consideration will be the location of the lift station. The ideal location for the
lift station lies within MDT owned land and it is expected to be a difficult process to get the
required authorizations. A layout is shown in Figure 4.3.
Operational and Energy Requirements
The City currently owns and operates 8 lift stations and is fully equipped to operate a Front
Street Lift Station. Annual maintenance and cleaning would be similar to other large lift stations
in the city. The major energy requirement and cost associated with the lift station would be
electrical demand. The power required by the lift station would be expected to increase over time
until the collection basin is fully developed. For this analysis it is assumed that full build out of
the basin will occur in 20 years.
A new three-phase electrical service and meter will be run to the lift station site.
Regulatory Requirements and Permits
Construction of this alternative require permits from MDT and MRL.
A floodplain construction permit will be required for this project.
138
139
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 4B‐10
Land Requirements
Existing sewer alignments and easements would be used for the majority of the route however an
additional 1,600 feet of utility easements would be required in Main Street.
This alternative requires the City to obtain new utility and facility easements from MDT.
The existing sewer main, which passes through wetlands, would be retained to service the small
number of businesses and residences on the north side of Main Street and the area around Heeb’s
Grocery. It may be possible to re-route those areas to the lift station however that additional alternative
is not analyzed in this PER.
The northern most tie-in point lies within five feet of private property and it is anticipated that
construction equipment will be required to encroach on the private land in order to construct the sewer
main. A temporary construction easement has been obtained from the land owner for this project.
Environmental Considerations
Although this alternative nearly eliminates wetland impacts, the lift station would be located near
likely wetlands and the area would need to be delineated.
Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period; however, it
would be temporary and the contract documents would require that the contractor provide dust
control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during construction. Once construction is
complete, there will be no noise or dust problems arising because of the improvements. The contract
documents shall also require that BMPs be employed before, during, and after construction until all
areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. Environmental impacts have been
minimized to the greatest extent possible and are not a major concern with this alternative.
Constructability
No major construction problems are anticipated with this alternative. The anticipated disturbance to
Main Street and Broadway Avenue will require an extensive traffic plan and rerouting.
Capital Cost Estimates
Preliminary capital and cost estimates for Alternative R-3 have been prepared for guidance in
project evaluation and comparisons such as present value analysis. Final project costs will
depend on a variety of future factors including, but not limited to, regulatory approvals and
requirements, actual labor and material costs, and site conditions present at the time of bidding.
As a result of all the factors described above, final costs and user rates are expected to vary from
those shown. A detailed OPC is included in Appendix F.
Construction cost estimates are in 2019 dollars and include labor, materials, equipment,
overhead, bonds, insurance, and profit. Estimates were based on actual costs for other similar
facilities, equipment quotations from suppliers, and published cost curves. Factors were applied
to electrical and instrumentation/control costs as appropriate. Each alternative was assigned a 10
140
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 4B‐11
percent contingency. This alternative would have new engineering, legal, and administrative
costs that would be paid by the City of Bozeman.
Present Worth Cost Estimates
A present worth analysis that includes the capital, annual, and facility replacement costs was also
prepared for each alternative. This computation, commonly referred to as a life cycle analysis,
equalizes the O&M costs of the alternatives and then adds them to the capital cost. The result is
the total present worth cost. The present worth of the operating costs was computed for twenty
years using factors developed on the real discount rate published by the United States Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The facility salvage value was determined by classifying the
design life of various assets as appropriate. The salvage value at the twenty-year point was then
discounted to present value using a present worth factor based on the current OMB discount rate
of 1.5%.
Table 4B.3 presents the capital, annual, and present worth cost for the implementation of
Alternative R-3.
Table 4B.3
Present Worth Costs R-3
Capital $5,700,000
PW O&M $678,000
PW Salvage $448,000
Present Worth $5,930,000
141
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 5‐1
Each of the replacement alternatives was preliminarily designed to meet the applicable design
criteria and regulations. This section will examine advantages and disadvantages of each in terms
of technical feasibility, environmental impacts, financial feasibility, public health and safety,
O&M considerations, and permitting requirements. As previously discussed, there are a variety
of replacement alternatives that can be selected for implementation.
5.1 Ranking Criteria
This scoring process will assign each alternative a score ranging from 0 to 10 for each of the six
criteria identified above. Scoring is subjective and is made based on the Engineer’s experience.
A zero will represent the most negative impact of the alternatives considered and a score of ten
will be assigned to alternatives having the highest relative benefit of the alternatives considered.
A score of five is neutral or neither better nor worse than other alternatives. Alternatives are
assigned an initial score of five to begin the scoring process. The six criteria have been weighted
to differentiate the importance of the criteria relative to the other criteria. As shown, important
factors such as cost have been assigned a ten weighting to emphasize their importance in the
selection process. The other criteria have been (subjectively) assigned weightings in between
based on experience and discussions with City personnel.
Alternatives that were not technically feasible were removed from consideration during the
analysis phase. This ranking category will include remaining technical issues plus the feasibility
of acquiring sufficient land in terms of lease, right-of-way, and/or land purchases. This criterion
will be provided with a weighting factor of 9.
Considerations for items such as stormwater runoff and impacts to groundwater from
construction will need to be considered, but more importantly short and long-term, detrimental
environmental impacts are a concern for the large wetland areas. This criterion will be provided
with a weighting factor of 8.
The cost of capital improvements are a great concern to all communities. Although a community
may be successful in obtaining one-time infrastructure grants, the ongoing O&M costs and their
impacts on user rates can be significant. As a result, the life cycle cost analysis are represented
where appropriate, for each alternative. The life cycle costs include both the estimated capital
cost of the alternatives and the associated incremental (in addition to current costs) increase in
O&M costs.
A life cycle (present worth) analysis is a financial comparison based on the present-day value of
construction, annual, and salvage value costs. The life cycle cost analysis used in this report
142
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 5‐2
follow the requirements of the Montana Uniform PER Instructions Part 5a (1)-(10). The criteria
include a term of 20 years, real discount rate of 1.5 percent as specified by the OMB website.
Other calculation procedures were followed as specified.
This criterion will be provided with a weighting factor of 7.
All of the alternatives examined in this chapter are designed to meet public health and safety
laws, so the scoring for each alternative under this criterion would be expected to be fairly high.
This criterion will be provided with a weighting factor of 7.
O&M is an important issue when considering any large capital improvements within any
community. The costs for O&M associated with the alternatives is included in the 20-year life
cycle costs compared under the financial feasibility, but there are other considerations that should
be weighed for the O&M associated with each alternative. This criterion will be provided with a
weighting factor of 8.
All of the alternatives will require a floodplain permit, MRL Pipeline permits, MDT Occupancy
permits, and an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit. Obtaining these permits can be a time-
consuming process with uncertain outcomes. This criterion will be provided with a weighting
factor of 6.
5.2 Scoring of Interceptor Replacement Alternatives
The three basic replacement alternatives will be scored in this section are listed below.
Alternative R-1: Upsize and Replace along Existing Alignment
Alternative R-2 Upsize and Replace using new alignment
Alternative R-3: Upsize, Lift Station and North Broadway alignment
As discussed under the ranking criteria development, all the alternatives are technically feasible
from an engineering standpoint but may not be practically feasible due to other considerations.
R-1: The new sewer mains would be constructed entirely within existing utility easements.
However, not all of the existing easements allow for the required all-weather access road
and DEQ’s and the City of Bozeman’s requirement for the maintenance access would
require the City to obtain amended or new easements through private and MDT land. This
Alternative therefore receives a score of 7.
143
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 5‐3
R-2: The City has negotiated new easements with all private landowners that would be impacted
by the proposed alignment and access road. One of the existing MDT easements will be
altered in order to meet an MDT request to relocate a manhole outside of wetlands. With
the obtained easements, This Alternative receives a score of 9.
R-3: The land required for the lift station is in an MDT right of way and it is unlikely that MDT
would be supportive of this alternative. Consequently, this Alternative will receive a score
of 5.
R-1: The construction of this alternative will cause the greatest permanent disturbance to and
loss of wetlands. Because more than 0.5 acres of wetlands would be impacted, a DA
Individual Permit would be required. The twelve-foot-wide all-weather access road would
be constructed through the center of the private wetland area and could result in
fragmentation and further loss of wetlands after the project completion. Trench plugs
placed between manholes would stop any French drain effects in the area. This Alternative
shall receive a score of 6.
R-2: The construction of this alternative will result in the permanent loss or conversion of 0.228
acres of wetlands. The proposed alignment skirts the edge of the wetlands owned by the
Sacajawea Audubon Society which will allow that organization to improve and rehabilitate
the existing wetlands on their property. This Alternative shall receive a score of 7.
R-3: The lift station would disturb a relatively small amount of land however it is close to
wetlands and a delineation would be required in order to ensure that the wetwell and valve
building were located outside of any wetlands. The gravity sewer main upstream of the lift
station passes through wetlands and near a channel. Proposed construction activities would
result in at least temporarily impacted wetlands. This Alternative shall receive a score of 9.
144
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 5‐4
Table 5.1 presents the life cycle cost associated with each alternative with the exception of the no
action alternative.
Table 5.1
Treatment Alternatives
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
ITEM
ALTERNATIVE
R-1
Upsize and Replace
along Existing
ALTERNATIVE
R-2
Upsize and Replace
using new alignment
ALTERNATIVE
R-3
Upsize & Lift Station
Capital Costs $3,923,000 $3,642,000 $5,700,000
Annual Increased
O&M Costs $0 $0 $40,000
20-Year Salvage Value $372,000 $399,000 $604,000
Present Worth of
Salvage Value $276,000 $296,000 $448,000
Present Worth of
Increased Annual O&M $0 $0 $678,000
Present Worth Cost1,2 $3,647,000 $3,564,000 $5,930,000
1Present worth O&M based upon a 20-year term using a 1.5 percent discount rate and the
corresponding uniform series present worth factor.
2 Present worth salvage based upon a 20-year straight line depreciation using a 1.5 percent discount
rate and the corresponding single payment present worth factor.
R-1: Although this alternative has less pipe length, it requires one more jack & bore than
alternative R-2 which results in a slightly greater present worth cost. This Alternative is
scored at 8.
R-2: This alternative has the lowest projected cost and receives a score of 9.
R-3: The inclusion of a lift station and the increase pipe lengths make this alternative far more
expensive than either of the other two alternatives. At a 66% greater cost than R-2 this
alternative receives a score of 5.
R-1: Properly constructed PVC sanitary sewer mains are a reliable and safe means to convey
wastewater. This Alternative is scored at 9.
145
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 5‐5
R-2: Properly constructed PVC sanitary sewer mains are a reliable and safe means to convey
wastewater. This Alternative is scored at 9.
R-3: Lift stations are more complex than gravity sewer systems and require electrical power,
however a Front Street Lift Station would include multiple pumps and a backup power
source. This Alternative receives a score of 8.
The cost for O&M associated with the various alternatives was included in the 20-year life cycle
costs considered under financial feasibility, but O&M considerations must go beyond cost. The
City has limited manpower and must take this into account when considering the alternatives.
R-1: Annual maintenance and cleaning requirements will not change however the all-weather
road will allow greater access to manholes. The all-weather road will require infrequent
maintenance but as previously discussed it is thought that the increased ability to maintain
the sewer main compensates for road maintenance requirements. This Alternative is scored
at 9.
R-2: Annual maintenance and cleaning requirements will not change however the all-weather
road will allow greater access to manholes. The all-weather road will require infrequent
maintenance but as previously discussed it is thought that the increased ability to maintain
the sewer main compensates for road maintenance requirements. This Alternative is scored
at 9.
R-3: The lift station would require skilled operators and has the highest overall labor costs of the
alternatives. This is the only alternative that will require inspection and maintenance of
electrical and mechanical components. This Alternative is scored at 4.
R-1: This alternative would require MRL, MDT, and DA permits. The MRL and MDT permits,
that are being obtained for R-2, would be valid for this alternative. This alternative would
require an individual permit from the DA for the wetland impacts. An individual permit
will require an alternatives analysis for the DA and can result in a lengthy process. This
Alternative is scored at 7.
R-2: MRL has issued all permits for this alternative. MDT has stated that the occupancy permit
is ready and will be issued once the DA permit is received. The DA Nation Wide Permit
(NWP) 12 is under review. This Alternative is scored at 8.
R-3: The construction of the force main and gravity sewer in Main Street would require an MDT
occupancy permit which may be difficult to obtain. This alternative would also require an
NWP 12 permit. This Alternative is scored at 5.
146
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 5‐6
5.5 Decision Matrix and Selection of Preferred Alternative
Using the criteria, scoring and weighting factors previously described, Table 5.5 was established
to provide a comparison of the alternatives. Based on the previous analysis and the results of the
scoring, the preferred sanitary sewer main replacement project consists of:
Alternative R-2 Upsize and Replace Using New Alignment
Alternative R-2: This alternative ranked the highest and will be the design basis for the project.
It is “low tech”, maximizes the use of the existing facilities, minimizes environmental impacts,
and provides for all anticipated future growth.
A detailed analysis of the selected alternative is presented in Section 6 of this report.
Weight: 9 Weight: 8 Weight: 7 Weight: 7 Weight: 8 Weight: 6
Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. TOTAL
R-1 763648856963972742344
R-2 981756963963972954389
R-3 545972535856432530270
Table 5.2
Ranking Summary
Permitting
Requirements
Technical
Feasibility
Environmental
Impacts
Financial
Feasibility
Public Health
and Safety
Operational &
Maintenance
147
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 6‐1
This section will provide a detailed description of the Preferred Alternative, including site and
location characteristics, operational requirements, impacts on existing facilities, design criteria,
environmental impacts and mitigation, and a cost summary.
6.1 Site Location and Characteristics
The site is located in the City of Bozeman (T02S, R6E, Sections 6, 7 and 8). A geotechnical
evaluation report (Appendix G) was prepared by SK Geotechnical for the project alignment. The
report identified variable soil profiles along the alignment including gravels, sands, and clays.
Groundwater depths range from one to 15.5 feet below ground surface (based on observations
made in December 2018). Dewatering will likely be necessary for most of the pipeline
alignment (with the possible exclusion of Haggerty Lane). Approximately 40 percent of the
alignment crosses through or passes near wetlands. Although there will likely be temporary
environmental impacts to the wetland areas during construction activities, 0.23 acres of
permanent wetland impacts are anticipated.
According to the FEMA flood insurance rate maps 30031C0817D and 30031C0809D for
Bozeman, Montana, a short portion of the proposed sewer main alignment crosses a mapped
floodplain. However, this portion of the alignment will be installed via jack and bore. No
additional fill will be required within the floodplain for installation of the sewer main. The
referenced FEMA flood insurance rate maps can be found in Appendix I.
6.2 Project Design
The Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement is proposed to upsize the existing
trunk main in order to increase sewer capacity for future development of properties in the
southeast region of Bozeman including the Bozeman Health campus. The project consists of
replacement of the existing Front Street Interceptor with approximately 7,625 feet of 18, 21, and
24-inch diameter gravity sewer along with all associated structures. Additionally, two jack &
bores are required.
The gravity sewer collection system has no additional operational requirements above what the
City currently does. In general, the City can continue to expend the current level of manpower
and resources during the year.
Specific duties required to operate the system include the following:
Annually
o Inspect manholes and all-weather access road.
o Clean sewer main using the City equipment.
148
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 6‐2
6.3 Impact on Existing Facilities
The existing wastewater facilities along the Front Street Interceptor alignment (various sizes of
gravity mains and manholes) will be replaced with new upsized components. In the future, as
additional properties in the southeast portion of Bozeman are developed, the existing facilities at
the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility will see an increase in sewage flow. The Bozeman
WRF will be expanded as flows from multiple basins increase due to development.
6.4 Design Criteria
The Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Upgrade project is designed in accordance
with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular 2, the City of
Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy, the Montana Public Works Standard
Specifications (MPWSS), and the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works
Standard Specifications. The sewer mains were sized in accordance with the projected flow data
for the Front Street Interceptor from the 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Facilities Plan
Update. No sewer service connections are expected along the Front Street Interceptor based
upon record drawings. The most applicable Chapters in DEQ-2 are:
Chapter 10 Engineering Reports and Facility Plans
Chapter 20 Engineering Plans and Specifications
Chapter 30 Design of Sewers
6.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
General Requirements
The majority of the work will be accomplished in previously disturbed and developed areas
however, a sizable portion of the replacement must traverse private and MDT wetlands. The
construction of this alternative will result in the permanent loss or conversion of 0.228 acres of
wetlands. The proposed alignment largely skirts the edge of the wetlands owned by the
Sacajawea Audubon Society which will allow that organization to improve and rehabilitate the
existing wetlands on their property. Mitigation bank credits from the Upper Missouri Mitigation
Bank or In-Lieu fees through Montana Aquatic Resources Services (MARS) will be used to
mitigate the impacts to wetlands resulting from this project. The City will seek bids from the
Bank and MARS once the 404 permit is issued.
Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period because of
the large amount of earthwork involved and that this work is typically performed during the hot
dry times of year. However, it would be temporary and the contract documents would require that
the contractor provide dust control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during
construction due to bypass pumping and excavation. Once construction is complete, there will
be no noise or dust problems arising as a result of the improvements. The contract documents
shall also require that BMPs be employed before, during, and after construction until all areas of
disturbance have been fully re-vegetated.
149
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 6‐3
Implementation of this Alternative will allow the City to abandon the sewer main that passes
through the middle of the wetlands.
All improvements will be designed in accordance with Circular DEQ-2. Plans would need to be
reviewed and approved by the City and MDEQ before bidding and construction could begin.
Since more than one acre of land would to be disturbed during construction, a storm water
discharge permit is also necessary. The construction contractor would be responsible for
obtaining this permit and any additional permits including but not limited to building, electrical,
plumbing, and road encroachment.
Copies of all correspondence with all responding agencies are included in the Appendix B. Based
on comments provided by these agencies, it appears that, other than wetland impacts, there are no
other significant environmental, technical, or other concerns which could delay or prevent the
proposed improvements from being carried out. The required environmental checklist
incorporating the agency comments and agency response letters are included in Appendices B
and C.
6.6 Project Schedule
Table 6.1 includes the anticipated timeline for project implementation. Many of the tasks are
complete or pending approval.
Table 6.1
Project Implementation Schedule
for Funding and Construction
ACTION DATE NOTES
Hire Engineer/Administrator Mar 2018 Completed
Complete Project Design Dec 2018 Completed
Submit Plans to COB & MDEQ Jan 2019 Completed
Obtain Private Easements July 2019 Completed
Submit DA Permit Application July 2019 Pending
Submit PER Oct 2019
MDEQ Approval Dec 2020 Dependent on DA Permit
Advertise and Bid Project Jan 2020
Construction Apr – Sept, 2020
Project Completion & Acceptance Nov 2020
1-Year Walk-Through Nov 2021
150
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 6‐4
6.7 Cost Summary
Tables 6.2 and 6.3 provide a summary of probable costs, an opinion of probable cost and a
present worth analysis for the proposed project. As stated previously, it is believed that the
additional cost of maintaining the all-weather access road is substantially offset by the gained
ability to access all Interceptor manholes. There is no anticipated increase in O&M.
Description QTY Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization/Insurance/Bonding 1 LS N/A $285,634
2 Exploratory Excavation 40 HR $500 $20,000
3 Erosion Control 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
4 Traffic Control 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
5 Trench Dewatering 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
6Bypass Pumping 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
7 Water Main Conflict Crossing 60 LF $90 $5,400
8 Water Service Conflict Crossing 50 LF $25 $1,250
9 Utility Crossings, Conflicts, and Protection 24 EA $300 $7,200
10 Culvert Crossings, Conflicts, and Protection 3 EA $300 $900
11 Parallel Utility Conflicts and Protection 550 LF $75 $41,250
12 Asphalt Pavement Restoration 775 LF $27 $20,925
13 Curb and Gutter Restoration 690 LF $28 $19,320
14 Gravel Surface Restoration 2,609 LF $65 $169,585
15 Restoration of Non-Driving Surfaces 4,550 LF $30 $136,500
16 All-Weather Access Surfaces (Non-Wetland Areas) 2,311 SY $25 $57,775
17 All-Weather Access Surfaces (Wetland Areas) 3,246 SY $60 $194,760
18 Lay-Down Curb for Drive Approach 8 EA $2,000 $16,000
19 8" SDR35 PVC Sewer Main 193 LF $85 $16,405
20 18” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 3,884 LF $90 $349,560
21 21” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 943 LF $100 $94,300
22 24” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 2,800 LF $115 $322,000
23 Jack and Bore (Including 36" Steel Casing Pipe) 135 LF $1,500 $202,500
24 Jack and Bore (Including 42" Steel Casing Pipe) 131 LF $1,750 $229,250
25 60" Basic Sanitary Sewer Manhole 25 EA $5,000 $125,000
26 Additional 60" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Depth 176 VF $300 $52,800
27 72" Basic Sanitary Sewer Manhole 3 EA $6,000 $18,000
28 Additional 72" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Depth 18 VF $350 $6,300
29 Type 2 Pipe Bedding 1,475 CY $80 $118,000
30 Flowable Fill 303 CY $303 $91,809
31 Connect to Existing Manhole 2 EA $2,000 $4,000
32 12" Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Culvert 24 LF $75 $1,800
33 Asbestos Cement (AC) Pipe - Removal and Disposal 2,250 LF $15 $33,750
SUBTOTAL $3,141,973
Construction Management $186,000
Contingency @ 10% $314,197
TOTAL $3,642,170
Table 6.2 - Opinion of Probable Costs for Prefered Alternative R-2
City of Bozeman
Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement
151
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 6‐5
Table 6.3
Present Worth Analysis
City of Bozeman, Montana
Alternatives R-2
ITEM COST
Capital Costs $3,642,000
Increased Annual O&M Costs $0
20-Year Salvage Value $398,000
Present Worth of Salvage Value $296,000
Present Worth of Annual O&M Cost $0
Present Worth Cost1
$3,347,000
1Present worth based upon a 20-year life cycle using OMB real discount rate and corresponding uniform series and single
payment present worth factors.
152
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 7‐1
This section will discuss available funding sources and scenarios. A preferred funding scenario
and proposed implementation plan are also presented.
7.1 Funding
Because the project is to replace an existing pipeline owned by the City, the City will directly
fund 25% of the project. The City will seek an SRF loan for the remainder of the construction
and administration of the project.
SRF provides low-interest loan funds for wastewater projects through the Water Pollution
Control State Revolving Fund (WPCSRF). Current loan terms include an interest rate of 2.50%
for a 20 or 30-year period.
