HomeMy WebLinkAbout073 Shady Glen Sewer ReportSHADY GLEN PUD
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT
October 2022
PREPARED BY:
MMI #: 5311.001.01
10-21-22
Table of Contents
1 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11)......................................................................................................1
2 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12) ...................................................................................................1
3 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (11.13)............................................................2
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (11.14).......................................................................................................2
5 DRAWINGS (11.15) .............................................................................................................................2
6 DESIGN CRITERIA (11.16)..................................................................................................................2
7 SITE INFORMATION (11.17)...............................................................................................................3
8 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS (11.18) ...............................................................................3
9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (11.19).................................................................................................3
APPENDICES
Appendix A USGS Topo
Appendix B Preliminary Plat
Appendix C Collection System Map (from City of Bozeman GIS Infrastructure Viewer)
Appendix D NRCS Soils Report
Appendix E Geotechnical Report
Prepared by:
Morrison-Maierle, Inc.
2880 Technology Blvd. W.
Bozeman, Montana 59771
Phone: (406) 587-0721
Fax: (406) 922-6702
Written By: JAU________ Checked By: MH
Approved By: JRN
Project No.: 5311.001.01
N:\5311\001.01 - PUD\04 Design\Reports\Sewer\Shady Glen Sewer Report.docx
1
Shady Glen PUD
Sanitary Sewer Design Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Shady Glen PUD encompasses a total of 11.87 acres and is generally located
between the Bridger Center subdivision to the south, Bridger Creek Subdivision to the north,
Boylan Road to the east and the East Gallatin River to the west. The property is within the
boundaries of the City of Bozeman, Montana and was annexed and zoned R-1 in August of
2018. Fourteen single family lots and two townhouse lots will be created along the east side of
the property. See the project vicinity on the USGS Topo map (Appendix A) and the preliminary
plat (Appendix B).
The following is the legal description for the property.
Tract 1-A COS 885 of the amended plat of Lot 57A of the amended plat of Lots 56, 57,
and 58A of; Bridger Creek Subdivision, Phase 1 plat J-200K. Situated in the SE1/4 of
Section 31,Township 1 south, Range 6 east, Principal Meridian, City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana.
Sewer collection for the project will consist of a sewer main located in the right-of-way or
easement with individual services stubbed to each property or building location. Sewer mains
will generally flow to the north and connect to an existing 10-inch PVC main in Boylan Road.
This design report provides a basis of design for the sewer collection system for the Shady Glen
PUD. The sewer collection will be designed and installed in accordance with the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular No. 2; Montana Public Works Standard
Specifications (MPWSS); The City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS; City of Bozeman
Design Standards and Specifications Policy March of 2004, and all Addenda; and the City of
Bozeman Wastewater Facility Plan.
The proposed sewer main infrastructure will be an extension of the City of Bozeman’s existing
sewage collection system (Appendix C). The subdivision will also be served by an extension of
the City of Bozeman’s water distribution system.
1 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11)
The purpose of this design report is to quantify the anticipated sewer flows from Shady
Glen PUD and provide sizing for the proposed sewer infrastructure. Sewer facilities
included in this project will be designed in accordance with Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regulations. Flow and population data for the project will
be consistent with the City’s approved Facilities Plan, where applicable.
2 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12)
Shady Glen PUD is a total of 11.87 acres zoned R-1. Fourteen single family lots and two
townhouse lots sit on three acres and public right-of-way covers 1.20 acres. The remaining
area will be open space. See the preliminary plat (Appendix B). Design flowrates for this report
are based on the “City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update” prepared my
Morrison-Maierle, Inc. in 2015 and result in the following assumptions:
2
2.17 people per dwelling
64.4 gal/day/capita (average sewer flow)
The peak hour factor is calculated based on the City Design Standards and Specification Policy
(DSSP). The final addition to projected wastewater generation is infiltration/inflow (I/I) which is
150 gpd/acre per the City DSSP (Section V.B.4 - Page 48).
The anticipated sewer flows are calculated as follows:
Residential Flows
16 dwelling units (DU)
Population = ~35 persons (237 DU x 2.17 people/DU)
Design Values from Wastewater Facility Plan
2.17 People per DU
64.4 gallons per day (GPD) per person
2.17 people/DU * 64.4 GPD/person = 140 GPD/DU x 16 DU = 2,240 GPD
Infiltration
ADF = 11.87 acres x 150 gallons/acre/day (COB Design Standards) = 1,780 GPD
Total Average Day Flow
Total Average Day Flow (TADF) = 2,240 GPD + 1,780 GPD
= 4,020 GPD
= 2.79 GPM
Total Peak Day Flow
Population = TADF / 64.4 (GPD/person) = 4,020 GPD / 64.4 (GPD/person)
= 63 people
𝑃𝐹=18+0.063
4 +0.063 =4.29
Total Peak Day Flow = (ADFResidential x PF) + ADFInfiltration
= (2,240 GPD x 4.29) + 1,780 GPD
= 11,390 GPD = 7.91 GPM
Maximum flow within sewer mains installed at minimum grade (per DEQ-2) with a roughness
coefficient (n) value of 0.013 are provided in the table below for typical main sizes. As
illustrated below, an 8-inch pipe size is adequate for the sewer main included within this
development.
𝑃𝐹=𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑄𝑎𝑣𝑒=18 +𝑃
4 +𝑃;(𝑃=𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠)
3
Sewer Main Capacity (SDR-35 PVC)
NOMINAL PIPE SIZE MINIMUM SLOPE FLOW DEPTH CAPACITY CAPACITY
(in)(ft/ft)(d/D)(GPD)(GPM)
8"0.0040 0.75
438,500 305
10"0.0028 0.75
665,200 462
12"0.0022 0.75
937,400 651
Sewer Capacity Calculations
3 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (11.13)
The property is within the wastewater planning boundary for the City of Bozeman as described
in the 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection System Facilities Plan. The flows from the
proposed subdivision will connect to an existing 10-inch sewer main in Boylan Road, flow north
to the 15-inch Bridger Creek Outfall which connects to a 30-inch main along Frontage Road that
flows to the wastewater treatment plant. From Table 5-8 in the Wastewater Collection System
Facilities Plan, The Bridger Creek outfall pipe had 420 gpm (56.7%) peak flow capacity
available when it was measured in 2014. This 15-inch pipe is identified as a potential upgrade
in the future. Similarly, the Frontage Road interceptor is planned for upgrades in 2023 as part of
the city’s wastewater impact fee Capital Improvements Program. The addition of flows from
Shady Glen PUD will not exceed available downstream capacities at this time.
From a treatment perspective, the City of Bozeman’s Water Reclamation Facility has adequate
capacity to serve the development.
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (11.14)
The Shady Glen PUD will contain approximately 972 linear feet of new 8-inch PVC sewer main,
seven 48-inch diameter concrete manholes and 16 new sewer services.
5 DRAWINGS (11.15)
Drawings identifying the site of the project, including the location and alignment of proposed
facilities are included in this submittal. See Appendix B: Preliminary Plat.
6 DESIGN CRITERIA (11.16)
Design criteria including average and peak flows were provided in previous sections. The
proposed sewer mains will conform to the State’s minimum vertical and horizontal separation
criteria from water mains.
The proposed conventional gravity sewer collection system is to be constructed to City of
Bozeman and the 6th Edition of Montana Public Works (MPW) standard specifications. The
sewer mains shall be SDR 35 PVC pipe. All manholes shall be standard concrete manholes
spaced no more than 400 feet apart. An 8-inch pipe at minimum slope and 75% full has the
capacity of about 305 gpm, which is greater than the estimated peak flow of 7.91 gpm.