7.2 Implementation
Before the project can be implemented, the funding must first be in place. As noted earlier, the
best funding strategy for the City would be to utilize SRF loan funds. Before final submission to
the funding agency, the City will provide a resolution to adopt the PER and the Environmental
Assessment. The draft resolution is under review by the City’s legal department and a
placeholder for the resolution is included in Appendix A of the PER. The project has been placed
on MDEQ’s State Revolving Fund priority list with a commit date of 9/1/2019 (Appendix K.)
Design was completed in January 2019 and it is now anticipated that bidding the project will
occur January 2020. The project will be bid with one schedule as presented in this report.
Primarily weather dependent, actual construction of Alternative R-2 would begin in late March
or April of 2020, which should allow the Contractor ample time to coordinate his startup.
153
City of Bozeman, Montana Front Street Interceptor Replacement PER
Page | 8‐1
The following references were utilized in the compilation of the PER:
1 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture, Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app
2 Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Montana Tech of The University of Montana,
Groundwater Information Center 2010, http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/
3 United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome
4 mt.gov, Natural Resources Information System, Montana Geographic Information
Clearinghouse, http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/
5 FEMA Map Service Center, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Gallatin County
6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory,
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
7 Draft Davis Lane Lift Station and Norton Ranch Sewer PER, HDR
8 Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center,
http://ceic.mt.gov/
9 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, http://factfinder.census.gov
10 Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Circular DEQ 2: Design Standards for
Wastewater Facilities, latest Edition
11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Western Regional Climate
Center, Historical Climate Information, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/NEWWEB.html
154
APPENDIX A
155
Placeholder for
–
City of Bozeman Resolution to Accept Front Street
Interceptor Replacement Preliminary Engineering
Report
156
APPENDIX B
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
1
Scott Short
From: Moser, David <davemoser@mt.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 2:55 PM
To: Scott Short
Subject: Front Street Sewer Main Replacement
Scott, I looked over the plans for the sewer main replacement. I don’t see any jurisdictional waters being impacted by
the project. If during project work, an unforeseen impact to the bed or banks of streams in the area is identified – call
me, and I can turn around a permit pretty quickly. Cheers, Dave
Dave Moser
Madison ‐ Gallatin Area Fisheries Biologist
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Region 3
1400 South 19th
Bozeman, MT 59718
(406) 994‐6938
166
167
168
169
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
In Reply Refer To:
File: M.29 Public
TAILS: 06E11000-
2019-CPA-0059;
06E11000-2019-TA-
0446
Montana Ecological Services Office
585 Shephard Way, Suite 1
Helena, Montana 59601-6287
May 28, 2019
Greg Steckler, P.E.
Project Manager
Stahly Engineering
851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1
Bozeman, MT 59715
Dear Mr. Steckler:
Thank you for your letter of April 24, 2019 and received at our office on April 29, requesting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comment regarding a proposed sewer main replacement
project in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. A project description and maps were provided
in your letter. Our comments are prepared under the authority of, and in accordance with, the
provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et. seq.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on the confined nature and location of this proposed work adjacent to an existing
developed municipal and industrial setting, we do not anticipate its implementation would result
in adverse effects to listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species, or listed or
proposed critical habitat.
Migratory Birds
The proposed project may result in potential effects to migratory birds. To the extent
practicable, necessary vegetation clearing, grubbing, and filling construction activities should be
scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds, if present in the project area. Active
nests may not be purposefully removed. The Service has developed, and continues to revise and
develop, general and industry-specific conservation measures for avoiding and minimizing
impacts to birds (https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-
guidance/conservation-measures.php). We recommend that the proposed project consider and
incorporate these measures into project design, construction, and documentation as appropriate.
170
2
Bald and Golden Eagles
Although the Service is not aware of active eagle nests or territories within several miles of the
proposed project site, we provide the following for your information.
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are protected
from a variety of harmful actions via take prohibitions in both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1
(MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C.
668–668d). The BGEPA, enacted in 1940 and amended several times, prohibits take of bald
eagles and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, young or eggs, except where otherwise
permitted pursuant to federal regulations. Incidental take of eagles from actions such as
electrocutions from power lines or wind turbine strikes are prohibited unless specifically
authorized via an eagle incidental take permit from US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
BGEPA provides penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell,
purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or
any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." BGEPA defines take to
include the following actions: "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect,
molest or disturb." The Service expanded this definition by regulation to include the term
“destroy” to ensure that “take” also encompasses destruction of eagle nests. Also the Service
defined the term disturb which means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that
causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an
eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding,
feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.
The Service has developed guidance for the public regarding means to avoid take (as described
above) of bald and golden eagles:
• The 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines serve to advise landowners, land
managers, and others who share public and private lands with bald eagles when and
under what circumstances the protective provisions of BGEPA may apply. They provide
conservation recommendations to help people avoid and/or minimize such impacts to
bald eagles, particularly where they may constitute “disturbance,” which is prohibited by
the BGEPA.
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecologicalservices/pdf/NationalBaldEagleManagementGu
idelines.pdf
1 On December 22, 2017, the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Office of the Solicitor Memorandum M-37050
titled The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf) concludes that the MBTA’s prohibitions on pursuing,
hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same apply only to affirmative actions that have as their
purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs. The MBTA list of protected species
includes bald and golden eagles, and the law has been an effective tool to pursue incidental take cases involving
eagles. However, the primary law protecting eagles is the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.
Code § 668), since the bald eagle was delisted under the Endangered Species Act in 2007. Memorandum-37050
does not affect the ability of the Service to refer entities for prosecution that have violated the take prohibitions for
eagles established by the BGEPA.
171
3
• The 2010 Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: An Addendum to Montana Bald
Eagle Management Plan (1994) also provides guidance for avoiding and minimizing the
risk for eagle take. http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=44181
Additional Comments
Wetlands will be affected by the project, and the Service recommends keeping wetland
disturbances to the minimum extent and duration possible, with as much occurring “in the dry”
as possible. This would reduce impacts to aquatic species related to disturbance and sediment
inputs. We also recommend that appropriate erosion and sediment control efforts and measures
be implemented during and following construction to avoid introducing sediments or other
contaminants to adjacent waters, and implementation of compensatory wetland mitigation if
required in conjunction with Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting.
In addition to coordination with the Service, we recommend coordination with Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Natural Heritage Program. These agencies may be able to
provide updated, site-specific information regarding fish, wildlife, and sensitive plant resources
occurring in the proposed project area. Contact information for these two agencies is below:
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Montana Natural Heritage Program
1420 East Sixth Avenue 1515 East 6th Avenue, Box 201800
P.O. Box 200701 Helena, Montana 59620-1800
Helena, Montana 59620-0701 Phone: (406) 444-5354
Phone: (406) 444-2535
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. The Service appreciates
your efforts to incorporate fish and wildlife resource concerns into your project planning. If you
have further questions related to this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Jeff Berglund at
(406) 449-5225, extension 206.
Sincerely,
for Jodi L. Bush
Office Supervisor
172
APPENDIX C
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
APPENDIX D
181
City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities
Plan 2015
–
Located at the following address
https://www.bozeman.net/home/showdocument?id=832
182
APPENDIX E
183
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Program
Fiscal Years 2018‐2022
–
Located at the following address
https://www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=3464
184
APPENDIX F
185
Item No. Description Est. Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
101 Mobilization/Insurance/Bonding 1 LS N/A $308,835.00
102 Exploratory Excavation 40 HR $500.00 $20,000.00
103 Erosion Control 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
104 Traffic Control 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
105 Trench Dewatering 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00
106 Bypass Pumping 1 LS $350,000.00 $350,000.00
107 Water Main Conflict Crossing (Re-Route of Water Main) 60 LF $90.00 $5,400.00
108 Water Service Conflict Crossing (Re-Route of Water Service) 50 LF $25.00 $1,250.00
109 Utility Crossings, Conflicts, and Protection 24 EA $300.00 $7,200.00
110 Culvert Crossings, Conflicts, and Protection 3 EA $300.00 $900.00
111 Parallel Utility Conflicts and Protection 550 LF $75.00 $41,250.00
112 Asphalt Pavement Restoration 775 LF $27.00 $20,925.00
113 Curb and Gutter Restoration 475 LF $28.00 $13,300.00
114 Gravel Surface Restoration 2,609 LF $65.00 $169,585.00
115 Restoration of Non-Driving Surfaces 4,550 LF $30.00 $136,500.00
116 All-Weather Access Surfaces (Non-Wetland Areas) 2,311 SY $25.00 $57,775.00
117 All-Weather Access Surfaces (Wetland Areas) 3,700 SY $60.00 $222,000.00
118 Lay-Down Curb for Drive Approach 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00
119 8" SDR35 PVC Sewer Main 193 LF $85.00 $16,405.00
120 18” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 3,404 LF $90.00 $306,360.00
121 21” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 910 LF $100.00 $91,000.00
122 24” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 2,640 LF $115.00 $303,600.00
123 Jack and Bore (Including 36" Steel Casing Pipe) 332 LF $1,500.00 $498,000.00
124 Jack and Bore (Including 42" Steel Casing Pipe) 131 LF $1,750.00 $229,250.00
125 60" Basic Sanitary Sewer Manhole 19 EA $5,000.00 $95,000.00
126 Additional 60" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Depth 176 VF $300.00 $52,800.00
127 72" Basic Sanitary Sewer Manhole 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000.00
128 Additional 72" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Depth 18 VF $350.00 $6,300.00
129 Type 2 Pipe Bedding 1,475 CY $80.00 $118,000.00
131 Connect to Existing Manhole 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000.00
132 12" Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Culvert 24 LF $75.00 $1,800.00
133 Asbestos Cement (AC) Pipe - Removal, Handling, and Dispos 2,250 LF $15.00 $33,750.00
SUBTOTAL $3,397,185.00
Construction Management $186,000.00
Contingency @ 10% $339,718.50
TOTAL $3,922,903.50
Opinion of Probable Cost R-1
186
Item No. Description Est. Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
101 Mobilization/Insurance/Bonding 1 LS N/A $371,307
102 Exploratory Excavation 40 HR $500 $20,000
103 Erosion Control 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
104 Traffic Control 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
105 Trench Dewatering 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
106 Bypass Pumping 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
107 Water Main Conflict Crossing (Re-Route of Water Main) 60 LF $90 $5,400
108 Water Service Conflict Crossing (Re-Route of Water Service) 100 LF $25 $2,500
109 Utility Crossings, Conflicts, and Protection 50 EA $300 $15,000
110 Culvert Crossings, Conflicts, and Protection 6 EA $300 $1,800
111 Parallel Utility Conflicts and Protection 1,000 LF $75 $75,000
112 Asphalt Pavement Restoration 4,200 LF $80 $336,000
113 Curb and Gutter Restoration 2,200 LF $28 $61,600
114 Gravel Surface Restoration 2,609 LF $65 $169,585
115 Restoration of Non-Driving Surfaces 2,000 LF $30 $60,000
116 All-Weather Access Surfaces 500 SY $25 $12,500
117 Lay-Down Curb for Drive Approach 2 EA $2,000 $4,000
118 Dual 12" HDPE Force Mains 2,215 LF $150 $332,250
119 18” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 1,075 LF $90 $96,750
120 24” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Sewer Main 5,092 LF $115 $585,580
121 Lift Station and Valve Vault 1 LS $480,000 $480,000
122 3-Phase Power Drop 1 LS $90,000 $90,000
123 Lift Station and Valve Vault Electrical, Telemetry 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
124 Jack and Bore (Including 42" Steel Casing Pipe) 131 LF $1,750 $229,250
125 60" Basic Sanitary Sewer Manhole 30 EA $5,000 $150,000
126 Additional 60" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Depth 176 VF $300 $52,800
127 72" Basic Sanitary Sewer Manhole 4 EA $6,000 $24,000
128 Additional 72" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Depth 18 VF $350 $6,300
129 Flowable Fill 2,000 CY $150 $300,000
130 Connect to Existing Manhole 2 EA $2,000 $4,000
131 Asbestos Cement (AC) Pipe - Removal, Handling, and Disposal 2,250 LF $15 $33,750
SUBTOTAL $4,084,372
Construction Management $186,000
Engineering, Legal, and Administrative $1,021,093
Contingency @ 10% $408,437
TOTAL $5,699,902
Opinion of Probable Cost Alternative R-3
187
APPENDIX G
188
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
Proposed Front Street
Sewer Interceptor Improvements
Bozeman, Montana
Project 18-3735G
Submitted by
2511 Holman Avenue
P. O. Box 80190
Billings, Montana 59108-0910
Prepared for
Stahly Engineering and Associates
851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1
Bozeman, Montana 59715
December 27, 2018
189
December 27, 2018 Project 18-3735G
Mr. Greg Steckler, PE
Stahly Engineering and Associates
851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Dear Mr. Steckler:
Re: Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Front Street Sewer Interceptor Improvements, Bozeman,
Montana
We have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed sewer improvements for the above-
referenced project authorized on August 17, 2018. The purpose of this evaluation was to assist Stahly
Engineering and Associates and other members of the design team in evaluating subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions along the proposed sewer main, and in preparing plans and specifications for the
proposed project. This evaluation was completed in general accordance with our revised proposal to you
dated August 16, 2018.
Summary of Results
A total of eight soil borings were completed along the proposed sewer alignment in Bozeman, Montana.
The borings encountered a variable soil profile along the entire proposed alignment ranging from gravels
to sands to clays. Gravels were generally more predominant along the west end of the alignment
transitioning to sands and clay as the alignment moves east. The gravels are generally stable and the
clays and loose sands are generally unstable. Groundwater was encountered in each of the borings at
depths ranging from 1 to 15 1/2 feet.
Summary of Analysis and Recommendations
Variable subsurface soil conditions were encountered along the new sewer main alignment. The soils
encountered at pipe invert depth at the boring locations generally ranged from dense gravels to very loose
clayey sands to rather soft clays. We anticipate dewatering will be required for the entire pipeline
alignment. Provided proper dewatering is performed, we anticipate the gravel soils will be suitable for
Type 1 bedding and pipe support. Type 2 bedding will be required for the very loose sands and clays.
We estimate up to about 70 percent of the new sewer main will require Type 2 bedding.
It is our opinion the on-site soils can be used as backfill above the bedding. However, we wish to point
out that these soils will be extremely wet and will require spreading out and drying to achieve a moisture
content near optimum. It has been our experience that soils of this nature could take several weeks to dry
to a moisture content near optimum. Another alternative is to waste the excavated material and replace it
with a 3-inch minus sandy gravel material. This material will likely be easier to compact and reduce
settlement of the trench backfill.
In the wetland areas, we recommend all of the organic clay topsoil be removed and stockpiled separately
from the underlying inorganic soils during excavations. The inorganic soils can then be used as backfill
above the bedding. We recommend the trench backfill be placed up to the bottom of the organic clay
2511 Holman Avenue
P. O. Box 80190
Billings, Montana 59108-0190
p: 406.652.3930; f: 406.652.3944
www.skgeotechnical.com
190
191
Table of Contents
Description Page
A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
A.1. Project ............................................................................................................................................ 1
A.2. Purpose of this Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 1
A.3. Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 1
A.4. Documents Provided ...................................................................................................................... 2
A.5. Locations and Elevations ............................................................................................................... 3
B. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
B.1. Logs ............................................................................................................................................... 3
B.2. Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 3
B.3. Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 4
B.4. Groundwater Observations ............................................................................................................ 4
B.5. Laboratory Tests ............................................................................................................................ 5
C. Analyses and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 6
C.1. Proposed Construction ................................................................................................................... 6
C.2. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 6
C.3. Sewer Main .................................................................................................................................... 7
D. Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 12
D.1. Excavation ................................................................................................................................... 12
D.2. Observations ................................................................................................................................ 13
D.3. Testing ......................................................................................................................................... 13
D.4. Cold Weather Construction ......................................................................................................... 13
E. Procedures ............................................................................................................................................. 13
E.1. Drilling and Sampling .................................................................................................................. 13
E.2. Soil Classification ........................................................................................................................ 14
E.3. Groundwater Observations ........................................................................................................... 14
F. General Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 14
F.1. Basis of Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 14
F.2. Review of Design ......................................................................................................................... 14
F.3. Groundwater Fluctuations ............................................................................................................ 15
F.4. Use of Report ............................................................................................................................... 15
F.5. Level of Care ................................................................................................................................ 15
Professional Certification
Appendix
Boring Location Sketches (3)
Geologic Map
Sanitary Sewer Main Plan and Profiles
Descriptive Terminology
Log of Boring Sheets BH-2P through BH-7P, and BH-9
192
A. Introduction
A.1. Project
Stahly Engineering and Associates (SEA) is assisting the City of Bozeman in designing the proposed
Front Street Sewer Main Improvements. The sewer main improvements generally extend along Front
Street from East Tamarack Street to Village Downtown Boulevard. The sewer main then crosses an
existing large wetland between Village Downtown Boulevard and I-90, north of East Main Street. It is
planned to cross beneath East Main Street, then turning east and traveling parallel to Haggerty Lane and
the eastbound I-90 on-ramp where the new sewer main will connect to the existing main. The new sewer
main is planned to be an 18- to 24-inch diameter PVC pipe with cover depths ranging from about 6 to 13
feet, with some areas of deeper cover where the utility travels beneath existing embankments. A portion
of the new sewer main is planned within Front Street. Three jack and bore locations are also planned to
cross beneath an existing active railroad structure, a former railroad alignment, and beneath East Main
Street. The plan and profile sheets indicate project stationing extends from 0+00 at East Tamarack Street
to 66+22 at the existing main between Haggerty Lane and East Main Street. As part of the project, a new
access road is also planned from Station 24+80 to 33+85.
A.2. Purpose of this Evaluation
The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation was to assist SEA by providing general soil and groundwater
conditions along the proposed sewer main alignment, and in preparing plans and specifications for the
proposed project. This report presents our findings and recommendations related to the proposed sewer
main improvements.
A.3. Scope
The desired scope of services was outlined in a request for a proposal from Mr. Ryan Rittal, PE, with
SEA, dated June 27, 2018. On July 2, 2018, we submitted our proposal to perform the geotechnical work.
On August 1, 2018, the desired scope was amended to revise the desired boring locations to avoid
encroachment into the railroad right-of-way (ROW). On August 16, 2018, we submitted our revised
proposal addressing the scope revisions, and on August 17, 2018, we were authorized to proceed in
accordance with the scope of services outlined in our revised proposal.
Our scope of services for the sewer main was limited to:
Coordinating work with Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and City of Bozeman
representatives to submit appropriate permits.
Applying for appropriate permitting from MDT, the City of Bozeman and Montana Rail Link.
193
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 2
Coordinating the staking of the boring locations with SEA.
Conducting nine penetration test borings along the proposed alignment at locations selected and
staked by SEA personnel.
Extending the borings to a depth of 15 feet or auger refusal, whichever was encountered first.
Completing five of the nine soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells at the locations selected
by SEA.
Returning the samples to our laboratory for visual classification and logging by a geotechnical
engineer.
Conducting laboratory soil testing that included moisture content, Atterberg limits, grain size
analysis, and standard Proctor.
Analyzing the results and formulating recommendations for earthwork, trench backfill, bedding
material, dewatering, and construction.
Submitting a geotechnical evaluation report containing logs of the borings showing subsurface
soil and groundwater conditions at each boring location, our analysis of the field and laboratory
tests, and recommendations for earthwork for the proposed sewer main.
On November 6, 2018, after reviewing the field conditions, adjustments to the scope were discussed and
the removal of Boring BH-1 from our original scope was requested to stay away from current
construction occurring in the area of East Tamarack Street and Front Street. Additionally, it was desired
to increase the depth of Borings BH-3P and BH-4 because the borings could not be accessed at the staked
locations and needed to be moved into Front Street. Boring BH-4 was originally planned to be completed
as a piezometer, but it was desired to switch the piezometer to Boring BH-3P.
While performing the fieldwork within the wetland, access to the proposed Boring BH-8P was not
available due to active deep creeks and ditches flowing within the wetland. Snow on the roadway made
access for our transport semi difficult and would have posed a safety concern to the traveling public.
Therefore, this boring was also removed from our scope.
A.4. Documents Provided
SEA provided us with the following documents for our use.
194
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 3
Bozeman Front Street Sewer Interceptor Geotech Investigation request including the desired
Geotechnical Scope including boring locations and desired depths, dated June 27, 2018.
Exhibit A, Geotech Bore Exhibit, not dated.
Exhibit A, Revised Geotech Bore Exhibit, dated August 1, 2018.
2014 Map Site Features for I-90 East Bozeman Mitigation, dated October 10, 2014.
Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Plan and Profile Sheets, not dated.
A.5. Locations and Elevations
Borehole locations were selected and staked in the field by SEA personnel. Ground surface elevations for
the borings were provided to us by SEA in an email dated December 17, 2018.
B. Results
B.1. Logs
Log of Boring sheets BH-2P through BH-7P and BH-9, indicating the depth and identification of the
various soil strata, the penetration resistances, laboratory test data, and water level information are
attached. It should be noted the depths shown as boundaries between the strata are only approximate.
The actual changes may be transitions and the depths of the changes vary between borings.
Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types,
blows per foot, and review of readily available geologic maps. A detailed evaluation of the geologic
history of the site was not performed.
B.2. Site Conditions
Portions of the proposed sewer main improvements will be constructed within or beneath active
roadways. The remainder of the sewer main will be installed within mapped wetland areas. Between
East Tamarack Street and North Plum Avenue along Front Street, the road is currently paved with
existing asphalt pavement. From North Plum Avenue to Village Downtown Boulevard, the active
roadway is currently gravel surfaced. The sewer main then travels through a wetland area for about 3,000
feet until it travels below East Main Street, which have about 15- to 20-foot high embankments.
According to readily available geologic maps, the proposed project limits are generally situated primarily
within recent alluvial deposits with some upper Tertiary sediments near the end of the project.
195
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 4
B.3. Soils
SK Geotechnical performed seven borings for the proposed project at locations selected and staked in the
field by SEA. In general, Borings BH-2P through BH-4 were performed along Front Street between East
Tamarack Street and Village Downtown Boulevard. Borings BH-5P through BH-7P were performed
within an existing wetland between Village Downtown Boulevard and I-90, north of East Main Street,
Boring BH-9 was performed on the south shoulder of East Main Street near the beginning of the
eastbound I-90 on-ramp. The borings encountered a varying profile across the project alignment.