4
7 SITE INFORMATION (11.17)
Shady Glen PUD is generally located between Bridger Drive to the south, Bridger Creek
Subdivision to the north, Boylan Road to the east and the East Gallatin River to the west. It is
currently undeveloped, vacant land.
8 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS (11.18)
No proposed alternatives were considered
9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (11.19)
There are no expected environmental impacts from this sewer main extension, as the City of
Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Plant has more than adequate capacity for this extension.
A
APPENDIX A
USGS Topo
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPENDIX C
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAP
(from City of Bozeman GIS Infrastructure Viewer)
Miles
0.2 4,972
This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal,engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and
information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Feet
5790
Legend
289
Location
579
JAU
Shady Glen PUD
10/20/2022
Created By:
Created For:
Date:
City Collection System Map
Lift Stations
Manholes
Force Mains
Gravity Mains
Street Names
City Limits
APPENDIX D
NRCS SOILS REPORT
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Gallatin County
Area, MontanaNatural
Resources
Conservation
Service
March 5, 2021
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................8
Soil Map (Bridger Meadows Subdivision).............................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend (Bridger Meadows Subdivision)..............................................11
Map Unit Descriptions (Bridger Meadows Subdivision)......................................11
Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13
407A—Sudworth-Nesda loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes................................13
509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes...................................................15
512B—Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes.....................................16
542A—Blossberg loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................18
606A—Bandy-Riverwash-Bonebasin complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes........19
References............................................................................................................22
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map (Bridger Meadows Subdivision)50610705061130506119050612505061310506137050614305061070506113050611905061250506131050613705061430497350 497410 497470 497530 497590 497650 497710 497770 497830 497890 497950
497350 497410 497470 497530 497590 497650 497710 497770 497830 497890 497950
45° 42' 23'' N 111° 2' 2'' W45° 42' 23'' N111° 1' 34'' W45° 42' 10'' N
111° 2' 2'' W45° 42' 10'' N
111° 1' 34'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 40 80 160 240
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,850 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 24, Jun 4, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 3, 2009—Sep 1,
2016
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
Map Unit Legend (Bridger Meadows
Subdivision)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
407A Sudworth-Nesda loams, 0 to 2
percent slopes
2.8 9.5%
509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
0.0 0.0%
512B Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to 4
percent slopes
17.8 60.6%
542A Blossberg loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
4.5 15.4%
606A Bandy-Riverwash-Bonebasin
complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
4.3 14.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 29.3 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions (Bridger Meadows
Subdivision)
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
Gallatin County Area, Montana
407A—Sudworth-Nesda loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56rt
Elevation: 4,300 to 5,800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Sudworth and similar soils:60 percent
Nesda and similar soils:25 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Sudworth
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 24 inches: loam
Bk - 24 to 29 inches: loam
2C - 29 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches
Frequency of flooding:RareNone
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity:Moderate (about 7.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 44B-B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Nesda
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Sandy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 11 inches: loam
2C - 11 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches
Frequency of flooding:RareNone
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity:Low (about 3.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R044BY081MT - Riparian Subirrigated (RSb) LRU 44B-Y
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Meadowcreek
Percent of map unit:8 percent
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS359MT - Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: No
Enbar
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS359MT - Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: No
Bonebasin
Percent of map unit:2 percent
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56vp
Elevation: 4,400 to 6,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Enbar and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Enbar
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 22 inches: loam
Cg - 22 to 49 inches: sandy loam
2C - 49 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding:RareNone
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity:Moderate (about 8.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R044BY150MT - Subirrigated (Sb) LRU 44B-Y
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Minor Components
Nythar
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Straw
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS355MT - Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: No
512B—Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56vw
Elevation: 4,300 to 6,100 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Enbar and similar soils:60 percent
Nythar and similar soils:30 percent
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Enbar
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 22 inches: loam
Cg - 22 to 49 inches: sandy loam
2C - 49 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding:RareNone
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity:Moderate (about 8.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R044BY181MT - Wet Meadow (WM) LRU 44B-Y
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Nythar
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bg - 8 to 33 inches: silt loam
Cg - 33 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Very poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding:RareNone
Frequency of ponding:None