Boring BH-2P performed near Station 4+00 encountered about 2 feet of existing lean clay fill underlain
by native lean clay to a depth of about 3 feet. Beneath the clays, clayey gravel with sand and poorly
graded gravel with sand were encountered to the boring's termination depth of 15 1/2 feet. Borings
BH-3P and BH-4 were performed near the existing railroad spur line near Village Downtown Boulevard
between Stations 22+50 and 24+75. The borings encountered about 6 to 8 1/2 feet of existing fill
consisting of lean clay, sandy lean clay, and poorly graded gravel with sand. Beneath the existing fill,
mixed layers of lean clay, clayey sand, poorly graded sand with clay and gravel, and poorly graded gravel
with clay and sand were encountered to the boring's termination depth of 20 1/2 feet.
Boring BH-5 was performed just east of Village Downtown Boulevard near Station 34+00 in the wetland.
The boring encountered about 3 1/2 feet of organic clay topsoil underlain by clayey sand to a depth of
6 1/2 feet. Poorly graded gravel with sand and silt and poorly graded sand with gravel were then
encountered to the boring's termination depth of 15 1/2 feet. Boring BH-6 and BH-7 were also performed
in the existing wetland between Stations 41+00 and 48+00, east of the old railroad alignment. The
borings encountered about 3 1/2 to 4 feet of organic clay topsoil underlain by sandy lean clay, lean clay
with sand, and clayey sand to depths of about 9 1/2 to 10 1/2 feet. Beneath the sands, poorly graded
gravel with sand and silt was encountered to the borings' termination depth of 15 1/2 feet.
Boring BH-9 was performed on the south shoulder of East Main Street near the beginning of the I-90
eastbound on-ramp, at about Station 62+00. The boring encountered about 6 feet of existing fill
consisting of poorly graded gravel with sand and lean clay with sand underlain by fat clay to the boring's
termination depth of 15 1/2 feet. We wish to point out the boring depth terminated above proposed pipe
invert elevation.
B.4. Groundwater Observations
Groundwater was encountered in all of the borings at the time of our fieldwork. Table 1 below indicates
the depth of the groundwater and corresponding elevations at the time of our fieldwork.
196
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 5
Table 1. Groundwater Depths.
Boring Surface Elevation
Depth to
Groundwater**
(feet) Groundwater Elevation*
BH-2P 4769.7 11.5 4758
BH-3P 4778.9 11.0 4768
BH-4 4777.0 9.5 4767 1/2
BH-5P 4771.8 1.0 4771
BH-6 4777.0 2.0 4775
BH-7P 4782.3 1.0 4781
BH-9 4801.0 15.5 4785 1/2
*Groundwater elevations rounded to the nearest 1/2 foot.
**Depth encountered during initial fieldwork.
It should be noted, groundwater levels can and will fluctuate depending on snow melt, run-off,
precipitation, irrigation, leaking utilities, and surface characteristics, and other factors not evident at the
time of our fieldwork. This is especially true when considering the work is occurring within a wetland
where groundwater fluctuations have resulted in standing water within the wetland bottoms. Based on the
borings and the anticipated groundwater levels and fluctuations, groundwater will impact the design and
construction of the new sewer main along the entire alignment. Therefore, dewatering will be necessary.
Dewatering is discussed in further detail later in this report.
B.5. Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory tests are summarized on the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix. The
results are also discussed in more detail below.
B.5.a. Classification Tests. Classification tests consisting of percent passing the No. 200 sieve and
Atterberg limits were performed on the penetration test samples obtained from various borings at various
depths. Table 2 below provides a summary of the classification tests.
Table 2. Summary of Laboratory Tests
Boring
Depth
(feet)
Atterberg Limits P200
LL PL PI (%) ASTM Symbol
BH-2P 3 – 8 11 16 26 26 GC
BH-3P 3 – 8 38 14 24 70 CL
BH-9 15 72 28 44 87 CH
197
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 6
B.5.b. Moisture Content Tests. Moisture content profiles were performed on all of the samples
obtained from the borings. The moisture contents of the soils ranged from 2.2 to 93.9 percent. They
generally ranged from about 7 to 44 percent, indicating that the soils are wet to waterbearing. The results
of the moisture content tests are presented on the boring logs in the Appendix.
C. Analyses and Recommendations
C.1. Proposed Construction
The City of Bozeman is working to improve an existing sewer main along Front Street in Bozeman,
Montana. The project will consist of installing a new 24-inch diameter PVC sewer main with bury depths
generally ranging from about 6 to 13 feet below existing grades with some areas of deeper cover depths.
These depths correspond to pipe invert depths of 8 to 15 feet below existing grades. The plans indicate
the majority of construction will use conventional trenching methods. However, three locations are
planned with trenchless installation methods. As part of the project, a new access road is also planned
between about Station 24+80 to 33+85. The proposed access road will require grade raises up to 3 feet.
If the invert elevations and bury depths of the new sewer main varies by more than 1 foot from the values
indicated in the Sanitary Sewer Main Plan and Profile drawings provided, or if grade raises along the
access road are more than 3 feet, we should be informed. Additional analysis and recommendations could
be necessary.
C.2. Discussion
As previously mentioned, the borings encountered a variable soil profile ranging from very dense gravels
to very loose sands and soft clays. At pipe invert depth in four of the boring locations, we anticipate Type
2 bedding will be required. Based on our review of the soil borings and the plan and profile sheets, we
recommend assuming 70 percent of the new sewer main alignment will require Type 2 bedding. The
remaining 30 percent will likely be suitable for direct Type 1 bedding and pipe support.
To obtain proper compaction of the backfill, it will be necessary to spread out the on-site soils, if used, to
allow them to reach a moisture content near optimum prior to replacement. The moisture content tests
performed on the individual samples indicate the soils are extremely wet to waterbearing. These types of
soils, even spread out, require a significant amount of time to dry and a period of several weeks or more
could be required to properly dry these soils. Frequent rains often occur in Bozeman, which would
further slow the drying process. Consideration should be given to replacing these soils with imported
materials, which are typically drier and more readily worked with.
198
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 7
To obtain proper compaction of on-site soils, it will also be necessary to screen/separate the cobbles and
boulders greater than 6 inches in diameter. If not separated, segregation can occur during placement,
resulting in voids that can cause settlement over time. Also, it is difficult to compact clays, sands and
smaller gravels adjacent to larger cobbles and boulders because compaction equipment rides on top of
them rather than the surrounding matrix. For the sewer main installed along existing roads where
settlement is more of a concern, consideration should be given to replacing the existing soils with
imported 3-inch minus sandy gravel, which is typically easier to work with during construction and less
prone to settlement. If the wet soils are placed back in the trench and not properly moisture conditioned
or compacted, several inches of settlement at the road surface could occur.
For the access road between Stations 24+80 and 33+85, it is planned to raise grade up to 3 feet above
current grades. This amount of fill on these types of soils can result in excessive settlement of the sewer
main if the road is constructed after the new sewer main is installed. This can cause issues with the sewer
main gradient resulting in depressions or "bellies" which can cause flow issues in gravity systems.
Therefore, we recommend constructing the access road a minimum of one month prior to installation of
the new sewer main to allow the majority of the settlement caused by the new fill to occur prior to sewer
pipe placement.
C.3. Sewer Main
C.3.a. Open Excavations. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines indicate
cohesive soils with an unconfined compressive strength of less than 0.5 tons per square foot (tsf), granular
soils such as sands and gravels, and all existing fill classify as Type C soils. Based on the results of our
soil borings, we recommend all soils be considered Type C soils on the project. All earthwork and
construction should be performed in accordance with OSHA guidelines.
The project crosses through mapped wetlands which are very soft at the surface. Typical heavy rubber-
tired construction equipment will likely be unable to work in the wetland areas and will likely become
stuck. Therefore, low ground pressure equipment will likely be required. Additionally, standing water
has been observed by others and is likely the result of fluctuating groundwater. The contractor should be
aware that even with low ground pressure equipment, difficulties during construction in the wetlands will
be encountered. Consideration can be given to performing this portion of work in the later summer/fall
months when weather and groundwater conditions are more favorable.
C.3.b. Trench Subgrade. The trench subgrade along the sewer main will be variable and range from
dense to very dense gravels to very soft and very loose sands and clays at pipe invert depth. Based on the
results of our soil borings and invert elevations, more medium dense to dense gravels are anticipated on
the western portion of the project near BH-2P and BH-3P. The gravels will generally be suitable for
199
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 8
direct support of Type 1 bedding. East of BH-3P, less suitable soils consisting of very loose sands or soft
clays will be encountered, that will be unstable, and Type 2 bedding is recommended.
Based on our borings and the proposed construction, it is our opinion about 70 percent of the alignment
will require Type 2 bedding beneath Type 1 bedding. We recommend a minimum of 18 to 24 inches of
Type 2 bedding be placed beneath Type 1 bedding where required. If native, stable gravels are
encountered sooner, the amount of Type 2 bedding can be reduced. The amount of Type 2 bedding will
need to be determined by observations during construction. Additional recommendations related to Type
1 and Type 2 bedding are discussed in further detail later in this report.
C.3.c. Trenchless Pipe Installation. The plans indicate that jack and bore trenchless pipe installation
methods are planned at three crossings along the alignment. The borings indicate the soils in the bottom
of the boring pits will likely be very loose to loose sandy soils, with some medium gravels possible. It is
our opinion the soils anticipated in the bottoms of the boring pits will not be suitable to support the jack
and boring construction equipment.
To provide an adequate construction platform, we recommend subexcavating a minimum of 1 foot below
bottom-of- boring pit elevation using a smooth-bladed backhoe to avoid excessive disturbance of the
subgrade. We then recommend placing a non-woven geotextile filter fabric followed by a Tensar TX-5
geogrid, then placing 12 inches of crushed gravel base to create a stable working platform for
construction equipment.
It is our opinion that medium dense to dense gravels in the excavations, where encountered, will be
suitable for equipment support. However, we recommend anticipating a construction platform will be
necessary for all boring pits along the project.
C.3.d. Dewatering. Groundwater was observed in all of the borings at the time of the fieldwork at
depths ranging from about 1 to 15 1/2 feet below existing grades. In particular, in the wetlands,
groundwater was observed right near the surface during drilling. Due to the high groundwater, extensive
dewatering will be required prior to and during installation of the utilities along the entire sewer main
alignment. We recommend groundwater be drawn down a minimum of 2 feet below planned bottom-of-
excavation depth prior to excavating. This should include the depth of subexcavation needed for
installation of Type 2 bedding.
Based on the proposed project, we anticipate the dewatering will likely be a series of well points along the
proposed alignment to draw groundwater down. We recommend the dewatering wells be designed in
such a way to prevent piping of fines, which could result in subsidence and ultimately settlement of
nearby structures. We recommend the dewatering plan be designed by a qualified dewatering contractor
200
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 9
or hydrogeologist to determine the appropriate plan. Plans should also determine the risk of subsidence
and the its effect on nearby structures and be designed to prevent subsidence.
C.3.e. Pipe Bedding.
C.3.e.1. Type 1 Bedding. Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) specify Type 1
bedding is to be placed from 4 inches below the bottom of the pipe up to the spring line of the pipe and
then Select Type 1 bedding to 6 inches above the pipe. The purpose of the bedding is to provide uniform
support of the pipe and prevent it from crushing. It is our opinion this is the preferred method of pipe
support, however, we recommend using well graded sands and gravels as Type 1 bedding as described
below.
MPWSS indicates Type 1 bedding can have 1 1/2-inch minus gravel with no requirement on the percent-
passing-the-200-sieve. Therefore, open graded washed rock or drainage aggregate can be used as
bedding. These gravels do not contain sands and fines and therefore have significant voids between the
gravels. Fluctuating groundwater can transport fines into voids, known as piping, resulting in settlement.
To reduce this risk, the open graded bedding can be wrapped in a filter fabric to reduce/prevent piping,
but this is difficult during construction. Another option is to use a well graded sand and gravel as
bedding, which reduces the risk of piping and settlement. MPWSS actually addresses this option on
Standard Drawing 02221-2 as a pipe bedding alternative which is recommended for the project. We
anticipate 1-inch or 3/4-inch minus crushed base course (MPWSS Section 02235) will meet these
requirements, but submittals containing coefficients of uniformity (CU) and coefficient of curvature (CC)
should be submitted for approval.
C.3.e.2. Type 2 Bedding. MPWSS indicates Type 2 bedding shall be granular material meeting a
specific gradation. However, it is our opinion the Type 2 bedding as specified by MPWSS is also too
open graded, and as described above, represents a risk of piping and/or settlement. We recommend well
graded gravel with sand as Type 2 bedding. Well graded gravel with sand contains an even distribution
of sand and gravel sized particles. Once placed and compacted, it does not contain excessive void spaces.
To obtain compaction, it is critical groundwater be lowered a minimum of 2 feet below the subexcavation
depth so the gravel base does not become saturated during placement, preventing compaction. As
indicated above, crushed base course is a typical well graded gravel with sand material. If open graded
Type 2 bedding is used, it should be completely wrapped in a filter fabric to reduce/prevent piping.
C.3.f. Drainage and Impermeable Trench Plugs. It is critical good drainage of surface water be
provided long term along the roadway. To reduce the risk of water flowing in bedding, we recommend
placing low permeability trench backfill plugs along the sewer main alignment. We recommend the plugs
201
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 10
be placed at intervals determined to be appropriate by the civil engineer. We also recommend plugs be
placed along each service connection. If the sewer main breaks, water could flow into residential service
trenches, potentially causing settlement to adjacent structures. These plugs should meet the requirements
of MPWSS Section 02222.
C.3.g. Trench Backfill Above Bedding.
C.3.g.1. Separation During Excavation. As previously indicated, we recommend separating the organic
clay topsoil (ASTM Symbol OL) from the underlying inorganic clay, sand, and gravel during the
excavation in the wetlands and they be stockpiled separately. After bedding, pipe, and trench backfill
have been placed, the organic clay topsoil should be replaced at the surface, matching the existing topsoil
thickness. At the borings, the clay topsoil ranged from about 3 1/2 to 4 feet thick, but the actual depths
will depend on observations during construction.
C.3.g.2. Backfill and Compaction. It is our opinion the on-site soils excavated from the trench can be
used as backfill along the sewer main, but reuse will be difficult. These soils will be a mixture of clays,
sands and gravels and be extremely wet to waterbearing and will be very difficult to work with. If these
soils are used by the contractor, it will be necessary to spread these soils out and allow them to dry to a
moisture content near optimum. These types of soils could take several weeks or more to achieve this
moisture content and is dependent on favorable weather conditions, which can be difficult in Bozeman.
Another alternative is to import material that is suitable as trench backfill. Imported material is typically
near or below optimum and it is typically easier and faster to moisture condition these soils. We
recommend consideration be given to importing a 3-inch minus sandy gravel to be used as trench backfill
and wasting the unsuitable saturated soils excavated from the trenches.
Some soils excavated from the trench will likely be more suitable, such as the poorly graded gravel with
sand near Boring BH-2P. These soils will likely dry out relatively quickly and be able to be used as
trench backfill above the bedding. However, these gravels contain significant cobbles and some boulders.
Additionally, imported sandy gravels could also contain some cobbles. Since construction is taking place
within the active city streets, we recommend cobbles and boulders greater than 6 inches in dimension be
screened/separated and wasted to prevent segregation during placement. If the oversized material is not
removed, it will tend to segregate during construction, resulting in voids within the backfill. This can
cause settlement over time as surrounding fines infiltrate into the voids. The oversized material is
difficult to compact due to larger required lift thicknesses and difficulty with operating compaction
equipment riding on larger cobbles and boulders and not compacting the matrix in between.
202
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 11
In order to reduce trench settlement, we recommend all trench backfill under roadways or other areas
where settlement is of concern be compacted to meet MWPSS Type A trench backfill requirements.
Compaction tests should be performed to evaluate densities.
C.3.g.3. Trench Settlement. Trench settlement of utility excavations is a common problem and is often
difficult to avoid. Even well compacted backfill will settle, in our opinion, and we anticipate normal
trench settlement will be approximately 1 percent of the total trench depth. If the backfill is poorly
compacted, excessively thick lifts are placed, large oversize materials are left in place, contains frozen
materials, or surface water infiltrates into the trench, several inches of settlement could occur. Full-time
inspection during placement of backfill helps reduce the risk of these issues occurring during
construction.
C.4. Manholes
Multiple manholes are planned along the alignment. Similar to the soils anticipated at pipe invert
elevation, we estimate the very loose sands and soft clay soils, where encountered, will not be suitable for
direct support of the manholes.
Where unstable soils are encountered, we recommend subexcavating 2 feet below bottom-of-manhole
elevation with a smooth-bladed backhoe. The subexcavation should extend a minimum of 2 feet beyond
the manholes. We recommend placing 2 feet of Type 2 bedding wrapped in geotextile filter fabric to
provide a stable platform for the manholes.
The manholes will also need to be designed to counteract buoyancy forces. For design purposes, we
recommend assuming groundwater will extend to the existing ground surface for manholes planned
between Station 24+00 and Station 58+00. For manholes outside the stationing, we recommend assuming
groundwater will extend to within 3 feet of the ground surface.
The buoyant forces can be resisted by the weight of the concrete in the manholes. Provided the precast
manholes are structurally and integrally connected to the manhole mat, then buoyancy forces can also be
resisted by the weight of the backfill placed above the mat foundation where it extends beyond the outside
edges of the manholes. The backfill actually creates a wedge formed by planes extending upward and
outward from the top edges of the mat where it extends beyond the manholes at an angle of 20 degrees
from vertical. Assuming on-site soils are used as backfill, we recommend using a submerged unit weight
of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for the weight of backfill below groundwater and 115 pcf for the weight
of backfill above the groundwater.
203
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 12
C.5. Access Road
The plans indicate a new gravel access road is planned between Stations 24+80 and 33+85. The profile
drawings indicate raises in grade of up to 3 feet will be required to reach access road grade. The plan
drawings indicate the new access road is planned through the existing wetlands.
Boring BH-5 was performed in the wetland near the south end of the road, as previously mentioned. The
boring encountered about 3 1/2 feet of organic clay topsoil, underlain by very loose clayey sand to 6 1/2
feet. Mixed layers of loose sand and medium dense to dense gravels were then encountered to 15 1/2
feet. Boring BH-4 was performed near the north end of the road and encountered about 6 feet of existing
fill, underlain by soft to medium stiff clays and very loose sands to 17 1/2 feet. Medium dense gravels
were then encountered to 20 1/2 feet.
Based on our calculations, we estimate 1 to 2 inches of settlement of the sewer main due to the access
road fill. If this amount of settlement is unacceptable, we recommend constructing the new road one
month prior to installation of the sewer main to allow the majority of this settlement to occur prior to
construction.
Provided some settlement of the road surface is acceptable, it is our opinion the organic clays can be left
in place beneath the new gravel access road. We recommend cutting all vegetation flush with the ground
surface and removing it. We recommend placing a non-woven stabilization geotextile then advancing 18
inches of gravel base across the roadway without any specific compaction effort and the least amount of
traffic possible. Following the initial lift, we recommend placing an 8-inch loose lift of gravel and
compacting to 90 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. Following lifts should also be
placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and be compacted to 95 percent of its standard Proctor
maximum dry density.
With construction as indicated above, we estimate 2 to 4 inches of settlement at the road surface, and
some periodic regrading should be anticipated. If this amount of movement is not acceptable, the
organics will need to be removed and replaced.
D. Construction
D.1. Excavation
It is our opinion the soils encountered by the borings can be excavated with a larger tracked excavator.
All excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA requirements. The borings indicate the
soils in the sidewalls of the sewer main trench excavations will be Type C soils under OSHA guidelines.
All earthwork and construction should be performed in accordance with OSHA guidelines.
204
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 13
D.2. Observations
Due to the variability in the soils, we highly recommend the excavations of the new sewer main be
observed. These observations should be performed by a geotechnical engineer or an engineering assistant
working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer. The purpose of these observations is to evaluate
if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and to evaluate the need for Type 2
bedding.
D.3. Testing
Testing of materials during construction should meet the requirements of MPWSS. We recommend
compaction tests be performed on the proposed sewer main trench backfill. Samples of proposed backfill
and fill materials should be submitted to our testing laboratory at least five days prior to placement on the
site for evaluation and determination of their optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities.
Asphalt pavement should also be tested for strength properties and compaction in accordance with
MPWSS.
D.4. Cold Weather Construction
If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend good winter
construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from fill materials prior to
placement. No fill should be placed on soils that have frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils
should be used as fill.
If used, concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 94. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soils or soils that contain
frozen material. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is attained.
E. Procedures
E.1. Drilling and Sampling
The penetration test borings were performed on the dates indicated on the boring logs with a Diedrich
D-120 core and auger drill rig and a CME 850 track-mounted core and auger drill rig. Sampling for the
borings was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of
Soils." Using this method, we advanced the borehole with hollow-stem auger to the desired test depth.
Then a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches drove a standard, 2-inch OD, split-barrel sampler a total
penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow-stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration
were recorded and are an index of soil strength characteristics.
205
Stahly Engineering and Associates December 27, 2018
Project 18-3735G Page 14
E.2. Soil Classification
Our drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in accordance
with ASTM D 2488, "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual
Procedures)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached. All samples were then returned
to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a geotechnical engineer. Representative
samples will remain in our office for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination.
E.3. Groundwater Observations
Approximately ten minutes after taking the final sample in the bottom of a boring, the driller probed
through the hollow-stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. In Borings BH-2P, BH-3P,
BH-5P and BH-7P, the borings were completed as 2-inch diameter groundwater piezometers for future
observations by others. In the remaining borings, immediately after withdrawal of the auger, the driller
again probed the depth to water or cave-in. The borings were then backfilled.
F. General Recommendations
F.1. Basis of Recommendations
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil
borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketches. Often, variations occur between
these borings, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or
construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after
performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The
variations may result in additional foundation costs, and it is suggested a contingency be provided for this
purpose.
It is recommended we be retained to perform the observation and testing program for the site preparation
phase of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to
the soil borings, and will provide continuity of professional responsibility.
F.2. Review of Design
This report is based on the anticipated construction of the proposed sewer main as related to us for
preparation of this report. It is recommended we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the
designs and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes in design have
affected the validity of the recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been correctly
interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.
206
207
APPENDIX H
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
APPENDIX I
222
BOZEMAN
Engineering Division
MT
August 15,2019
Shawn Kohtz, City Engineer
20 E. Olive St
Bozeman,MT 59715
RE: Floodplain Permit Approval
Front Street Sewer Interceptor
Dear Mr. Kohtz:
Upon review of the floodplain development permit application materials for the referenced project the
City Floodplain Administrator finds that applicable criteria contained in Division 38.600 Bozeman
Municipal Code are satisfied for floodplain permit approval. The proposed project consists of
constructing new interceptor sewer to increase the overall capacity of the front street interceptor sewer
basin. Portions of the new interceptor alignment cross the regulatory floodplain and floodway of Mill
Ditch Diversion. The finished grade of the sewer profile will match existing grade. The project has been
designed and certified by a qualified professional engineer to cause 'no-rise' in the existing flood
elevation during the 1% annual chance return interval pursuant to City of Bozeman floodplain
regulations.
This Floodplain Development Permit is approved subject to the following condition:
1) The project engineer shall provide adequate project construction inspection and within 90
days of completion of the permitted work shall certify to the City Engineer that the project
was completed in accordance with the approved plans.
One set of application materials bearing the city's approval is enclosed. The project must conform to the
approved project plans and specifications, including any conditions placed on the project by other
required permits approved for the project. Any change in the approved plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the City Engineer's Office for review and approval prior to construction.
This approval is given with the understanding that the work within the 100-year floodplain will be
initiated within 1 year of the date of this letter. If more than one year elapses before initiation of this
project, it shall be necessary to resubmit the project plans for re-approval before beginning construction.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian Heaston, Pl
Bozeman Floodplain Administrator
Attachments
ec: Traci Sears - DNRC Water Resources, Floodplain Management, PO Box 201601, Helena, MT 59620-1601
Greg Steckler, Stahly Engineering via email: gsteckler@bozeman.net
Bob Murray, Senior Engineer via email: bmurray@bozeman.net
Project File
® 20 Eas. Olre Street ^ ® ^eS,^ 59771-1230 @ 406-582-2280 | (F) 406-582-2263 www.bozeman.net
TDD: 406-582-2301 223 THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE.
224
225
APPENDIX J
226
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT
HELENA REGULATORY OFFICE
10 WEST 15TH STREET, SUITE 2200
HELENA, MONTANA 59626
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Printed on Recycled Paper
November 25, 2019
Regulatory Branch
Montana State Program
Corps No. NWO-2019-00718-MTB
Subject: City of Bozeman – Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement
City of Bozeman, Shawn Kohtz, P.E.
c/o
Stahley Engineering & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Scott Short
851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1
Bozeman, MT 59718
Dear Mr. Short
We are responding to your request, on behalf of the City of Bozeman, for
Nationwide Permit (NWP) verification for the above-mentioned project. The project is
located from Latitude 45.688597°, Longitude -111.026994° to Latitude 45.673088°,
Longitude -111.015053°, within Section 7/8, Township 2 S, Range 6 E, Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana.
Specifically, you requested authorization for the following work in waters of the
U.S.:
Work
Item
Description
a.
Install sewer main line from approximately STA 29+50 to 36+50 via
trenching, the clearing of trees and shrubs along approximately 14-foot
width of access easement will result in wetland conversion, permanently
impacting approximately 0.07 acre of wetlands.
b.
Additional permanent impacts (wetland conversion) to 0.22 acre of
wetland related to the install of sewer main line from approximately STA
29+50 to 36+50, overlaps with previously authorized proposed impacts
under permit NWO-2015-01400-MTH.
c.
Install sewer main line from approximately STA 44+25 to 51+25 via
trenching, and construct a 12-foot wide access road, permanently
impacting approximately 0.16 acre of wetlands.
d.
Install sewer main line from approximately STA 52+75 to 55+75 via
trenching, temporarily impacting approximately 0.074 acre of wetlands
and 0.002 acre of irrigation ditch.
227
-2-
Printed on Recycled Paper
Work
Item
Description
e.
The project will be constructed as detailed in the drawing entitled “Front
Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement”, prepared and
submitted by Stahley Engineering & Associates, Inc., initially received
June 28, 2019 and page C3.8 update received July 29, 2019.
Under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), DA permits
are required for the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S.
include the area below the ordinary high water mark of stream channels and lakes or
ponds connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters.
Isolated waters and wetlands, as well as man-made channels, may be waters of the
U.S. in certain circumstances, which must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Based on the information you provided, the proposed activities, annotated in
Work Item a. and c. above, permanently affecting 0.07 acre of palustrine forested
wetlands and 0.16 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands, and annotated in Work Item d.
above, temporarily affecting 0.074 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands and 0.002 acre
of intermittent ditch, are authorized by NWP 12 Utility Line Activities. The NWP can be
found in the January 6, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 1860), Reissuance of Nationwide
Permits. Enclosed is a fact sheet that fully describes the NWP and lists the General
and Regional Conditions that must be adhered to for this authorization to remain valid.
Please note that deviations from the original plans and specifications of your project
could require additional authorization from this office.
In addition to conditions referenced above, the following special conditions apply:
Condition Description
1.
To mitigate for unavoidable impacts to 0.23 acre of waters of the United
States, you shall purchase 0.23 acres wetland mitigation credit at the
Upper Missouri River Mitigation Bank or another Corps approved mitigation
bank prior to commencing the authorized impacts. The selected mitigation
bank shall include the area of the permitted project within its service area.
Written proof of the mitigation credit purchase shall be provided to the
Corps of Engineers prior to initiation of construction activities. Upon receipt
of such proof, all liabilities for the success, monitoring, and long-term
management of the mitigation bank covered by this authorization will
become the responsibility of the mitigation bank sponsor. The permittee
will have satisfied all mitigation requirements for this permit.
228
-3-
Printed on Recycled Paper
Condition Description
2.
For the additional 0.22 acre of unavoidable impacts to waters of the United
States, identified in work item b. above, compensatory mitigation was
satisfied through the purchase of wetland mitigation credit by Delaney &
Company on December 13, 2018, for the proposed impacts under Corps
Permit Number NWO-2015-01400-MTH. However, if the proposed impacts
under Corps Permit Number NWO-2015-01400-MTH are not completed,
and thus the related wetland mitigation credit purchase is
rescinded/refunded, then you shall provide compensatory mitigation
through the purchase of 0.22 acre of wetland mitigation credit at the Upper
Missouri River Mitigation Bank or another Corps approved mitigation bank,
and provide written proof of purchase, within 60 days of notification from
the Corps to do so.
3.
In order to ensure the full restoration of all temporary wetland impacts to
the MDT I-90 East Wetland Mitigation Site, you must submit a restoration
and monitoring plan to this office. The restoration and monitoring plan
must be approved by the Corps prior impacts to the MDT I-90 East
Wetland Mitigation Site.
You are responsible for ensuring that all work is performed in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the NWP. If a contractor or other authorized representative
will be conducting work on your behalf it is strongly recommended that they be provided
a copy of this letter and the enclosed conditions. Failure to comply with the General
and Regional Conditions of this NWP, or the project-specific special conditions of this
authorization, may result in the suspension or revocation of your authorization and may
be subject to appropriate enforcement action.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has waived the CWA Section
401 water quality certification for this NWP. This does not eliminate the need to obtain
other permits that may be required by that agency.
This verification is valid until March 18, 2022, when the existing NWPs are
scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked. Furthermore, if you commence or are
under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant NWP is
modified, reissued or revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the
modification, reissuance or revocation of the NWP to complete the activity under the
present terms and conditions unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a
case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the authorization in accordance with
33 CFR 330.4(e) and 33 CFR 330.5 (c) or (d). Project specific special conditions listed
in this letter continue to remain in effect after the NWP verification expires, unless the
district engineer removes those conditions. Activities completed under the authorization
of an NWP which was in effect at the time the activity was completed continue to be
authorized by that NWP.
229
-4-
Printed on Recycled Paper
In compliance with General Condition 30, we have enclosed a "compliance
certification" form, which must be signed and returned within 30 days of completion of
the project, including any required mitigation. Your signature on this form certifies that
you have completed the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NWP.
The Omaha District, Regulatory Branch is committed to providing quality and
timely service to our customers. In an effort to improve customer service, please take a
moment to complete our Customer Service Survey found on our website at:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey. If you do not have
Internet access, you may call and request a paper copy of the survey that you can
complete and return to us by mail or fax.
Please refer to identification number NWO-2019-00718-MTB in any
correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact
Marena Gilbert at Post Office Box 7032, Billings, Montana 59103, by telephone at (406)
657-5912, or by email at Marena.A.Gilbert@usace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
Sage L. Joyce
Acting Montana Program Manager
Enclosures:
Compliance Certification
Fact Sheet for NWP 12 Utility Line Activities with Montana Regional Conditions
Copy Furnished with Enclosures:
Becky Clements, Gallatin Conservation District, via email at admin@gallatin.org
230
-5-
Printed on Recycled Paper
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
Corps File Number: NWO-2019-00718-MTB
Permit Type: NWP 12 Utility Line Activities
Name of Permittee: City of Bozeman/Shawn Kohtz, P.E.
County: Gallatin County, Montana
Date of Issuance: November 25, 2019
Corps Project Manager: Marena Gilbert
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by
the permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Omaha District
Billings Regulatory Office
Post Office Box 7032
Billings, Montana 59103
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the conditions of this
permit, you are subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been
completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit, and required
mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions.
_____________________________________
Signature of Permittee
___________________
Date
231
SRI Missouri Headwaters, LLC
c/o Swift River Investments, LLC
53 Williams Street
Upton, MA 01568
NOTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF LIABILITY FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENT
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FILE NUMBER NWO-2019-00718-MTB
City of Bozeman, Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Replacement with
Impacts to wetlands associated with the East Gallatin River,
Gallatin County (Bozeman), MT
To the US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Montana State Regulatory Office (the
“Corps”):
City of Bozeman (“Permittee”) has been issued a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit, with
Permit No. NWO-2019-00718-MTB (the “Permit”). The Permit authorizes Permittee to purchase
mitigation credits from a “third-party provider” as specified in 33 CFR 332, in this case the Upper
Missouri Mitigation Bank, sponsored by SRI Missouri Headwaters, LLC (the “Bank”) to mitigate
Permittee’s impacts to the following aquatic resources:
Front Street Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement, impacting 0.23 acres of emergent
wetlands in Gallatin County, Montana requiring 0.23 wetland credits as compensatory
mitigation
with such mitigation hereafter referred to as the “Mitigation Requirement”. Pursuant to the
terms and conditions of a Mitigation Credit Purchase Agreement and Acknowledgment, executed
by Permittee and the Bank, and following payment in full by Permittee for the specified
mitigation credits, the Bank has agreed to accept responsibility for the Mitigation Requirement
in perpetuity.
The Bank, by acceptance of payment for the Mitigation Requirement, acknowledges that the
Bank is responsible for the off-site compensatory mitigation activities as required in the Permit
and agrees to complete the off-site compensatory mitigation in accordance with provisions
specified in the Mitigation Bank Agreement dated October 12, 2012, executed by the Corps
District Commander March 7, 2013.
Dated this 17th
day of January, 2020.
FOR: SRI Missouri Headwaters, LLC, Sponsor
By _____________________________, its Agent
David D Patrick, Jr, Principal
Eco-Asset Management, LLC
232
Effective 19 March 2017
Nationwide Permit 12
Utility Line Activities
Activities required for the construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of utility lines
and associated facilities in waters of the United States, provided the activity does not
result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States for each single
and complete project.
Utility lines: This NWP authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States and structures or work in navigable waters for crossings
of those waters associated with the construction, maintenance, or repair of utility lines,
including outfall and intake structures. There must be no change in pre-construction
contours of waters of the United States. A ‘‘utility line’’ is defined as any pipe or pipeline
for the transportation of any gaseous, liquid, liquescent, or slurry substance, for any
purpose, and any cable, line, or wire for the transmission for any purpose of electrical
energy, telephone, and telegraph messages, and internet, radio, and television
communication. The term ‘‘utility line’’ does not include activities that drain a water of
the United States, such as drainage tile or french drains, but it does apply to pipes
conveying drainage from another area.
Material resulting from trench excavation may be temporarily sidecast into waters of the
United States for no more than three months, provided the material is not placed in such
a manner that it is dispersed by currents or other forces. The district engineer may
extend the period of temporary side casting for no more than a total of 180 days, where
appropriate. In wetlands, the top 6 to 12 inches of the trench should normally be
backfilled with topsoil from the trench. The trench cannot be constructed or backfilled in
such a manner as to drain waters of the United States (e.g., backfilling with extensive
gravel layers, creating a french drain effect). Any exposed slopes and stream banks
must be stabilized immediately upon completion of the utility line crossing of each
waterbody.
Utility line substations: This NWP authorizes the construction, maintenance, or
expansion of substation facilities associated with a power line or utility line in non-tidal
waters of the United States, provided the activity, in combination with all other activities
included in one single and complete project, does not result in the loss of greater than
1/2-acre of waters of the United States. This NWP does not authorize discharges into
non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters of the United States to construct, maintain, or
expand substation facilities.
Foundations for overhead utility line towers, poles, and anchors: This NWP authorizes
the construction or maintenance of foundations for overhead utility line towers, poles,
and anchors in all waters of the United States, provided the foundations are the
minimum size necessary and separate footings for each tower leg (rather than a larger
single pad) are used where feasible.
233
Effective 19 March 2017
Access roads: This NWP authorizes the construction of access roads for the
construction and maintenance of utility lines, including overhead power lines and utility
line substations, in non-tidal waters of the United States, provided the activity, in
combination with all other activities included in one single and complete project, does
not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non-tidal waters of the United States. This
NWP does not authorize discharges into non- tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters for
access roads. Access roads must be the minimum width necessary (see Note 2, below).
Access roads must be constructed so that the length of the road minimizes any adverse
effects on waters of the United States and must be as near as possible to pre-
construction contours and elevations (e.g., at grade corduroy roads or geotextile/gravel
roads). Access roads constructed above pre-construction contours and elevations in
waters of the United States must be properly bridged or culverted to maintain surface
flows.
This NWP may authorize utility lines in or affecting navigable waters of the United
States even if there is no associated discharge of dredged or fill material (See 33 CFR
part 322). Overhead utility lines constructed over section 10 waters and utility lines that
are routed in or under section 10 waters without a discharge of dredged or fill material
require a section 10 permit.
This NWP authorizes, to the extent that Department of the Army authorization is
required, temporary structures, fills, and work necessary for the remediation of
inadvertent returns of drilling fluids to waters of the United States through sub-soil
fissures or fractures that might occur during horizontal directional drilling activities
conducted for the purpose of installing or replacing utility lines. These remediation
activities must be done as soon as practicable, to restore the affected waterbody.
District engineers may add special conditions to this NWP to require a remediation plan
for addressing inadvertent returns of drilling fluids to waters of the United States during
horizontal directional drilling activities conducted for the purpose of installing or
replacing utility lines.
This NWP also authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work, including the use of
temporary mats, necessary to conduct the utility line activity. Appropriate measures
must be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the
maximum extent practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges,
including cofferdams, are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or
dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills must consist of materials, and be
placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected high flows. After construction,
temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-
construction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills must be revegetated, as
appropriate.
Notification: The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district
engineer prior to commencing the activity if any of the following criteria are met: (1) The
activity involves mechanized land clearing in a forested wetland for the utility line right-
234
Effective 19 March 2017
of-way; (2) a section 10 permit is required; (3) the utility line in waters of the United
States, excluding overhead lines, exceeds 500 feet; (4) the utility line is placed within a
jurisdictional area (i.e., water of the United States), and it runs parallel to or along a
stream bed that is within that jurisdictional area; (5) discharges that result in the loss of
greater than 1/10- acre of waters of the United States; (6) permanent access roads are
constructed above grade in waters of the United States for a distance of more than 500
feet; or (7) permanent access roads are constructed in waters of the United States with
impervious materials. (See general condition 32.)
(Authorities: Sections 10 and 404)
Note 1: Where the utility line is constructed or installed in navigable waters of the United
States (i.e., section 10 waters) within the coastal United States, the Great Lakes, and
United States territories, a copy of the NWP verification will be sent by the Corps to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service
(NOS), for charting the utility line to protect navigation.
Note 2: For utility line activities crossing a single waterbody more than one time at
separate and distant locations, or multiple
waterbodies at separate and distant locations, each crossing is considered a single and
complete project for purposes of NWP authorization. Utility line activities must comply
with 33 CFR 330.6(d).
Note 3: Utility lines consisting of aerial electric power transmission lines crossing
navigable waters of the United States (which are defined at 33 CFR part 329) must
comply with the applicable minimum clearances specified in 33 CFR 322.5(i).
Note 4: Access roads used for both construction and maintenance may be authorized,
provided they meet the terms and conditions of this NWP. Access roads used solely for
construction of the utility line must be removed upon completion of the work, in
accordance with the requirements for temporary fills.
Note 5: Pipes or pipelines used to transport gaseous, liquid, liquescent, or slurry
substances over navigable waters of the United States are considered to be bridges,
not utility lines, and may require a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to section
9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. However, any discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States associated with such pipelines will require a
section 404 permit (see NWP 15).
Note 6: This NWP authorizes utility line maintenance and repair activities that do not
qualify for the Clean Water Act section 404(f) exemption for maintenance of currently
serviceable fills or fill structures.
Note 7: For overhead utility lines authorized by this NWP, a copy of the PCN and NWP
verification will be provided to the Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse, which
will evaluate potential effects on military activities.
235
Effective 19 March 2017
Note 8: For NWP 12 activities that require pre-construction notification, the PCN must
include any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or
intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity,
including other separate and distant crossings that require Department of the Army
authorization but do not require pre- construction notification (see paragraph (b) of
general condition 32). The district engineer will evaluate the PCN in accordance with
Section D, ‘‘District Engineer’s Decision.’’ The district engineer may require mitigation to
ensure that the authorized activity results in no more than minimal individual and
cumulative adverse environmental effects (see general condition 23).
Nationwide Permit General Conditions
Note: To qualify for NWP authorization, the prospective permittee must comply with the
following general conditions, as applicable, in addition to any regional or case-specific
conditions imposed by the division engineer or district engineer. Prospective permittees
should contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine if regional conditions
have been imposed on an NWP. Prospective permittees should also contact the
appropriate Corps district office to determine the status of Clean Water Act Section 401
water quality certification and/ or Coastal Zone Management Act consistency for an
NWP. Every person who may wish to obtain permit authorization under one or more
NWPs, or who is currently relying on an existing or prior permit authorization under one
or more NWPs, has been and is on notice that all of the provisions of 33 CFR 330.1
through 330.6 apply to every NWP authorization. Note especially 33 CFR 330.5 relating
to the modification, suspension, or revocation of any NWP authorization.
1. Navigation.
(a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.
(b) Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through
regulations or otherwise, must be installed and maintained at the permittee’s expense
on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States.
(c) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States
require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein
authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized
representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free
navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from
the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions
caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against
the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.
2. Aquatic Life Movements.
No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those
species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that
normally migrate through the area, unless the activity’s primary purpose is to impound
236
Effective 19 March 2017
water. All permanent and temporary crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably
culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and constructed to maintain low flows to
sustain the movement of those aquatic species. If a bottomless culvert cannot be used,
then the crossing should be designed and constructed to minimize adverse effects to
aquatic life movements.
3. Spawning Areas.
Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through
excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important
spawning area are not authorized.
4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas.
Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds
must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
5. Shellfish Beds.
No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity
is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48, or is a
shellfish seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by NWP 27.
6. Suitable Material.
No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.).
Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts (see section 307 of the Clean Water Act).
7. Water Supply Intakes.
No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where the
activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or
adjacent bank stabilization.
8. Adverse Effects from Impoundments.
If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system
due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized
to the maximum extent practicable.
9. Management of Water Flows.
237
Effective 19 March 2017
To the maximum extent practicable, the pre-construction course, condition, capacity,
and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream
channelization, storm water management activities, and temporary and permanent road
crossings, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand
expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or
high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage
high flows. The activity may alter the pre- construction course, condition, capacity, and
location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or
relocation activities).
10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains.
The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain
management requirements.
11. Equipment.
Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other
measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls.
Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in
effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as
well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be
permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to
perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow, or
during low tides.
13. Removal of Temporary Fills.
Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-
construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate.
14. Proper Maintenance.
Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to
ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP general conditions, as well as
any activity-specific conditions added by the district engineer to an NWP authorization.
15. Single and Complete Project.
The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used
more than once for the same single and complete project.
16. Wild and Scenic Rivers.
238
Effective 19 March 2017
(a) No NWP activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a ‘‘study river’’ for possible
inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the
appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has
determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and
Scenic River designation or study status.
(b) If a proposed NWP activity will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic
River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a ‘‘study river’’ for
possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, the
permittee must submit a pre-construction notification (see general condition 32). The
district engineer will coordinate the PCN with the Federal agency with direct
management responsibility for that river. The permittee shall not begin the NWP activity
until notified by the district engineer that the Federal agency with direct management
responsibility for that river has determined in writing that the proposed NWP activity will
not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status.
(c) Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate
Federal land management agency responsible for the designated Wild and Scenic River
or study river (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Information on these rivers is also
available at: http://www.rivers.gov/.
17. Tribal Rights.
No NWP activity may cause more than minimal adverse effects on tribal rights
(including treaty rights), protected tribal resources, or tribal lands.
18. Endangered Species.
(a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly
jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species
proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat
of such species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which ‘‘may affect’’ a listed
species or critical habitat, unless ESA section 7 consultation addressing the effects of
the proposed activity has been completed. Direct effects are the immediate effects on
listed species and critical habitat caused by the NWP activity. Indirect effects are those
effects on listed species and critical habitat that are caused by the NWP activity and are
later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur.
(b) Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the
requirements of the ESA. If pre- construction notification is required for the proposed
activity, the Federal permittee must provide the district engineer with the appropriate
documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district
engineer will verify that the appropriate documentation has been submitted. If the
appropriate documentation has not been submitted, additional ESA section 7
239
Effective 19 March 2017
consultation may be necessary for the activity and the respective federal agency would
be responsible for fulfilling its obligation under section 7 of the ESA.
(c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district
engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the
vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in designated critical habitat, and shall
not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements
of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that
might affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical
habitat, the pre-construction notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or
threatened species that might be affected by the proposed activity or that utilize the
designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed activity. The district
engineer will determine whether the proposed activity ‘‘may affect’’ or will have ‘‘no
effect’’ to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non-Federal
applicant of the Corps’ determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-
construction notification. In cases where the non- Federal applicant has identified listed
species or critical habitat that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, and
has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has
provided notification that the proposed activity will have ‘‘no effect’’ on listed species or
critical habitat, or until ESA section 7 consultation has been completed. If the non-
Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must
still wait for notification from the Corps.