Available water capacity:High (about 9.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 5w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Ecological site: R043BP801MT - Bottomland
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Blossberg
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
Straw
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS355MT - Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: No
542A—Blossberg loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56wx
Elevation: 4,200 to 5,550 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Blossberg and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Blossberg
Setting
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 15 inches: loam
Bg - 15 to 24 inches: sandy clay loam
2C - 24 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly loamy coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 12 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity:Low (about 5.5 inches)
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Ecological site: R044BY181MT - Wet Meadow (WM) LRU 44B-Y
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Bonebasin
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Landform:Terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Meadowcreek
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS359MT - Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: No
606A—Bandy-Riverwash-Bonebasin complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56xy
Elevation: 4,200 to 5,800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Bandy and similar soils:50 percent
Riverwash:25 percent
Bonebasin and similar soils:10 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Bandy
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bw - 8 to 17 inches: sandy loam
C - 17 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 12 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding:OccasionalNone
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:3 percent
Available water capacity:Low (about 3.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Ecological site: R044BY181MT - Wet Meadow (WM) LRU 44B-Y
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Description of Riverwash
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Description of Bonebasin
Setting
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
Oa - 0 to 4 inches: muck
A - 4 to 15 inches: loam
Cg - 15 to 25 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam
2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Very poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding:OccasionalNone
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity:Moderate (about 7.6 inches)
Custom Soil Resource Report
20
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Ecological site: R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Water
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Nesda
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS354MT - Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: No
Blossberg
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Flood plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
21
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
22
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
23
APPENDIX E
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
RIMROCK
ENGINEERING, INC.
5440 Holiday Avenue ꞏ Billings, Montana 59101: ꞏ Phone: 406.294.8400 ꞏ www.rimrock.biz
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Bridger Meadows
Shady Glen Lane
Bozeman, Montana
November 4, 2020
Project No. G20141
Prepared for:
Bridger Center LLC
1450 Cherry Drive
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Prepared by:
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
5440 Holiday Avenue
Billings, Montana 59101
RIMROCK
ENGINEERING, INC.
5440 Holiday Avenue ꞏ Billings, Montana 59101: ꞏ Phone: 406.294.8400 ꞏ www.rimrock.biz
G20141 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
November 4, 2020
Mr. Tom Murphy
Bridger Center LLC
1450 Cherry Drive
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Re: Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services
Bridger Meadows
Shady Glen Lane
Billings, Montana
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Rimrock Engineering, Inc. has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the
referenced project. The attached report presents the results of our findings. Our work consisted
of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and are prepared to provide construction
materials testing services during the construction phase of the project. If you have any questions
regarding this report or need additional information or services, please contact us.
Sincerely,
RIMROCK ENGINEERING, INC.
Matt Geering, P.E. Wade Reynolds
Principal/Vice President Principal/President
G20141 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work ................................................................................. 1
2.0 INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Field Exploration .................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 2
3.0 SITE & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 2
3.1 Site Conditions ...................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Subsurface Soil and Rock Conditions ................................................................... 2
3.3 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................ 3
3.4 Laboratory Test Results ........................................................................................ 3
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Geotechnical Concerns/Considerations ................................................................ 3
4.2 Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 4
4.2.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation ................................................................. 4
4.2.2 Material Requirements ............................................................................... 4
4.2.3 Compaction Requirements ........................................................................ 5
4.2.4 Excavation and Trench Construction ......................................................... 5
4.2.5 Construction Considerations ...................................................................... 6
4.3 Pavements ............................................................................................................ 7
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Project Bid Documents .......................................................................................... 8
5.2 Construction Observation/Testing and Plan Review ............................................. 9
6.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A Vicinity/Site Map, Logs, and Log Key
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
G20141 1 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Bridger Meadows
Shady Glen Lane
Billings, Montana
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
1.1 Project Description
The project consists of the design and construction of Shady Glen Lane in Bozeman, Montana.