(d) As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS the district
engineer may add species- specific permit conditions to the NWPs.
(e) Authorization of an activity by an NWP does not authorize the ‘‘take’’ of a threatened
or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate
authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with ‘‘incidental
take’’ provisions, etc.) from the FWS or the NMFS, the Endangered Species Act
prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a listed
species, where ‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The word ‘‘harm’’ in the
definition of ‘‘take’’ means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may
include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding or sheltering.
(f) If the non-federal permittee has a valid ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit
with an approved Habitat Conservation Plan for a project or a group of projects that
includes the proposed NWP activity, the non-federal applicant should provide a copy of
that ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit with the PCN required by paragraph (c) of this
general condition. The district engineer will coordinate with the agency that issued the
ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to determine whether the proposed NWP activity and
the associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section 7
consultation conducted for the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. If that coordination
results in concurrence from the agency that the proposed NWP activity and the
associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section 7 consultation for
the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, the district engineer does not need to conduct a
separate ESA section 7 consultation for the proposed NWP activity. The district
240
Effective 19 March 2017
engineer will notify the non-federal applicant within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-
construction notification whether the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit covers the
proposed NWP activity or whether additional ESA section 7 consultation is required.
(g) Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical
habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the FWS and NMFS or their world
wide Web pages at http://www.fws.gov/ or http:// www.fws.gov/ipac and http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ respectively.
19. Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles.
The permittee is responsible for ensuring their action complies with the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permittee is responsible
for contacting appropriate local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine
applicable measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds or eagles, including whether
‘‘incidental take’’ permits are necessary and available under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for a particular activity.
20. Historic Properties.
(a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may have the
potential to cause effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National
Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied.
(b) Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the
requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. If pre-construction
notification is required for the proposed NWP activity, the Federal permittee must
provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate
compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will verify that the appropriate
documentation has been submitted. If the appropriate documentation is not submitted,
then additional consultation under section 106 may be necessary. The respective
federal agency is responsible for fulfilling its obligation to comply with section 106.
(c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district
engineer if the NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects to any historic
properties listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified
properties. For such activities, the pre- construction notification must state which historic
properties might have the potential to be affected by the proposed NWP activity or
include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the potential for
the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on the location of,
or potential for, the presence of historic properties can be sought from the State Historic
Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, or designated tribal
representative, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33
CFR 330.4(g)). When reviewing pre-construction notifications, district engineers will
comply with the current procedures for addressing the requirements of section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. The district engineer shall make a reasonable
and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts, which may include
241
Effective 19 March 2017
background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation,
and field survey. Based on the information submitted in the PCN and these identification
efforts, the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed NWP activity has the
potential to cause effects on the historic properties. Section 106 consultation is not
required when the district engineer determines that the activity does not have the
potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.3(a)). Section 106
consultation is required when the district engineer determines that the activity has the
potential to cause effects on historic properties. The district engineer will conduct
consultation with consulting parties identified under 36 CFR 800.2(c) when he or she
makes any of the following effect determinations for the purposes of section 106 of the
NHPA: no historic properties affected, no adverse effect, or adverse effect. Where the
non-Federal applicant has identified historic properties on which the activity might have
the potential to cause effects and so notified the Corps, the non-Federal applicant shall
not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either that the activity has no
potential to cause effects to historic properties or that NHPA section 106 consultation
has been completed.
(d) For non-federal permittees, the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee
within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether NHPA
section 106 consultation is required. If NHPA section 106 consultation is required, the
district engineer will notify the non- Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin the
activity until section 106 consultation is completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not
heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification
from the Corps.
(e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (54 U.S.C.
306113) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant
who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA, has
intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit
would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect
to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance
despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. If circumstances justify
granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide
documentation specifying the circumstances, the degree of damage to the integrity of
any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This documentation must
include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/ THPO, appropriate Indian tribes
if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects
properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate
interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties.
21. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts.
If you discover any previously unknown historic, cultural or archeological remains and
artifacts while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must
immediately notify the district engineer of what you have found, and to the maximum
extent practicable, avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts
until the required coordination has been completed. The district engineer will initiate the
242
Effective 19 March 2017
Federal, Tribal, and state coordination required to determine if the items or remains
warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
22. Designated Critical Resource Waters.
Critical resource waters include, NOAA-managed marine sanctuaries and marine
monuments, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. The district engineer may
designate, after notice and opportunity for public comment, additional waters officially
designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance,
such as outstanding national resource waters or state natural heritage sites. The district
engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and
opportunity for public comment.
(a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not
authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, and
52 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including
wetlands adjacent to such waters.
(b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 54,
notification is required in accordance with general condition 32, for any activity proposed
in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters.
The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after it is
determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal.
23. Mitigation.
The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate
and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that the individual and cumulative
adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal:
(a) The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse
effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum
extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site).
(b) Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating
for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the individual
and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal.
(c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all
wetland losses that exceed 1⁄10-acre and require pre- construction notification, unless
the district engineer determines in writing that either some other form of mitigation
would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse environmental effects of the
proposed activity are no more than minimal, and provides an activity-specific waiver of
this requirement. For wetland losses of 1⁄10-acre or less that require pre- construction
notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by- case basis that
compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in only minimal
adverse environmental effects.
(d) For losses of streams or other open waters that require pre-construction notification,
the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation to ensure that the activity
results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. Compensatory
243
Effective 19 March 2017
mitigation for losses of streams should be provided, if practicable, through stream
rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation, since streams are difficult- to-replace
resources (see 33 CFR 332.3(e)(3)).
(e) Compensatory mitigation plans for NWP activities in or near streams or other open
waters will normally include a requirement for the restoration or enhancement,
maintenance, and legal protection (e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas next
to open waters. In some cases, the restoration or maintenance/protection of riparian
areas may be the only compensatory mitigation required. Restored riparian areas
should consist of native species. The width of the required riparian area will address
documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns.
Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the
district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water
quality or habitat loss concerns. If it is not possible to restore or maintain/protect a
riparian area on both sides of a stream, or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal waters,
then restoring or maintaining/protecting a riparian area along a single bank or shoreline
may be sufficient. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site, the
district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian
areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic
environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to be
the most appropriate form of minimization or compensatory mitigation, the district
engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory
mitigation for wetland losses.
(f) Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources must
comply with the applicable provisions of 33 CFR part 332.
(1) The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate
compensatory mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure that
the activity results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. For the
NWPs, the preferred mechanism for providing compensatory mitigation is mitigation
bank credits or in-lieu fee program credits (see 33 CFR 332.3(b)(2) and (3)). However, if
an appropriate number and type of mitigation bank or in-lieu credits are not available at
the time the PCN is submitted to the district engineer, the district engineer may approve
the use of permittee-responsible mitigation.
(2) The amount of compensatory mitigation required by the district engineer must
be sufficient to ensure that the authorized activity results in no more than minimal
individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects (see 33 CFR 330.1(e)(3)). (See
also 33 CFR 332.3(f)).
(3) Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially
valuable uplands are reduced, aquatic resource restoration should be the first
compensatory mitigation option considered for permittee-responsible mitigation.
(4) If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, the prospective
permittee is responsible for submitting a mitigation plan. A conceptual or detailed
mitigation plan may be used by the district engineer to make the decision on the NWP
verification request, but a final mitigation plan that addresses the applicable
requirements of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (14) must be approved by the district
engineer before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States, unless the
district engineer determines that prior approval of the final mitigation plan is not
244
Effective 19 March 2017
practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory
mitigation (see 33 CFR 332.3(k)(3)).
(5) If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option, the
mitigation plan only needs to address the baseline conditions at the impact site and the
number of credits to be provided.
(6) Compensatory mitigation requirements (e.g., resource type and amount to be
provided as compensatory mitigation, site protection, ecological performance standards,
monitoring requirements) may be addressed through conditions added to the NWP
authorization, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan (see 33 CFR
332.4(c)(1)(ii)).
(g) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by
the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage limit of 1⁄2-
acre, it cannot be used to authorize any NWP activity resulting in the loss of greater
than 1⁄2- acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is
provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory
mitigation can and should be used, as necessary, to ensure that an NWP activity
already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the no more than minimal
impact requirement for the NWPs.
(h) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, or
permittee-responsible mitigation. When developing a compensatory mitigation proposal,
the permittee must consider appropriate and practicable options consistent with the
framework at 33 CFR 332.3(b). For activities resulting in the loss of marine or estuarine
resources, permittee- responsible mitigation may be environmentally preferable if there
are no mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs in the area that have marine or estuarine
credits available for sale or transfer to the permittee. For permittee- responsible
mitigation, the special conditions of the NWP verification must clearly indicate the party
or parties responsible for the implementation and performance of the compensatory
mitigation project, and, if required, its long-term management.
(i) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently
adversely affected by a regulated activity, such as discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States that will convert a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a
herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may
be required to reduce the adverse environmental effects of the activity to the no more
than minimal level.
24. Safety of Impoundment Structures.
To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed, the district engineer
may require non-Federal applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with
established state dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons. The
district engineer may also require documentation that the design has been
independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons, and appropriate modifications
made to ensure safety.
25. Water Quality.
245
Effective 19 March 2017
Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, have not previously
certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section 401, individual 401 Water Quality
Certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or
State or Tribe may require additional water quality management measures to ensure
that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water
quality.
26. Coastal Zone Management.
In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone
management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management
consistency concurrence must be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must
occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer or a State may require additional
measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone
management requirements.
27. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions.
The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the
Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added
by the Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its section 401 Water Quality
Certification, or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency
determination.
28. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits.
The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is prohibited, except
when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not
exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For
example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with
associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of
waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1⁄3-acre.
29. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications.
If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification, the
permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting
a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the
nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain
the following statement and signature:
When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in
existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this
nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to be binding
on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide
246
Effective 19 March 2017
permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms
and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
_________________________________ (Transferee) ____
________________ (Date)
30. Compliance Certification.
Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the Corps must provide a
signed certification documenting completion of the authorized activity and
implementation of any required compensatory mitigation. The success of any required
permittee-responsible mitigation, including the achievement of ecological performance
standards, will be addressed separately by the district engineer. The Corps will provide
the permittee the certification document with the NWP verification letter. The
certification document will include:
(a) A statement that the authorized activity was done in accordance with the NWP
authorization, including any general, regional, or activity-specific conditions;
(b) A statement that the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation was
completed in accordance with the permit conditions. If credits from a mitigation bank or
in-lieu fee program are used to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements, the
certification must include the documentation required by 33 CFR 332.3(l)(3) to confirm
that the permittee secured the appropriate number and resource type of credits; and
(c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the activity and mitigation.
The completed certification document must be submitted to the district engineer within
30 days of completion of the authorized activity or the implementation of any required
compensatory mitigation, whichever occurs later.
31. Activities Affecting Structures or Works Built by the United States.
If an NWP activity also requires permission from the Corps pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408
because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) federally authorized Civil Works project (a ‘‘USACE project’’), the
prospective permittee must submit a pre- construction notification. See paragraph
(b)(10) of general condition 32. An activity that requires section 408 permission is not
authorized by NWP until the appropriate Corps office issues the section 408 permission
to alter, occupy, or use the USACE project, and the district engineer issues a written
NWP verification.
32. Pre-Construction Notification.
(a) Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must
notify the district engineer by submitting a pre-construction notification (PCN) as early
as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30
calendar days of the date of receipt and, if the PCN is determined to be incomplete,
notify the prospective permittee within that 30 day period to request the additional
information necessary to make the PCN complete. The request must specify the
247
Effective 19 March 2017
information needed to make the PCN complete. As a general rule, district engineers will
request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once.
However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information,
then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still
incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested
information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall
not begin the activity until either:
(1) He or she is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may
proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division
engineer; or
(2) 45 calendar days have passed from the district engineer’s receipt of the
complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the
district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps
pursuant to general condition 18 that listed species or critical habitat might be affected
or are in the vicinity of the activity, or to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition
20 that the activity might have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, the
permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that
there is ‘‘no effect’’ on listed species or ‘‘no potential to cause effects’’ on historic
properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(see 33 CFR 330.4(g)) has been completed. Also, work cannot begin under NWPs 21,
49, or 50 until the permittee has received written approval from the Corps. If the
proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the
permittee may not begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the
district or division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is
required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot
begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently, the
permittee’s right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked
only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2).
(b) Contents of Pre-Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include
the following information:
(1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee;
(2) Location of the proposed activity;
(3) Identify the specific NWP or NWP(s) the prospective permittee wants to use
to authorize the proposed activity;
(4) A description of the proposed activity; the activity’s purpose; direct and
indirect adverse environmental effects the activity would cause, including the anticipated
amount of loss of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters expected to
result from the NWP activity, in acres, linear feet, or other appropriate unit of measure; a
description of any proposed mitigation measures intended to reduce the adverse
environmental effects caused by the proposed activity; and any other NWP(s), regional
general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any
part of the proposed project or any related activity, including other separate and distant
crossings for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization but do
not require pre-construction notification. The description of the proposed activity and
any proposed mitigation measures should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district
248
Effective 19 March 2017
engineer to determine that the adverse environmental effects of the activity will be no
more than minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation or other
mitigation measures. For single and complete linear projects, the PCN must include the
quantity of anticipated losses of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters
for each single and complete crossing of those wetlands, other special aquatic sites,
and other waters. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the
activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the activity and
when provided results in a quicker decision. Sketches should contain sufficient detail to
provide an illustrative description of the proposed activity (e.g., a conceptual plan), but
do not need to be detailed engineering plans);
(5) The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands, other special aquatic sites,
and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral
streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with
the current method required by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to
delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters on the project site, but there may be
a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or
contains many wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters. Furthermore, the
45 day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by
the Corps, as appropriate;
(6) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1⁄10-acre of
wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement
describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied, or explaining why the
adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal and why compensatory
mitigation should not be required. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may
submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan.
(7) For non-Federal permittees, if any listed species or designated critical habitat
might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in
designated critical habitat, the PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or
threatened species that might be affected by the proposed activity or utilize the
designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed activity. For NWP
activities that require pre-construction notification, Federal permittees must provide
documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
(8) For non-Federal permittees, if the NWP activity might have the potential to
cause effects to a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or
potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, the PCN must
state which historic property might have the potential to be affected by the proposed
activity or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. For NWP
activities that require pre-construction notification, Federal permittees must provide
documentation demonstrating compliance with section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act;
(9) For an activity that will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic
River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a ‘‘study river’’ for
possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, the PCN
must identify the Wild and Scenic River or the ‘‘study river’’ (see general condition 16);
and
249
Effective 19 March 2017
(10) For an activity that requires permission from the Corps pursuant to 33
U.S.C. 408 because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers federally authorized civil works project, the pre-construction
notification must include a statement confirming that the project proponent has
submitted a written request for section 408 permission from the Corps office having
jurisdiction over that USACE project.
(c) Form of Pre-Construction Notification: The standard individual permit application
form (Form ENG 4345) may be used, but the completed application form must clearly
indicate that it is an NWP PCN and must include all of the applicable information
required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) of this general condition. A letter containing
the required information may also be used. Applicants may provide electronic files of
PCNs and supporting materials if the district engineer has established tools and
procedures for electronic submittals.
(d) Agency Coordination:
(1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state
agencies concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions
of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the activity’s adverse environmental
effects so that they are no more than minimal.
(2) Agency coordination is required for: (i) All NWP activities that require pre-
construction notification and result in the loss of greater than 1⁄2-acre of waters of the
United States; (ii) NWP 21, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, and 52 activities that require
pre-construction notification and will result in the loss of greater than 300 linear feet of
stream bed; (iii) NWP 13 activities in excess of 500 linear feet, fills greater than one
cubic yard per running foot, or involve discharges of dredged or fill material into special
aquatic sites; and (iv) NWP 54 activities in excess of 500 linear feet, or that extend into
the waterbody more than 30 feet from the mean low water line in tidal waters or the
ordinary high water mark in the Great Lakes.
(3) When agency coordination is required, the district engineer will immediately
provide (e.g., via email, facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious
manner) a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (FWS,
state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, and, if appropriate, the NMFS).
With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will have 10 calendar days from the date
the material is transmitted to notify the district engineer via telephone, facsimile
transmission, or email that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments.
The comments must explain why the agency believes the adverse environmental effects
will be more than minimal. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an
additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre- construction
notification. The district fully consider agency comments received within the specified
time frame concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions
of the NWPs, including the need for mitigation to ensure the net adverse environmental
effects of the proposed activity are no more than minimal. The district engineer will
provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district
engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre-construction
notification that the resource agencies’ concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the
emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in
cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or
250
Effective 19 March 2017
economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received
to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked
in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5.
(4) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the
district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of
any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as required by section
305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
5) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps with either electronic files or
multiple copies of pre- construction notifications to expedite agency coordination.
Further Information
1. District Engineers have authority to determine if an activity complies with the terms
and conditions of an NWP.
2. NWPs do not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state, or local permits,
approvals, or authorizations required by law.
3. NWPs do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
4. NWPs do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
5. NWPs do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project
(see general condition 31).
251
Effective 19 March 2017
2017 NATIONWIDE PERMITS
REGIONAL CONDITIONS
OMAHA DISTRICT
STATE OF MONTANA
1. PCN Requirement. For all NWPs, permittees must notify the Corps in
accordance with General Condition No. 32 (PCN) for regulated activities, located
within or comprised of the following:
a. Wetlands Classified as Peatlands. Peatlands are seasonally waterlogged
areas with a surface accumulation of peat (organic matter) 30 centimeters (12
inches) or more thick. Any peat-covered areas, including fens, bogs, and
muskegs, are all peatlands.
i. PCN required for NWP 3, 5, 6, 20, 27, 32, and 38.
ii. All NWPs not listed above are revoked for use in peatlands.
b. Waters Adjacent to Natural Springs. Any projects located within 100 feet of
the water source in natural spring areas. A spring is defined as any location
where there is groundwater flow emanating from a distinct point. Springs do
not include seeps or other groundwater discharge areas where there is no
distinct point source.
c. Bank Stabilization Activities. Any project that involves bank stabilization
greater than 300 linear feet or includes features that extend out from the
existing bank line greater than 25% of the bankfull channel width.
d. Channel Straightening and Relocation Activities. Any project that involves
straightening, relocating and/or shortening an existing perennial stream
channel.
e. Tribal Reservations and Tribal Trust Lands. Any projects within the
boundaries of any Tribal Reservation or Tribal trust lands.
f. Specific Waterways Requiring PCN. Any projects within the following
waterways and their impoundments:
-Bitterroot River -Flathead Lake
-Clark Fork River (tributary to the -Milk River
Columbia River) -Missouri River
-Flathead River -Yellowstone River
2. Bank and Shoreline Stabilization Activities. The following additional
requirements apply to all bank and shoreline stabilization:
a. The revetment must conform to the existing bankline; must not extend above
the top of the bank (i.e. no new levees); and the slopes must be flatter than
the angle of repose for the selected revetment material (i.e. rock riprap
normally needs to be placed on a slope flatter than 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical
252
Effective 19 March 2017
(1.5H:1V).
b. The revetment must not wholly or partially block flows from entering a side
channel or an overflow channel.
3. Counter-Sinking Riprap Associated with Culvert Installation. When riprap
inlet and outlet protection is used below the OHWM (OHWM), it must be placed
to match the adjacent culvert bottom elevations. Where culvert bottom elevations
are lower than the stream bed elevation, the riprap must match the culvert
elevation.
4. Placement and Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills in wetlands must
be placed on a horizontal marker layer, such as fabric or certified weed-free
straw, to delineate the pre-project ground elevation and facilitate complete fill
removal and site restoration.
5. Erosion and Sediment Control Blanket. All erosion control blanket or fabric
used in or adjacent to waters of the U.S. must be comprised of degradable
material to ensure decomposition. Do not use material that includes stabilized
netting or stabilized open mesh, as these products take a long time to degrade
and they can trap small animals, birds, amphibians and fish. This prohibition also
applies to mesh materials used for wattles, rolled materials, and bank wraps.
Erosion control blanket or fabrics that break down within 24 months are
acceptable. Non-degradable blankets or fabric may be allowed on a case-specific
basis if it will be buried beneath riprap or structures and it is not likely to be
exposed. Non-degradable blanket or fabric that becomes exposed within waters
of the U.S. must be removed.
6. Suitable Material. NWP General Condition No. 6 prohibits the use of unsuitable
material. Specific criteria can be found in the Omaha District’s “Generic
Prohibitions Regarding the Use of Certain Materials as Fill in Waters of the United
States” and MT Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) “Specifications for
use of Concrete Riprap for Streambank Stabilization,” which apply to proposed
work in jurisdictional waters.
REGIONAL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC NATIONWIDE PERMITS
7. NWP-3 – Maintenance and NWP-45 – Repair of Uplands Damaged by
Discrete Events. The definition of “discrete event,” as used in these permits,
includes, but is not limited to, unexpected natural and human-caused events
such as fires, storms, landslides, avalanches, earthquakes, accidents, debris or
ice jams, and floods. For the purpose of the NWPs, discrete event floods are
stream flow events that overflow the OHWM.
8. NWP-7 – Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures and NWP-12 –
Utility Line Activities. Inlet screens for intakes in the Yellowstone River or the
Missouri River in Blaine, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Fergus, Garfield, McCone,
253
Effective 19 March 2017
Petroleum, Phillips, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Valley and Wibaux Counties
must be installed on all pump intakes with a screen mesh opening size no larger
than 0.25 inch. Water intake velocities must not exceed 0.5 foot per second
through the mesh. Intakes must be located in the deepest water available and be
elevated off the bottom of the river bed.
REGIONAL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE SPECIAL RIVER
MANAGEMENT ZONE OF THE UPPER YELLOWSTONE RIVER
Special River Management Zone (SRMZ) of the Upper Yellowstone River is defined
within the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) as the 48-mile reach of the upper
Yellowstone River (River Miles 531.8 to 483.6) from upstream of Emigrant River
downstream to a few miles below the Shields River and Mission Creek confluences (0.7
miles downstream from the bridge at the community of Springdale). It includes
secondary channels, side channels, and the main (primary) channels, and adjacent
wetlands within the channel migration zone (CMZ) or, in absence of a CMZ, within
areas flooded by the 100-year discharge. The SMRZ is located entirely within Park
County.
In addition to Regional Conditions 1 through 8, the following Regional Conditions 9
through 24 apply within the SRMZ described above:
9. SRMZ – Notification – All NWPs. Permittees must notify the Corps in
accordance with General Condition No. 32 (PCN) for any regulated activity in
waters of the U.S. within the SRMZ. This includes all activities within the
Yellowstone River, the portions of tributaries within the SRMZ, and wetlands
within the SRMZ.
10. SRMZ – Emergency Work. Activities requiring a Department of the Army (DA)
Permit that is necessary to prevent imminent loss of life or property is allowed
within the SRMZ. Contact the Corps as soon as reasonably possible by
telephone at 406-441-1375 and/or by Fax at 406-441-1380. Contact may also be
made in person or by sending an e-mail to: CENWO.ODRMT@usace.army.mil.
All such work will be fully reviewed under the SAMP provisions.
11. SRMZ - NWPs Revoked for Use. The following NWPs have been revoked for all
waters and activities within the 48-mile SRMZ:
NWP 17 - Hydropower Projects
NWP 21 - Surface Coal Mining Activities
NWP 29 - Residential Developments
NWP 39 - Commercial and Institutional Developments
NWP 42 - Recreational Facilities
NWP 43 - Stormwater Management Facilities
NWP 44 - Mining Activities
NWP 45 - Repair of Uplands Damaged by Discrete Events
NWP 49 - Coal Remining Activities
254
Effective 19 March 2017
NWP 50 - Underground Coal Mining Activities
12. SRMZ – Activities Requiring Individual Permit Review. The following project
activities are not authorized under a NWP in the SRMZ. These projects typically
have more than minimal adverse impacts and must be reviewed under standard
(individual) permit procedures.
a. New dams, new diversions, and/or new impoundments for any purpose;
b. Construction of ponds and new artificial stream channels, unless they are
necessary and appropriate elements of a stream or wetland restoration
project;
c. Hydraulic dredging and mining and mechanical excavation to obtain
aggregate, fill material, or minerals, including gold. Processing of material for
the purpose of obtaining select minerals or a specific gradation of material,
where only a portion of the sediment or alluvium is removed and the
remainder returned to the SRMZ, is not allowed under a NWP in the SRMZ.
13. SRMZ - Bank Stabilization Activities - All NWPs. For bank stabilization
activities associated with any NWP, including maintenance of bank stabilization,
the following Regional Conditions apply:
For bank revetments such as riprap, root wads, bioengineered revetments, or
combination revetments, a. through e. apply:
a. Revetments must conform to the existing eroded or eroding bankline, unless
such work is determined by the Corps to be biologically or geomorphically
beneficial for the upper Yellowstone River.
b. Revetment slopes must be flatter than the angle of repose for the selected
revetment material. For example, rock riprap normally needs to be placed on
a slope flatter than 1.5H:1V.
c. Revetments are only permittable under NWPs if they are parallel to and near
the lateral boundaries of the SRMZ.
d. Revetments must not extend above the elevation of the adjacent natural bank
height (i.e., no new levees).
e. Revetments must not wholly or partially block flows from entering a side
channel, secondary channel, or an overflow channel, unless such work is
determined by the Corps to be necessary for maintaining or restoring the
geomorphic integrity of the upper Yellowstone River.
For bank stabilization structures that project into the stream, such as weirs,
barbs, vanes, or hard points, f. through k. apply:
f. Bank stabilization structures must not wholly or partially block flows from
entering a side channel, secondary channel, or an overflow channel, unless
such work is determined by the Corps to be necessary for maintaining or
restoring the geomorphic integrity of the upper Yellowstone River.
255
Effective 19 March 2017
g. Bank stabilization structures are only permittable under NWPs if they result in
an effective bankline that is approximately parallel to and near the lateral
boundaries of the CMZ.
h. Bank stabilization structures must be keyed into the bank far enough to prevent
flanking.
i. Bank stabilization structures cannot occupy more than 10% of the bankfull
channel area. Bankfull channel area pertains to the specific primary or
secondary channel in question, and is not the aggregate channel area of all
primary and secondary channels in multi-channel reaches.
j. Bank stabilization structures must not present hazardous obstructions to
boating, floating, or other river uses.
k. Bank stabilization structures that are low in elevation, project only a short
distance out from the bank, and angle upstream are more likely to qualify for
NWPs because they typically result in less adverse impact on aquatic
resources than structures that are tall, long, and point downstream.
14. SRMZ – Temporary Bank Stabilization – All NWPs. Temporary bank
stabilization is prohibited during seasonal high flows.
15. SRMZ – Sediment Management – All NWPs. Sediment removal is allowable
only to maintain function of existing facilities and structures, or as necessary to
maintain or restore the geomorphic integrity of the upper Yellowstone River.
Diversion or removal of sediment or alluvium from the river channel and adjacent
wetlands for other purposes is not allowed in the SRMZ under any NWP.
16. SRMZ – Temporary Vegetation Impacts – All NWPs. Limit clearing of riparian
or wetland vegetation to the absolute minimum necessary. Where temporary
riparian or wetland vegetation impacts are unavoidable, mow or cut off the
vegetation above the ground, leaving the topsoil and root mass intact. Restore
temporarily disturbed areas to original contours and use seeding and planting as
necessary to re-establish desirable vegetative cover, utilizing native species in
areas where native species were impacted.
17. SRMZ – NWP-11 – Temporary Recreational Structures. Temporary
recreational structures can be installed no earlier than seven (7) calendar days in
advance of an event and must be removed no later than seven (7) calendar days
after the event concludes.
18. SRMZ – NWP-12 – Utility Line Activities. Trench excavation and backfill for
utility lines is prohibited within the OHWM of main and secondary flow channels
and in adjacent wetlands.
19. SRMZ – NWP-13 – Bank Stabilization. Construction of temporary or permanent
levees is prohibited. Only bank stabilization that is parallel to and adjacent to the
valley wall and/or SRMZ boundary is allowed. All other bank stabilization must be
reviewed under standard (individual) permit procedures. Bank stabilization along
256
Effective 19 March 2017
existing roads, ditches, fills, and structures already located along the valley wall
is allowed under this Permit.
20. SRMZ – NWP-14 – Linear Transportation Projects. The construction of new
transportation facilities in waters of the U.S. is prohibited under this NWP and
must be reviewed under standard (individual) permit procedures. The expansion,
modification, improvement, replacement, reconstruction, and upgrading of
existing transportation facilities are allowed under this NWP within the SRMZ.
21. SRMZ – NWP- 27 – Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and
Enhancement Activities. The construction of water control structures, dikes,
berms, current deflectors, bank stabilization, and ponds is prohibited within the
CMZ of the upper Yellowstone River unless it is demonstrated the proposed
features contribute to the restoration or rehabilitation of previously lost or
impaired functions of the upper Yellowstone River and adjacent aquatic areas.
22. SRMZ – NWP-30 – Moist Soil Management for Wildlife. Fire breaks within the
CMZ of the upper Yellowstone River must be reclaimed and restored within six
(6) months after the fire event ends.
23. SRMZ – NWP-33 – Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering.
Construction of temporary levees and other structures or fills in waters of the
U.S. that prevent or reduce overbank flow is prohibited.
24. SRMZ – NWP 40 – Agricultural Activities. Only those activities associated with
the reduction of existing adverse impacts on the upper Yellowstone River may be
authorized by this NWP. Examples of potentially allowable projects include work
associated with livestock management; moving livestock watering areas off the
river or out of the CMZ; removal of irrigation systems from the CMZ; and the
removal or conversion of irrigation systems from flood irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation.
257
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT:
YEAR 2014 with Wetland Delineation
–
Located at the following address
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/planning/wetlands/
2014_REPORTS/2014_I‐90_EAST_BOZEMAN_FINAL.PDF
258
APPENDIX K
259
0123424 5674830623 1 629: =
# $%
&'() '* & +'&,-
,. /%
0/
01 !"
1 -
2 0 34 (- /, (1
0/(.* /%
&',&,-
1 00+ 2 (0/
01
1
$' 0 ,. .+: +
1 , (% - -
5,' .
(
-
(-
'
1 /+& ,0 /25( 2 ? 01-&., /0 % %'/%
- .
# ' '#'# $ & / (
&"
! !
) '
4 * ( ' 0
'
"
(
(
+
5
'
$
)
%
,
' '
'
-
1$
"
.
$ &' , % !
) %"
/ .
"
4 #
0! ) $ ") *
&
1
,-./ /*-.12/01. 463450 23450 !"# $%. 07-8 &"#' & ( " # & $ $%") '!"* +& )& #
/:.-019-4;40< / /(.*+019-9/(:5= ##&&/' /' -35 8
9//35 5= .(019-*+(:/#/#&-&' 8 ' *?(/.#4;.&.019-' @'>;- / 081 95/
ABBC ABBP ABBB QUUU DE DE DE DE FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM AQOQRTOTVB NOPBQORNR COQNQORCT BOCUTOCQB SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS AQOQRTOTVB NOPBQORNR COQNQORCT
BOCUTOCQB ?AQOQRTOTVB NOPBQORNR COQNQORCT BOCUTOCQB (/.'>4;.+.019-:081 @#;- &' / 95/
QUUU QUUA QUUA QUUQ QUUN QUUN QUUT QUUT WGHIXYZG WGHIXYZG WGHIXYZG WGHIXYZG WGHIXYZG DE DE DE FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ [[[[[QIM QIM QIM QIM QIM KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM \\\\\IM IM IM IM IM ]]]]]^
^ ^ ^ ^ AQOQRTOTVB ANOPVTOBNQ QUOAVNORUP QUOAVNORUP QUOAVNORUP ANOPVTOBNQ ACONBVOQRC QUOAVNORUP NOCTUOVQP NOUVQOATP SUS SUS SUS SSS SSS SSS QOTTBOPAU QOTCUONUV AOUUUOUUU SUS SUS SSS
SSS SSS ACOUATOPRC QVORAPONQP QROVTCOQPN QVOCPROPPA QQOCPROPPA ABOTPROQCU QROQCTOCTV QPOBACOUBN AVOBAAOBVQ ARONPQOVVT ACONPQOVVT AUOUPTORAN AAOVTQOAQQ COTATOQAA ROUTVONTR POCAUOCPA
QUUT QUUR QUUR QUUC QUUP QUUP QUUB QUUB WGHIXYZG WGHIXYZG WGHIXYZG DE DE DE DE DE FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ [[[QIM AXJ AXJ KLHGMX KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM \\\IM IM IM ]]]^ ^ ^ QTORUPOPQA
QPOVQNONBU VAOUNUOURU VVOCQPOQNU VRONARONQU QOTUUOUUU SUS SSS S S TOUUUOUUU TOUUUOUUU SSS S S QPOPPUOTAV VAOABQOVVV QPOQRAOUBN VVOPPUOTAV VAOTRPORBV QVOQRAOUBN QTOBCROCRV QPORBQOVVV
VPOTCTOBRC VUOPPCOCPC QQOBTROTNP QCOBTROTNP VVOTCTOBRC NAOQRNOANC VUORCQOQAC VVOVPCOCPC
QUUB QUAU QUAA QUAA QUAQ QUAV WGHIXYZG DE DE DE DE DE FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ K\KLHGM \[AXJ K KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM FGHIJ \IM ]^ NCOVVUOTAU TUONVPONTU TVONUUOQUU TROACBOAVU NQOPTAONQU
VOUUUOUUU VPOUUVORBV VBONPQOCPV NQONPQOCPV NQOTBUOCQV NTOTTQONCV NPOVVAONUV NCORBBOANC TTOACPOQVC TQOACPOQVC TPOQPROACC RAOQNCOBQC RNOUQROPTC
QUAN QUAT QUAR DE DE DE FGHIJ FGHIJ FGHIJ KLHGM KLHGM KLHGM TBOUBCOBPU RAOBBCORBU RNOCNUORTU TAOQTUOQTV TNOANBOBRV TROPBQOBQV RBOPNTONAC RROBNTOCUC
QUAC QUAP QUAB 53.; WGHIXYZG DE DE FGHIJ FGHIJ [QIM KLHGM KLHGM \IM ]^ CAOQUPORTU RCONRUOAPU _ `aba`cbd _AUOUUUOUUU ae` fg`a f TVOVRUOBQV RVOVRUOBQV TBORAQONTV PBOUTROVCC CQOTPPOVCC
CBOUTROVCC CTOVUCOBUC
268
< #( 3$ % /* !
)
,$" .#0 )/$0 !
% !"& /$0.
4
' (%(&
<
)
0
!@) (
( /,$)0. !)
4 * %
3$
+0/
/= ,(
4 3$ -)$/3A
/
56789: ./3$ 01$
8/2 (/$
02 >2
/
? (
&/$(%0 2
4 % /(0
/; 3$
%$
,2/$ %$$ 40/
(
4 *
$
/3$ 3(
1$.$ %
/(3$ ))
$
.3$10%& 0.&($ );
</ 3=
( 20.*
/(3$ )
DA +CA ,
:
6%-$./01$(!2< ,@ 1$.2B 10*/ )-40)010/$.% ) 2 %
//0$01$ $ 3$ 0
(2A 2 !
?
4
%44 %
?$0/
&E@(3 */
&$((0%0 % ,$
<()&/$ F0&( )
40 $ 0 )@0 @/( /2 & 0 !
4 .
(
4)0(
.
)
$%&
% 67 8 '(!
?)
8
8 * "+" ,
-
%
!
)
"
'
)!
A #
7 '
!
7
-!.
<!
#
/
,0-"
8
%
"$ %
-!A %
/
1
-
#
)
2/
7!
!
1344)
BC:
7
9:
!* ! !- ! ;/
"<5 "=A
7 #>
! #
?
?# ! "
7 #
A
&)" % !"/ !&- ' /
$5 5
"
*
$
0!
#
&&
!( ##
!
-
!
&%
1$
!%
!
-
!#
!#!
1$
.
!
!
!-
&#"
$"
!!
". 1$
!
! &
!!
8$
/
##
%
60 7 0
"
! $
) !"
!"
& !
$
#
"% !)&-
-
"
#
2
343567 && + %$&& , # $-
/
.
"
869:
" #
&
%;
$$
<
6=
$
#
%>
%?
@
/
/6A3;
0$'
%
$
"
6?
+
' $4
8:, ) -
;# . "
1) 6496?
%
!
"' #
-
%B6A34
# $
0$
(
<
C;
1 #
:?
"3;
# ;
:( 6
+=  @3''2
%
$$ >,#
"$
' "
7
)
'
6 +
%
178
& &
%%
&/
4
-
8
+
+ &
%'
4&&3''2
+
& &&
(
-
'
%
' &
%
%
%
+%&&
%&
+%
& '
>&! ""
&#* $
&
+
%'&
'
4&
' %
%
%&
%3 %&.%
& &&'
-2, ,
.
3 , ) +
"
)
)
)
)
!
+
"
*
!
"
!
*
)
()
(
/
)01 +
)
)+
*)
!
#
$ %
*
01
234567 -" # ! $
!%
-
&'(-
CD O
)
7899:
&'$
QR- *
+
LHM$
&
T,;
E
,N <
--
UV =
.
>-& O
9:
/
! ;
F
?
S
G
6;
W
@
!
632=
!
/
A<
>
!< ! :
B6;
!
)* >
X ;
76>
!
45 666 666 )
*
0
&
(1 7892
+ ',
!
&- '(
"
"
2
"
)
"
* !
!
"
.
#
$%
&'(
"
)
/3! !
!
)
276
. /"
0
! "#
"
$ $% 1
&% $'
.
" $'
$$1 '#(
)/" 2 %
*3" +
''$,- '
4 M 56789: 56789:
;
;;;<<= O
=
=>>??@@9 9
M
A
BACAADA
BACAADE
F
F
E4C
EAC
GPIDCCICCC
GHIECCICCC JK?JK?8 8 NL4LMC4P HL4LMC4N /0" /$
A E 599U9: BQR
J?
S?T9 8T
59V9W
BAC4MHC
BACA4NH
FF
FFI FXY
FFFSI
ANC AZZ
GAIECCICCC
GZIHNCICCC JK?JK?8 8 44L4LMC4N HL4LMC4H
Z P OKWR O?[6W\6@
S98RK8 ]@WKQ87@ KQU? ^R98@
BKQ8R: 6K8
;
59V9W ;<O BACMMZ4
FXY
AZZ
GPCCICCC
JK?8
PL4LMC4N
H =KU@K8 _`
<\W9?W?79 Ra98R
BACMMCC BAC4MZA
FI
FF
FFFS
AAZ
&'
(
)*345,+),,06 )*
-
78&.
//01,9 2.* -:877;
<
===>
:
! !88 "
? #&@:$ 88@%
" 888 "!" !
&&C K D.I25,EF0*E21, -./
-5,G>E2L@ .)////01,0*
-2,,2.2*4 *
.0
78&
DH3 M
-C -::8;8&7;7&& 9
=
= ==J
7K8
7K<
?
?;'88@:;A.@888 888 )*
A.
A.))* *
;
CB&;B&B&B78&B78&B78&C C '
78 N0F )=
A.6LE.*F FO0
P.Q060*E10
A2M,
(
3,),)2* 5 ,2.* -:877;C
===>
7K8
?&@7<A.)8@* &88 CB&B78&'
7& 77 U/0*R0EE4 -F2Q0 .//01,-TLOE)
3)
D)./2./01,EO0** 5,
345,F0 2.0S), *
>06 0*,0E +)6 -:8;7:K
===J
7K8
?9<8@888
A.)*
'B&B78&'
7: 7; R.S*IVN- 50*F =
VW3 B=
RE0)
78&
WE.,C 60*X01,, 5
)
-*F --:::8&8'&8;798 7&'< '
=
Y=
===J@ ==>
&'
(
)*)+809 )
,-
*).:/;;0 0<
123
65:.
45+67 *&=>>&
=
?@A
>
! !& " =
BCD'E= #$ =%=
"
(:")!".
FGHG> ! => H
&&F D I;)5.36:+ O0;
11JI 36)-K9)0.L5;) 5N)
*60-
36-56P 65:
>0)
:. =QE KL)HR .M *&=H>CH
?
>&=
BHEH=(:)CE=. == HGHG>=>=
&R O)?KS--;:96::T0K0..
11JI 6+ **&&==H>DHR> H&
?
@E
??? ?
>U
>>>' '
BHE'=
BFE=((::=))==. . E=E==== = CGHG>=HR
&C 1V560Q5+WSX-)/V 0
11JI
>=HC *&=H>RR
??
>>'
BHDEY=(:)=. E=== YGHG>FGHG>==>HC H
Y= YH ,J-J0-;0)0.6K0.-/*P 5T0
1):;;
Z0)0<6 +
WSX-65:609)/. 0 )
AT0 60- /0+ **&&==H>Y>R' HF
?
???U
>
>H' H'
BHE>
BYF&(E=:==)== . E=
(=:= ).
DGHG>H=GHG>==>HC H
Y> Y& Z5+15.+:Z0)5Q-[;) 0/
*/
11JI ::\9 73S-5.
*X *&&==&&>HC& =Y
?
&'
(
)*+4-,-5,.*/67(/0
1/895*
))*
: 2,3/+ 1';::&
<
===>
?
! !& " ;
@ #&A;$ ;%;
" A;;"; !" !
&< E9FG* =6HG/
4,F*/G6.6*+9,,5 *G 1';&?II
J=
?&;
@?A;B/B/'KA;9+ 9+ ;; LD?CD?D:D:;;:?; C
&&& C =6HG/>18*/=M*+F*,R*5,69+ **G2*6*H93G5 G
OOPQ
N/H,+,/571=G G,8 (( 1';::&'
=J>
?&;
@:A:B/;9+ ;A;;; KD?D:;?L
&I >/M*69+ 4,9,
T9F35 3/+
B3U, 1';1';:<::&<: :
=
=J> ==S
?
?&&; ;
@
@C:&:AL;B/A;;9+ ;; A;
B/;; 9+
LD?ID?D:D:;;??L L
&&L K E*1/V*))G9))**+2,03+9A 3/
13,*+ 7:
=:- 6HG/;;
/??U71/L K
OOPQ F*))6**2,3/+
W ,+ 5 1';1';?:';:&' ;
=
=====S >
?
?&&; ;
@
@?:AKICA;A;B/;9+ ;A;;;; ; 'D?D:;:;
C; C? 195290* Z*4)0323+=6HG/X0Y*
1/*
B9[
R*F*))*6*6/2,*
OOP( 3/+F9) ,+ 5
9+0 1';::<C
==
?&;
@<?LA;B/;9+ ;
B/9+
?&:D?D?D:D:;;::; ;
C: C' (/)5/B/+ )/
6* & V0-KLB0M'*'('*G0'M )B *'+
5'*
),'*
WSM)CDN CD )-
O4P=
2:.
/.; )0'.
E
&1*
-K4 0'**F 1
FBB1=
C'(
!
2345678888888888888888888888888888888888889 )-". "
XT(
G0'.#
)
.LB1*B.*
$17 1B1 #
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MB.!
23456 % *
1=
QQ6
+).
2)B .
:C+ II7
/K
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
R-.S1
).
BTCB11
-F
:;E
M'*CD7345689
9
9
:
A>
2>
I?;<===JU?=A;>JIJ=?U=@==UAI7 A>>><AJ A A
P0'.WL')]ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
&V
0)Z[6*P0'.'('*^._!6O\ )B C)+*1FB01 1FB01 ` " 'R+'+
5'*
abcd ('+ )
P0'.,B '*
OB(
*
F0-
*CD )- - -
Q-
e_
Z[
2
82
2
83
APPENDIX L
284
285
F-. 1FB0 M 'YMB.
/'.
Z[0
\0'.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 6O\ f`
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH u?_g`6O\ * @
2(*
2\h 1
'.
^\0)
2S)] u?.
]S C)0BC* >
4.(7 _'+ *
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH b B0B1*
C'(
0B(
^ij]'YMB.)
'1 *aki '+)
-,'*
ljf`F
5'Y= )*-17 .
234567
G0'.m
$
:#;!?*%17 > nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnop
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
2Z3O&
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 7
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
88888HH9
9
9
9
9
9
q!
J?
:
2
?
?
>U@
>rmr$J=I=;=@===;?J@;@I>;;@AU=#;;>;=m$>====;;;?::rs ;JU <;;>; ; ; : 7
e_W.W.W.V0-W.ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
v
v
v
WSS)
X1*
3-****G0'M ))))f`C)C)C)C)_0M'+ )((((M'*g`'*'*'**'*)h -
WSM)BS BS BS BS
^.
/BS ] '+
*
KLB0M'*
V0)
4.HKH
]
Q-
OW3 0'.LB1*..
w-_'. )C)1FB01 1*b
M'*
(
Q-0'*.MB.'+ S
M'*
OB(11 CD )
F0--!CD8888888888888888888888888888888888888889 *
6x0CD'0GB . "
2O4P
P0'.
W+
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo M 'YMB.CD88888888888888888888888888888888888889
1(+-
-y'.1FB01 BC)0
-*'+ *CB88888888888888888888888888888888HH9 1 DB07888888888888888888888888888888H89
2QQ67
2Z3O&
'.
'SM)S
4.
8888888888888888888888888888889 .7888888888888888888888888888889 *)1*B0B1* 0'*)
2Z3O&-.
WCC* 7888888888888888888888H9
888888888888888888888
9
p
:
srmr"
?
2I;
?
?A=
:===I::A>@;A;;@;@?=J=$;====;mz{:;@;AJ: ;;
; ;;;
; ; ; ; ; 7 $
P
-\\
Q
-W
M-)x.1C'+ '.*'+ S1 x.1
\
uB'0
C+
'L')x.* -
-1BS S1 F
:+
B1*'R+
ZBS);
'1 ?B )U M'*
F-
-
4.C'*F 0
5'Y= *BS
Q-B.BS
.'.SBS
*By
:- 1
Q-
);
|
+. ?-
6\1B '. @ '.
2Z3O&
V+
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH u:1
)'. ;SB.?
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH U 7
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *)F)BS
-.
W**'CDMB.*
444
-F
9
9
92A@
9
<
>
<<U=A=A=J=<U?@A?;::;I=:=:==A>:@J;;;< ; < 7
281
4,
OOP( /G6.9,
1';*G 1';??::&?I &
=
==A
==
?=>
?'; ';
@
@?:A&AI';B/B/;9+ 9+ ;A;AC;;; ; CD??D?D:D:;;??K I
C< 4-=6HG/5,*6 RS\ F*
=6HG/
OOP( 6*+F*,5
:6*;?+K ,5 1';1';?C?:LC ?K
=
J==
?T
???& &
@
@&;?;AL;B/A;;9+ ;; A;
B/;; 9+
?CD?D?D:D:;;:?? K
C& CC CI >)92[ =43665 6HG/
\492/ 1/9Y)))*
OOP( F**
B9Y/
O9,2,6*3/+ +*/,G +
1';5
T35,] 1';?<::L< ;&
=
=A
==
?=>
??;& &
@
@I??;A;B/A;;;9+ ;; A;
B/;; 9+
LD?ID?D:D:;;::; ?
CL CK PG*E3Y8.=95XG* 4*6HG/.*/G
4,F*/
T35,0 9,6*
OOPQ * G32,
S2G*+,5 5 1';1';1';??:?:?&KL L& L
=
=
===>
L&
?
?;;; ;
@
@
@C&:I;?;'A?;A;A;;K' ;; ;
B/
B/
B/9+ 9+ 9+
LD?
KD?
KD?D:D:D:;;;:::? ; ?
I; I? Q/4/G, 6*
>*G5 +,
N*/+
1/.
OOPQ ))*2,^3/_`
1';+ ab
1';
cd_efg` :?::
hiiji`'< <:
J=
= akgfl
&
L;
mnnopqrqpqst ;
@
@:;?;A?B/A;;;9+ ;; A;
B/;; 9+
LD??;D?D:D:;;::? ?
280
? @A
>
>H= ='
BHEH=
BHE=((::=))==. . E=E==== = RGHG>=>H
YY 3V0;LP 2
11J]
45+5.Q0<
WSX-65:. )/0+ *&=H>R=
???A
>='
B>EY'=(:). E=== FGHG>'GHG>==>HR =
Y' YF O)4--/?[5. KS-KK:
11J] :T0K0../
(
WSX-)X:6+ :). /0
**&&==YH'Y H&=Y
?
?
>
HR' ==
BHE'=
BHHE&((::=))==. . E=E>=&= F FGHG>=>=
YD YR O),-T-0)0 6
?
]2? );
?;+ KS-
36::-T0K0.K9)60- 6+
*&=Y>>>
???A
HR'
BHED=(:)=. E=== H=&GHG>GHG>==>HC =
YC U[?0.KS-Z5+)
@:+5+T0K0.:6) [;)
*
*::KK[6+ [
>.=6P HR .56P7 **&&=='HR= &>HD
@
?@U ?
HD'
HF=
B&
BY==E'H>(E=:=)= . E=
(=:= ).
RGHG>&GHG>==HR >>
'= 'H ])5-3:Q50;[6V /
11J] J0-
15.-)/<7J-0
WSX-)5;0- )/0
**&&==Y>H>>HC Y
?
? E
?@
HF= A
H''
BHE=
BHED&((::=))==. . E=E==== = DGHG>RGHG>==HR >=
'>
,)-/(5.)X:0- :
123 .
^0V)
45+L 6-5<6 *&=H>CC
? 279
H''
B>E'=(:)=. E=== 'GHG>=>=
7'<
Y=
7C8 =Z
79<
?
?
?7:;&:@@C78@888@A.@888 )* 888 888
A.)*
'B&CB&B787& B78&C
7< =6LE.3+0/[Q060*4
3,78&.E6 9 ,5
D)
WE.,X01, 0E A.)* 'B&B78&C
79 P.DDRW E,
362,
TLOE)+
DH3 F05
I25,\ --::8&8&7C: 7&C
Y=
=
79<
79<
?
?9@:@<888@A.A.88@))* * 888 888 CB&B78&'
7' 345,-+06 .,0)
=6LE.78&]
-.' /Q060*/01,2.* ,5 -:8;7;8
===J
798
?<88@888
A.)*
&9B&8B&B787& B78&'
7C 7K :8 P)D2[J*//.))* 1.]
-^ *.
3LE)F)]*GI00E ,4 4
-
=EE2O).
A.//01,FO0 ,2.2.* *
-
-::877;8&:87 7
=
= YJ@
=
798 Y>
798
?
?&&<@888@@A.A.888@))* * 888 888 9B&9B&B7878 B78&K
:& P.]=-6LE.E .
-].*E*,Q060*4 0E5
DDRW
DDRW ,5
--::8&8&7<:8& 9
=
=@
==
7<=
7<< <
?
?C@;@788@798@A.)* 888 888 &B&B78&K
:7 _0/0*-.) //
D05,01,2.* 52F0 -:8:7&C
=YJ
7;<
?7@<A.A.88@))* * 888 &:8B&B&B78&B78&K K
::: ;
W+-./]2/6[2L5[]78&]5
-EO < .
DDRW //01,2.*
--::8778' 877;;
=
===@ =
=>=@ =
=J =
:
7:7< <
?
?:&@@888@<A.8:)* @888 888 <B&B78&9
278 A.)* 'B&B7878
AEC
G4HICCCICCC
GEICCCICCC JK?JK?8 8 ML4LMC4H HL4LMCMC
N D J6c68\S6\ Fa`
<6ab9W @WKc9a98R@ RK8 MC4P
;
;dO ?@
_R9V?
MC4H `\W?R9W 79 BAC4MND BACAADP
F
FI
FFI
FFFS
AAZ
AAZ
GAIZCCICCC
G4AICCCICCC JK?8 NL4LMC4H
4C e6UU
BKQ8R: J6gR
5R?
d5Ff R6K8
MM
59V9W BACMMED
FFFS
AMC
GADZIMZC JK?8
JK?8
HL4LMC4N DL4LMC4H
44 4M S9UR =U98R:J5
;
Fa`;VKK7 =<>O WKc9a98R@ ?
_@
BKUU9hR6K8i 9 `
4 \W?79
?87 BACMMAA BACEMM4
FFFS
FI
FFFS
AMC
AMC
GMIHCCICCC
G4IZCCICCC JK?8 DL4LMC4H
4A X?Q\>8
<5R?W9?R6K8 Ra98R
j
J6gR BACEMMH
FI
FFFS
A4Z
GMI4EZICCC JK?JK?8 8 AL4LMC4N DL4LMC4D
4E 4Z J68hKU8 k?U6@F8R9Wh9``9UU
J6gR
;
5R?9@RKW R
5679 R6K8@
BACMMEH BACAM4P
FXS
FF
A4C
ACZ
GNIHCCICCC
GEAZI JK?JK?
CCC 8 8 ZL4LMC4N ZL4LMC4N
4P BKUU9hR6K8 ]QW9T?
l[
=67c?>?@U9m 9
M BACAADZ
FX 277
ACC
G4ICCCICCC JK?8 PL4LMC4D
5
&
78996<
P
H &
!
QR-
I
/ 9:
- !
!;
$< (
!&
% *
P $J
!
P !
K
!
QR-
]L .&
D
!
D
H!
P
Y &
W
!
QR-
E
PP!
X
.
CDD
S!
X
W
P
!
$
H
"P NJN
QR-
+
Z
/
.
W
!
!
- &
-
!O
!
O
QR-
/
Y
P
P!
QP
S!
S!
K
I
P
!
&
%
[
&
P!
P
%
\
-**-$$O
J/ &
!
!
QR-
D
/
P ^$K ^ NN( D/ D/
Z
[
D
P
$
W
.
$
*
/ &
.
O
!
_
!!
W
!
D
%
*
*
& )
P
Z
]
-
K
ELCH
&
.
!
P
PD
[
X
`
N)
P &
/
]!
PP
-
D ELCH
K
W
Y
P
$
NNN
_
P /
`!
Z
\&
!
W
!
!
O
D
/
X
]
-
ELCH
W
S!HHM $L O D NNJ&
$
NNJ
P
D
!
P
$
"
NNN/
L $NJNX%
!
Q
!
!
Z! *
$
J+
P
P
$ &
HHM NN$
%D
P *
P *
%/
Q
D
*
*
S!& *
I *
PP !
P
D
P
L
%
!
$*
*NN\$
!
/ /
Q
&
Z
I
#
P `
%*
!
S!**
P $&
_
Q
D
!
%
&
!
HHM
* *
! (
$
NN'/
L
K[
Q
/
!
!
Z! $
P `
_%
&
W !
P
P
D D % %**
G!*$(\
P / /
W
#
!
% `
P
%& )*
#\
*(
\
P '& &
*&`
P *
D (
S!
**
&*&
#*a **
.(* * *
*
! &*
!
P
**
!
D
%&
*
P
*
.
(
I &
S!
%
!
*
%
D $
!*
%***/
Q J& $
(
P
P
S!
%/
.
*
S!
#
D $
)`
&
%*
**
!
&** % *
S!*
!&
!
P
% *
P *
P )
Z! /
#
/
Q
(
!&
I *
%*
%**
S!*&*
*)
P
b **/ N&
Q *
%
P
*
.
%
* )
#*
& *
%`/
!
P &
_*/
.*
G!
%*
. &
**
***` / &
.
275
&
)'(
)
)
,
!
!
)
)
"
7, >,
$
$ ! * ++ *
<
*
!
!
,
"
"
9
)
:
)
"
)+ )
3;,
) $),
*
4-
)55 555
!
!
"
678
" ,
"
!
*
$)
9
)
)
*
*
)
&
* '(
?
=
!
"
)
9
*+
ODEF B C
DEF ELDWGHL :
)) )
Mc
GHIJK )
GRH
*
PX
-
LHJEFL
EFL 5 @
GRH
333,
YZU[
MFGHIHKG
)
cDI
)*@
\+
ODEF
IEGHK RH
]
cVFLK
^
NMOO [_
U`
HbQHHLK
PH
!
WIDaIEJ
LHGHIJMFHL
*
GRH
JEX
ETEMOEPMOMGX
#
$
MF
QRDDKH %
EQQDILEFQH &
?'(
GD
Dc
OMJMG
cVFLK@
NMGR
&
GRH (
dFGHIHKG /0A
GRH
JEbMJVJ
SLJMFMKGIEGMTH
IEGHK
EJDVFG
JVKG
PH
UVOHK
Dc
EFX
3m,
nm:EKKMKGEFQH QDJJVFMGXkMKKVHL ]PH LHJEFL HKGEPOMKRHL WEXJHFGK ^
QDFKMLHIHL [n._U` ono
EFL
NMOO
DF
NMOO
GD
(
MFMGMEOOX
GD
aHFHIEO 3.
aHFHIEGH
NRHF
PH
HFKVIH B.
WIDTMLHL
PDFLK %
PH
HKGEPOMKRMFa 3.
DPOMaEGMDF
GRH
PEKHL p
KVccMQMHFG
PX
WIDaIEJ
MF
GRH
GRH
DF
PDFLK
]
ODEF
GRH
cDIJ
IHTHFVHK ^
MK [
EWWOMQEFGgK _
GHIJK@
DWHIEGHL
KDOL U`
Dc
WIDaIEJl@
LMIHQG
GD
GD
\
aHFHIEGH
EOODN RH
ODEFK
MF
IHhVHKG@
GXWHK
WHIWHGVMGX@
GRH
iJDIH
Dc
GRH
_
dG GEGH
cMFEFQMEO
MK
_
WIHQMKHOXj GEGH
EFGMQMWEGHL
GD
SPMOMGX
JEeH
JEGQR
EKKMKGEFQH
GD
GRH
GRH
IHWEX
DI
GREG
WVIQREKH
WIMFQMWEO
JHHG
WIDTMLHL
GRH
GRH
WIDfHQG
ODEF
JEfDIMGX
EFL
Dc
NMOO
PX
MFGHIHKG
GRH
EOKD
Dc
WIDaIEJ MJWIDTHJHFGK cDI QDOOHQGMDF QDJJVFMGX HbGHFLHL dF GD
EF
qr
GRH
HccDIG
XHEIK
KRDIGHIkGHIJ
JEX
cMFEFQH
KXKGHJ
GD
GD
DF
QDFKMLHI
IHWEX
WIDTMLH
EF
GD
PH
WMWMFa
GHIJK
EFFVEO
GRH
EKKHGK
cVFLHLs
ELLMGMDFEO
HbGHFLHL
GD
ODEF@
EFL
PEKMK
hVEOMcXMFa
iWVJWKj
EWWVIGHFEFQHK@
GRHIHcDIHj
CDEF
GD
cMFEFQMFa
EKKMKGEFQH
HFKVIH
GHIJK
PODNHIKj
WIDfHQGK@
MG
QDFGMFVMGX
QEFFDG
MK
cDI
GD
HbWHQGHL
tDNHTHIj
QDFGIDOKj
KDJH
\
QDJJVFMGMHKj RH
HbGHFL
HbGHFLHL
Dc
GIHEGJHFG
GREG
GIHEGJHFG
OEaDDF
MF
WEKG
QHIGEMF
HOMaMPOH
ODEF
GRH
GRH
OMFHIKj
cEQMOMGMHK
]
DI
KMGVEGMDFKj
VKHcVO
GHIJK
WIDfHQGK ^
VKH
HGQ@[_U`
Mc
GRIDVaRDVG
OMcH
EOODN l
GRH
WIDaIEJ
EIH
NMOO
Dc
GRH
KHG
IHWOEQHJHFG
QDJJVFMGMHK
GRH
aHFHIEOOX
]
EKMLH ^
NMOO
GRH [_U`
DccHI
PX
GHIJ
PH
GRH
QDKGK
VW
FHN
Dc
DILHI GRH
ODEF@
GD
HFKVIH
\RH
]
GRH ^[_
WHIWHGVMGX U`
WIDaIEJ
Dc
IHKHITHK
GRH
cVFL@
GRH
SF
IMaRG 274
HTEOVEGMDF
GD
OMJMG
HbGHFLHL
Dc
GRH
cVFLMFa
GHIJ
PEKHOMFH
cMFEFQMFa
cDI
EG
GRH
EFX
GMJH
MF
' 9-,
+
'
# / ?
+
(*
+
:
&
&
' #)
2;&
(<
-
(/ '
012 #
$
%
+
1&
&&
&.-
' '
5552
+ +&
%
&
#& %"*
&
+
ABC U
V
ABC
DEFFEGHIJ `H]`NCd`NKMCT KDDENQKPHFHM^ IC]IC]RKLM
WXYZ[HNCQ
MBC RFE^RFE^
EI
P^
GKOMCGKMCN
DKLMENO
KDDENQKPHFHM^]]\
DCQCNKF CIM CIM
DEN
RNEJNK]
NKMCO
NKMCe
MBEOC
GHFF
FKGe
KIQ
GHFF
`
PC
RNEREOCO
RNE_OCN e
KO
MBNCC
LEIOHQCNCQ
FELKF
EIF^
NKMC
CkRFKHICQ CLMO
DKLMENO
PC
RER`
RCN
QCC]
ME
DKLMENCQ
KGKNQ
]
HI FKMHEI
PCFEGV CQ CQHKI
GHFF
MBC
NCKQ^
RNHILHRKF
PC
MNCIQOV
HI
KFFELKMHEI
BE`
HD
`
ME
MBC^ OCQ OCBEFQ
RNELCCQ
ABC
ME
DENJHSCICOO
KNC
ED
KNNHSC
FELKF
HILE]
RNHILHRKF
LEIOHQCNCQ
ME
RER`
KM
LEIOMN`C
K
fghije
RNH]
LE]
DENJHSCICOOT FKMHEI
ME KNHF^ LMHEI REOHMC
MBC
BKSC
JNEGMB
PKOCQ
FELKF
HI
KDDENQKPHFHM^
KI
Z\
`aUbV
KIQ
EI I`O`
cO KF
`X
ER`RNEJNK] KRRNEkH]CkK]NKMC c
IC]
FELKF
foVmnj FKMHEI RFCe RFE^
`IC]
KO
HD KMCF^ ]
JNEGMB
GHFF
MBC
NCFKMHSCF^ CIM RFE^
oVl
`
PC
NKMCV IC]]
KQQCQ
RCNLCIMKJC
NKMCO CIM
ZEe
IEN]RFE^
NKMC
MBC
ED
ME ]
KPE`KF
JNCKMCN CIM
MBC
ghi
PKOCQ
REHIMO
NKMC
GG M
DKLMEN
sCNE
MBKI
EI
DEN
NKMCpghi
BHJBCN
ME
]
LE]
GE`
Ulmn
UVln KI^
MBKI ]FQ
^
SKF``
ED
PC
RCN CKNO IHM^
MBC
Ulmn
HILNCKOCQ
^Ce
ED
c CKN
`
L`
HO
NCSHCGHIJ OHIJ
ED
UmVlne
KNC NNCIM
MBC
K
SHCGCQ
P^
GCHJBMHIJ
OMKMC
KSCNKJC
MBKM
oVln
]`
KSCNKJC
P^
NKMC IHLHRKF
q
MBC
mVUm
OMKMC
DKLMEN
GE`
WXYZ[
GKOMCGKMCN
r
`
mVole FQ IC]
ED
PC
UmnV RFE^\
\]EN CIM
DHIKILHKF RNE_ME DKLMENe P`MBKI MBHO RFKIIHIJ ]K^
OBE`M
`
HO CLMO
REOC
vmVwlnp^OCO
mVUl
MBC FQCN
NCFKMHSC
K
P`
QEL`
CkLCRMHEIKF
GCHJBMHIJ
WXYZ[
RCNLCIMKJC
MBC NQCI ]CKNV
DHIKILHKF CIMOV
ME
EI
\\
MBC
RNEREOCO
CkHOMHIJ EN
ABCNCDENCe
DKLMEN
KDDENQKPHFHM^
CkK]
REHIMO
CkHOMHIJ
P`NQCI
ED
NCOHQCIMO RFCe
K
FCOO
Umn
]
RER`
HD
JNEGMB
ED CMBEQ
MBC
MBKI
HOO`
NCJ`
HD FKMHEIV
MBC
OK]
ME
vmVwlnp^COV
OH]
NKMCO FKMEN^
KLLE]
JNEGMB C
tCN^
LE]HFKN
uCLNCKOHIJ
KPESC
LE]
ME ]
BHJB ]CKNV
NKMC EQKMC
MBC `RFHKILCV IHM^
xOHIJ
UVlnp^
JNEGMB
`
HO IC]
MBC
c
CHMBCN
JNEGMB
BKO
K
P`
\RFE^CKN
GCHJBMHIJ
NKMCO EN
K
KPESC HFQHIJ
K
JNEGMB
EN
NKMCO ]
RER`
ICJKMHSC CIM
]
ED K^
UVlnp^
FCKSC
NKMC
FKNJC FKMHEI
DKLMEN
NKMC
R`
]M
DCGCN
K
JNEGMB
ED
MNCKM]
JNEGMB CKN CMBEQEFEJ^
BHJBCN
ED
vmVonp^
EN
Umne
RCERFC
FCOO
NKMCO CIM
MBC CKNe e
zIEN]IEN]ghi QCMCN]]`A
BC OCN EOM
KQ_
DKLMEN
NKMC
H]KF KF{
NKIJC `HICQ RENMKIM
NKIJC OM]
RCN
GE`
DEFFEGHIJ CIM
]
ED
ED CQHKI FQ
DKLMEN
DKLMEN
MBCOC
SKF`
PC
HILNCKOCQ
BE`
K COe
RKNK]
Umn
HI
PKOHL
COMKPFHOBHIJ
LKI OCBEFQ
DEN
FCJHMH]
OCIOHMHSHM^ CMCNOV
`
P^
HILE]IC]T
mVUln KMCF^ RFE^
K Cy
FCSCF
KIKF^
BEGCSCNe
q ]
KDDCLM
mVUm CIM
RFK^OHOV
NKMCO
KDDENQKPHFHM^
r
iM HIJ
mVmUlV
MBC
HO
KIQ
DHCFQ
DCFM
EMBCN
RER`
P^
NCFKMHSC
MBC
MGE
HI FKMHEI
LE]
WXYZ[
DKLMENOe
ME
JNEGMB RKNHOEI
KDDENQKPHFHM^ \
RNEJNK]
HD
E`
ME
DKLMENO
K MOHQC
]
HO
MBKM ENC
MBC
ED
GCNC
MBC
MBC
wV
YEIOHQCNKMHEI `OCN
NKMCO
DEN
CKLB
GHFF
PC
RNE_
JHSCI CLMV
iD
ME
MBC
MBC
HID`
CDDCLMHSCICOO OHEI 273
ED
RNHILHRKF
ED
MBC
DENJHSCICOO
RNHILHRKF
DENJHSCICOO
D`IQO
HIME
HI
K
NCQ`
RNE_CLM LHIJ
D?#
B35E5:
0
;
$
/3;
" F
$
*
/) %' #
&
$
%
%
#
$
* %
&R $/
K44: 0$ & )
' - ) S
% " B:
G
V >
%?
%
- 67
$
LCM;
0$
I
% &
":4:-
/N6B:
/
1 $
>?P )
$F
'
O
'
1%
1
*
%
$
-
$
.
% Q$# H
+
$
%$
TU ,
-
, .
/
$
I -
#
)
1 .
%
"
$-
GJ
1)
/
%
0$&
0$
/
%
"
*P
%
% )
'
TU
V
$ W
.
%
1 " .XYZU[ 1
" #
W
%#
,
$
% "
/"-
/
$
"
%
%
0
&
/"
/
/
/
%
/1
UZ\
0$
/
'
1%
I
%
%
%
P '
"
%
-
1 #
0$
"
"
1 "
/
]
"
Z\' )
/)
)
J+
/
R '
*
'#
-^%-S
)
%
W -
)
+
%
/ $ *
%
W
/
-
1 "
"
+
&
`
UZ\
%, S VVV# -
.
,
$
"-)
1
+
$ '$
$
$
%
/
W% '
,
%
%
% "'
%
_
Z\
/
/
1
'
$
%&
&
"
)
/
%
*
$%
.
$
& )
') Q$'
*$
0$%
/
%- - )
R
"
% '
$
abbbc
debfDebK I ) - l'# .
#
&
Q
Kg8
"
+
l1&# ,
hDfij8 -
% .
%
#
/
$
$
2je
1 )
"
$
*
8bLfeb<
%& #
1
kfbjg
'
%
0$
H$
%
j2
Q
"
2kg8L
% #
H&
VO+
')
1%
m736;
%%
I
I
/3
"
;33
/
KBB6=&
1
%no3?
/'
%
&
1 B
'
"
bbb
p> " 5
6
7:;B
>p
E5>q3=B;
3rE3=B34
B>
53=3:93
smdLe2 272
pC?4;
6?4
E5:?=:E67
p>5A:93?3;;
:?
L2tuv)
*!!#
'
!+
- !
,$
#
,
&
( && . !
!
&
"1$
$&
234
/% &
1$
"
! &
& -
#
#
#&
! ( )
""%
,#&
! ! $
#
!"& "-",!!!& $' $(
-
!
!!
"##!
"
!- ! $& &
0!
& - #
!
! $1$
$.
-
1$
"
1$!!##"!&&!& 9* $ -
6:
!
!;
!
< . .
,
!.
#
!
!!
=$
& =
1$& ;
!=-
!
!% 7. 1$
$&
5&- $!
!
"# !
(
% -
>
&
,
! ?
!
#!!
"
"
&&
! ,& "
!
"
&1$$!
&$
!(
!1$!!#
!%#
23? ! ( &
! &
0
&
&,- &
$/-##$ & 0
&""& ! &&##-
$ $
&
"*
"!! -$
!
# !
& &#
!
%
,
,
0& &
!
$& !
$
! * !
5
&
!
!
&
1$
*%
!,
!
"-
""& &% !&%
!
"
!!
$
-
#
# !
$ #
&
$
&
$
!
!
!
% 1$
*
@
!
@ !
!
##
&
,.
& .
&
&
!,
"
! %
&&$
,
!!
!
!! & "
#
(
-
-
@
(
#! ) &! !"
"!
-
#
! !
- '( $. #
!
&
& .
5
,
! !
!
(
&" &##
,
!
!
B
!
-
# 1$!
&.
!
!#( #
!
5!
$
$#
D<. #&
/0( *
> 25
*
! &
,
)%
$
"!
& !( A.
"
%
/-
#"0
&%
*
,
$
!
C; %
(
>
"
-
%!?-!
*
!
! #
*
& 1$
!
$
/!
!
&- #,
!0 #
!
>
$
# ( $
"
$
"
)( !&-
- &
& ! #
*
05 % &. %
&& #!5
!!E, 1$
&
$$"!! *" #
$$
&( #
%
&"
!
&%!
"
!
#
)#
!%
!
! #
- *
!
(
,
, &
*
&
% !$
!
#. -
0&-
)
!. !
"#
!
&!
$
"
&
$ &%
#&
$
"
!$$
" &-%
#& (
&!
& (
-
*
!
&
!
,
,
"
*- &
!
"#
"! '.
$"
$!
! ! &
!
#
!
!
&
"*#
!!"
,$' . !. &&. % &
*(
D
#
$
QIJ\5
#!PSO
URKMPM
D!
URGGW
&
JI
HK
QLIO
FGG
HIJK
]HO^
LKM
_Y` 271
NOPPG
URKMN
QIJMRSON
aRNO
VP
TLN
QIJMRSPM
MPUHKPM
HK
VW
O^
XYYZF[ P
b_Fc
dIJK
HK
LKW
LKM
#
7 !
# !
" !
@ !
! ?6
7 "67 !! " !
< !
! !
D !
A
#
7
<
>! LMN
!
"
!!
! ! "
""
!
D #
IJKKAKKK
H "
"!
A
7 !ED
7
! E#
"
D!
"88 D
" F 8 !
8
A
! !
#
"
"#
! ! D F
8
!
"!
G !E A
$%%&
,!G =@67 " !113* "
<E "
< ,
! ! # '0/ "
R 8
D
#
8
!1
;
,!
KWTU ! '5
!
"
14/ A
8 8
8
E
Q
Q
D7"0% (
TRV=%0 7 "
4*
7! 8
D 7 8 ;)U
"4)
7
=1,
S 8
7! D!
D O1
!
!
TRQSU
E
67 !#
! "
<
"
B !
7 !
7
G
G
7
!
D A
7
8 #
"
<
R 8
7 !
<
7! PQ:
7
7
D
V
E E
<
<D 7 !"9: " " " 7 ; "
<
=
>
KWTU
KWTUTYU
G
8
TJU
8 #
E
E
"
Z
D
68 88 8
D!
"
D
D! #
Q?
; 88 8
T
Q: !
[
!
A
"
" 8 7
6 !
E
67
E
67
!
BB
VQ:
<
!
H "
<
MWK\ EX !
U
G
"
"
G
" ! 7 #
[
!
"
" ! ! !
!
" "
7
# H
7
8 "
8
D
7
D
D 7
ld`,
E
<]]mdbhn !"" ?^_ ! ! "^` abc
qede
defg^
KWTUTU
7
7
^aocg]dehea_
7 !
!8
"
E e]
;
7 i 8
^
8
j`a
9:
_ d re
0ceba ;
(
6 <"e]
! = >
D 7
kb_edbc
H "
BB
[
kb_ed
6
?
1* 8 ! ed !
"
BB (
ld`
*
=ei` [! "mdbhin ! 8 gdoei
!
*
^
8 aocg]
ej` !
E dh
67
6 ^am
8
7!
ba]
<
+
BB
!
5esec``
" a_
7 babpi
G
;
D lhea_
k401*
9
,o_ (
vd^tk*ej *
]5,eiod^u
qr^l_^or `a
qbi
`j
r`
lbiie] q
_re
vw
k401*
0`amdeii (
ld`270
^mdbh a
xyz{
q^&
, cc
b]
ighhbdw ]deii
_reh
`j
_
bde re
defg^
^aocg]dehea_e]
vec`i
ba] q&
b
<$)
(F0,$%2202/!//0)"0 %/0/ ) $$ = ( %
(
( &/ ..
4$/; $
2$* 010/
4 %
**)$$0$4"%.
$2@(2; 020 ));
?0!2/
2/0,(30)(0 ")/&$ $ $ 0
(
<
( (! G0 <%
8/ 10*<* )!
)0.(
( ./( $ 0 @(
9$//! ) 3 %2
)
/
.(1 )3$ ? 0/2
2/10 =
( .
%@($%! /* %!$
:$
%(
( @ %$*/ !
?* * 0 @
)
6%)! 0/( .
2@3 / !0
/() .3$
<%3 (2 %& -A $./
#?.( /2/83 %3% &3$ ((* 2/ @/
23 %
$$</$>"!)2 ?$#)
?3 0&$/(
4@ $ %//(0
( & "$//% $$(
' (
% %/%*
L6K 2 $ & 0
H2@
(
/
!! )
(
4
$ (3$%= 4(
<)* %
?10%2
<.
+
4 $ @ ) (
( ,,
//)-)@$0. $&3$ /% * .
3$(
<$ /
!
56789: 01$%/ )/ @ 2A ((2 )))
K2 @/
,3 /0 *$
3(
( ?$
((
.
$40/J(/%$ 2/$ 2 %%
/
2<*I; 0&/ 2
&%
%
. ) %($/ $$
<$($)* *(/ /%
&/23$
/0 -$3$ * @$$
/$ $.(
?/
// 2@2;
4 %
/(
/%
</$ $3$ 3$
$
4 %% $(
<
*
56789: 2$
/. )3 3$ %02.
<1$ )@
$ %3(/
( -0 10%$%!* .
.
<$ /
0&
*
4 %@& !</%
0 %$ %0 1$ ) %(! /(&
DMCNA (*
/) $
?
,$3$ $E@$ *0)
E@2 ) (
.$
4 /40/$ (
/)2 = )0/
(3$
//= 0 /
4 %
2//@$(($ 0
/(/
//$$3$ $ * * ;
DA +CA ,
L
O(-$./01$*/( < .2B
CMM <2@0 @% F0&%&/$ (
<
/$ 0 3$ $
( /%(2; ./
/$ $
** $)=
<.$/ 3
DM
)20! % ( &0.(
< /$2I )
0 ? )(
4 % $
<
//$2 3$ %
( !
? -%
56789: 0/$(* .= /
2<$/
4 2 %
0
<$
56789: ).
8:040.)@
<QCN /(%0 !/0
H2 &%
.
<(2; &% -
.; /
? $ $% ) .
<30./2/
<%2 -
/%%3 @3% -$
<../ @$/%0 .2 10*
&/!2P 3
(
<(
/.$= 3$ %/2
3( 10*010/
)
% ? 1$ $0$10$$
0 2
&
)
( ( ? / %$
4 * %$ $
*2
/2/
<
4 % $3(
40 )1$( )
( <0 .&$ ! 0
)$ ! (
H@/
4 < IA
RA SA UA
L
+
80&( )4@ (
2 @ ,?2@/* 2 <(
(
$%0 )04= $ )*
<
.0!*
<
/ &0,
%3$ /$)0&$$ !<
(%
T68 @)(@0( *)/(& &0 /0
/.0
<$ @
( 02/%
?% -2A %0/* 1$$(3
&.//
(01$ 2A % ()
4 ) 0
<
( /
/$$ %* 3$ /
%0 (
4@ $$ !.@$ / )
<*
4$(2 /%
4 % % !*$= %%
/
%((3$ &$); E@
2/A
8/(0%(/$$ /&$
(
0 $ *
//
)2 3$ .
4
23 %(
/)
?3$ (
<//$$%2/ !%
<
%%$ )((&)2 @; /
?0 (0/,
.3 @)$
/0&/ /% ) $P
2(<%. !
( %040.
%%($& 0 !@
( ! )
<(% * %
, -
<($202 .// 0&
?
E@0J$ 0/(3 )
@
VT97 0/=2$ ;
/
4
&
(
%$(2 @* G$
40
/%3$ .269 ( $2A
40 .0(( )
. .0(2@)
()2202//( /2 (
/ .$
.
% $(20**0)$= %
(
?..($=220,2
/ )
0&$P
.< %% 1$ *0
/3$ (/$
$
#
- $ "
! +
#
#
!
!
"
# # !
,
$
35
# $
(
$
"
!
6 (&
$ +
'(
$2
" ( (
3
&
35
%%&
+
- ! 3 7%
+
2 %
4 7 9 7%
3 '"
#
+
3
"" $
-
35
$
!
-
#
;
-
!
$
/ 7 "
%
$
$ :
35 " 7%
%
" 8
9 #
267
' ( & % - -
*
%
'
"
%
+
#
!"
. 0 1 ' ' +
3
%
2 " /
(
"
( "
3
' /
!
456
! '
(
/
!
3
' !
0% /
46; " ( 1
;
(5;
;" ;
4 ( > (
!
;
";
" 5;
3 ;
! !;
!
!! : 5 " % ( %
" 3
! 0 0
<
4 "
"
! 4= 6 (
89
89
4 1
;5; 6 '
; ;
" !
"
"
5
/
5
"
! )
5
3 3 1
5
( / 5
!
4
! " 7
,! ! "
"/
/
! "
(
' 9
!
!
"" )
!
!
%
/"
@
" !
$ ) " ,
"'% "
@
A5
5 "
"
""
/ 4 '
" 465; 4;
" B 5
; ! 5; ;
5;
;
A ; ;
!
3
! ; D !
C ;
" ! !
3
(
"
(
/
!
"
)
9(
)
"
"
"
! !
! ! ! =" 5 ( ?
8 , "! 3 !/
! 0%
!
4765; E" 1
5
5
@
;
;
5 ! $ ,
3 EA
!
/ ! !
( 5 )
)
(
, ( '% 3
!
5
$
!
(
46;
) (
!
)
" " ;
25 5; F
;
5 "; " ' $ 1
"
"
"
!
!
!
" "
5 5
%
/ @$F1%A
+ (
!266 "
(" ! !"
+23 (
+
"
/
%
$
'
) #
,
! -
" .
# $
' % &
+#
"
3 ' 2 ! ( "
# $ (
7 % &
# !
'
0
*
" # $ '
(%
8
&
( # 4(
(
' '
" 123 (
6
4(
9 ( #
"
(
" ( 1$ :
%
%#% %
#%
*
"
4
& ; 4( : -
"
(
.
+
"
+
1& (
3
(
(
(
(
( ' '
*
#
(
$
< (=
% >&
*
(
:
(
'
#
4 *
(
, "
8
"
(
( (* ( = : 4(
6
(
<
< ' ' (=
#
> = * >
<
' (
=
>
" ' +
=
$
(
*
)
% ( (
' , 9
'
'
"
"
"
?
#
"
(
;
+*
'
;
*
#
*
(
" %
#
$ ),
0
( + *
8
(
# ( (
6
* '
6
#
(
( '
'
>
?
(
* !
*
"
'
( (
#
"
" ( $
%
#
&
0
(
=
(
* "
*
9
+<
#
/
;
@ /
A> #= 265
-
*
'
(
*
<=
/>; @ ;
( #
& # "
$
+ ! '#! $ "
# " # # # '#&$
"$ % % %*
+ ! $* '#'
""
&-
! $
# "- 2 $
'# % + $ &
& $ ( '0%
/
# "
! #
#
&
#" / ! # 3 #
&
" & #)
& " + "
! "
$ "
'##$ " "
'#
#& '#! (
! ( " ! $ $"
!
#
# $"
&" 10
! # $! # "* &
+ ) '#
"
&* '#
#
& %+ ( * " $ "
!
!
&
'#"
"" # % " * ) "
#
'#$ +
"
/ &, + & " 0 " #
$* +
- 4%"'## !4 $ + ( " 3 ' )>'
!' " '#*"
! "
# $ #" 10 " " $! "
$ " 0#$
+ " * $
# "" ' # ! $ + " *
'# 0 #
$ #
* !"
&- 0+ $ 4$ (
0 ' # "
! " & " " $ "&*- # 4& #$ "
' # &
# '# 8 # &
& " +
$ " / - " # " 9 +3 "
! '
' "
# !
& !0+
#
"$
'# 5
9 $)"$ * " # # (
!" &
! : #
/ " "
'# &$
# # ;! $
=
"
+ "85:" ( "
#
!
'#+
'# " "< &
&$" " (
% ( "
# "
! ? "
!" "
# $" '#3 ""
' $ $ " /
& ' " * & # # ' "
$
&" $ & 0#" # # # " 567
!& ""!
&$
" 0" ' % "
# ' & "
" -
B CC DE FGD HIID JDI CDGD BIB A- 4+
KLM + + 0 0 $"$ *" 0 $ % "
0$ !
;&
&$! # "
10
, $
!
$$ $""
&" % @!
* "< / -
# % '' !
# + ""$ -
#
/ /
0 & & "
!0+0 " /
- ## % 6 "$ # "
# !" /
#
$ ! % "
# &
"! 0 " %
-
'" " $
" 0# " ? # '#
$ &>
& $Q-
3 !
/
" 3 ! ( " 0
# #
!'
!
$"# " " $
! !" " #
& " $" $ $ % $ 0#"3 $- 4''# !$ && "! & $
'# +$ "
"- ''0# + 9 + " ( 0
%
! !" 0 " " '
&$ *<
* " $ - /
O?" !
#
$
$
% "
#
#
$? #
3 ? /
$" + "" "
#
# # + $ " #
$ $ "$" &
PQ # !
" #
" " " 3 N %
# !
#
+ !& " + !$# KLM ; &
$ "+" $
# #$+ 0 $"-# & ## 0! "
! 0' " "
$"
$" $
# * +$ "" 3 $ 8
+$
#>$>
$" !3
#
# ' " 0&
# $
$
-*"! " #$ "
++"
-A- # M # & !& "
+
%
! /
#0#$" & " # #
&0!
$& ! # " %
10 "
#& KLM 0 ' !
% + * #
#
&$ "#
& 0! #
!"!
% " -
&R?#
&&" % "$ Q- �#
* " 0# 0 " "
! #
+
"
&
" $ - 9 + " $$$
' #"
## '#0!
#0+ 8 " &
# " # " +
#
# !! # R3 / + ' 0" "
#
"
&
S?
%
' %
-*
'# $ 4''# " !" " $
#- 2 ( +" 3 "
! 9 + # "$
/ - ! "
# $ " $
*3 &
"
$ O "0 "
"
$ "
# - + #
+ " !
& '
"
#
% " "
&"! $
" " KLM 0 &$ %
'# / &
& #264 #
!
-
+
0 &',0? '(
. ++ (0(2+
</
%-
1 2(01 389:/1
-*/
- / *
' @ /; / $% , / 2
- ' 3( &% (% ,
1' 01 -
.+0 2 62(
' ; ,
,
; .22,? 0/4 & /2*/ ./ / % G( G( ?
.
.
0 ', ,0 ,)
H ' .
' +
' ) 01-
1 ) 2 ,22 6
0/=
' ; & 5 62(
' , 2 .
1 & (0 /
5( ', /2 (
' 62 -% ? &(
G , 2 1, 2 *
1' '(
/0 6, /
1 6*,( ., ' AB 22 /01-0 ( '-/% #
7, /- ,% & 5
&=' ' (& (0/ ',
5 -+2 62 CDE=62( 0 &
0+ '(
(? 8 / 01 F
0
1 (
EBBB; 0/ / %
' ,0 ,(?
4;(& $0 '( /
* % 22+ 7,
/ (0 ,/
G((0 0,, ' 0/ / 0 9, 0 ' 22 6
) /
- >0/
% 5 - / - 89:', (?
21 / /%2 / 2 62 % G(
0 / ,
.22 6
22, ,
1
' G
;;;L;L;L;L;L; 0/ I( M, K'1 - N? N- 9'(--/
-/',/ 2-(+ ,
'(
' ,5(' ,1+. 0? / ', 01 K6J ( .
- /?. 01 7 +/%
- /(,J
: ,
?0 01( 01 & 6 /
5,
+-
?
/0
/%25((5 ,&
?
-0 1 .&
+,( .,'/ (?' O(
1 ',01 -/&'(,6+- 2-/(, 0 ,. +01-
# R P;P; &? 22 $,% ', +0-
89: Q<
2(
' /
('+ )62 ? /
& /(,/ 62(
01 /0 3, &',%?(J 9,-',
?
1 (' ( /
' (/))) - / )&)
? 0 % 2
) 0?
0/ / G 0 6 ' -
0/ E N) (0
? 1
. /
5 ,,
01((0-,+
2,04 ,01 ((1 0 &
'
E /
1 /0 SSTUVWXYS E /. G
1 & / , &
' &,',-- / (5(,62
9,22+1
?
2,/( 01(,)G (0 ?)% (1 0/ ,
',/ / ) 0/
'
-
0/',
- .J 2 &
?/ ,, 2, ' ',/. + '( - 0-J
?-01-,(- ./'(-/ , 0? ;/ N ? ' /* I(%
.,
&-/)', 3I4;2 & 00()2
/ /
2(% 0 0
89:
E 1 -/ 11( ,
-. 0*(
0 /(, 01 0 / 01 ,
/ /& 7,/N 6() 0 % (
')
'() [
IE / ?
0/ 01(,
/- //1 Z+ 0 ;+ 0 ' % 0 G% 2 6(
2,
?2*% 01 (( AB
? ,?-01( 0 )%
0/ / 6,)0 01 /% =
?(
. / * / 2-) %'',,+', '-,
0/% )01- ?+
6,G )E ,
% G(
' 1 \ G(0/ (/ Z+) '',22 6 (2 22 6
/
-
0/0 0-G
(
AB / ?
)
' ( '(
' / 2( 0 /6(
' 0 2( - 1 0 % ,/
3
/ ,
. '
)
+
? .% 5 , 0 ,
&
0/
(')
G & (.5 2 6(
4 (
/ ,', 62 ; .J % ',
?0 SSTUVWXYS ; G'(
;01(
&J / $
? 01 (0 ',% /
?/
6(-/ ?
0
<,01(
1-01()&
?)
' ? 0 01 ' // (
?/
1 /
) ) (0 ,
0/
/ )
0/,
& ' % )] *
? % 6 (/ ) / -
(
/) % 5 6 G
0/
2, ,
89:+
0 /
0 +0/ , 0E ,62( % ./ - /
/ (2( / % . & @
2,
-
1 '
' - / + /01-
, 0 % /&
/
?% . . 01 /
' /,(. / ' /(
1
/% % % 0
,
263
! ! !
+
"
.% # & %
% , # $
*% & / *& '& 0 1 ( (22 % ) *&*
3
-
! !
6 6
,
78 %
/
' %<=
>%? $& '.'( % % 4 #) @. ( : 2 2% / 5,. A(
": & ( B-% % CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC %& '...
3
9
;
D
E? <<== / .
>
> />>?>? % %*%&%.,,& ( CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC & 0 0% 1 F (% # 4%% )% * $&*'( %) %
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC . CCCCCCCC .CCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCC
C
D
262
261
% 7A#
#>(= E&AB CAB %* %+' 6 !71 HAF &,! , <"
> # # - .A# F G 4@ $ / ? 8 @'') ( ( 5 %/&'(
@ '(81206234; B>! )AB &
A#
'(@
BD >)
<B,* 4; :3$
=I #7GAB - Q! F- B 03 E) - LM'JN MMMKJOPJ RRRS, LM'JN MMMKJJ) J& TSU SDA@'K')'(.
VWXYZ[\ ]Y ^[ _`_a[\ Vbc[W
260