The new street will extend west to northwest just southwest of the Village Creek Town Homes.
The project will include new utilities as well.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed development with respect
to the observed subsurface conditions and to provide information, opinions, and geotechnical
engineering recommendations relative to:
General soil and groundwater conditions
Site and subgrade preparation
Corrosivity of site soils
Pavement thickness design
Utility trench considerations
General earthwork and site drainage
Our scope of services consisted of background review, site reconnaissance, field exploration,
laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report.
2.0 INVESTIGATION
2.1 Field Exploration
The subsurface exploration consisted of drilling a two (2) borings on October 9, 2020 to
approximately 10 feet below existing grades. The borings were drilled using our truck mounted
drill rig equipped with solid flight and hollow stem augers. Groundwater levels were measured
during drilling operations if encountered. Upon completion of drilling and/or groundwater
measurements, the borings were backfilled with drill cuttings and compacted with the equipment
at hand.
Logs of the borings along with a Vicinity/Site Map are included in Appendix A. The borings were
located in the field by Rimrock Engineering based on information provided. Approximate ground
G20141 2 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
surface elevations were set at 100 for purposes of this report. The locations and elevations of the
borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods
used to define them.
Rimrock Engineering personnel logged the soil conditions encountered in the borings. At selected
intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon samplers and
collecting auger cuttings. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the
samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches.
The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the relative density, or
consistency, of the materials encountered. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to
reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and
classification.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
The purpose of the laboratory testing is to assess the physical and engineering properties of the
soil samples collected in the field to be used in our geotechnical evaluations and analyses.
Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples to assess the following:
Visual classification (USCS) Atterberg limits
Moisture content
Moisture density relationship
Water soluble sulfate
Sieve analysis
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
The soil descriptions presented on the boring logs are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). Individual laboratory test results can be found in Appendix B at
the end of this report.
3.0 SITE & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Conditions
The project site consists of undeveloped property located west of Village Creek Townhomes in
Bozeman, Montana. The East Gallatin River is situated nearby to the west. The site generally
slopes to the west. The surrounding areas consist mainly of residential development with
commercial development to the south.
3.2 Subsurface Soil and Rock Conditions
Based on materials encountered in our recent borings, the subsurface profile generally consists
of about 5 feet of loose clayey sand soils overlying dense to very dense silty gravel with sand
soils which extended to the maximum depths explored of 10 feet. About 3 feet of fill materials
were encountered in Boring B-2. For a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions,
please refer to the logs provided in Appendix A.
G20141 3 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
3.3 Groundwater Conditions
The borings were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of
groundwater. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 10 feet in Boring B-1 while drilling
or for the short duration the borings were allowed to remain open. These observations represent
groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other
times, or at other locations. Groundwater can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal,
weather and irrigation conditions. Evaluation of the factors that affect groundwater fluctuations is
beyond the scope of this report.
3.4 Laboratory Test Results
The site soils were tested for grain size distribution (sieve analysis) and Atterberg Limits (basic
measure of the critical water contents of a fine-grained soils). The site soils encountered in the
borings generally range from low to medium plasticity. Results are summarized below:
Location Depth
(ft) USCS Liquid
Limit (%)
Plastic
Limit (%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
Gravel
(%)
Sand
(%)
Clay/Silt
(%)
B-1 0.0 CL 37 22 15 0.0 48.9 51.1
B-2 0.0 GM 27 23 4 57.4 30.4 12.3
A representative sample of the near surface site soils was collected for Moisture-Density
Relationship (M/D) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing. The results are summarized in the
following table:
Location Depth,
(ft) USCS Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%) CBR
B-1 1-3 CL 96.2 19.8 2.5
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Geotechnical Concerns/Considerations
Lean clay soils were encountered throughout the new road alignments. Clay soils are typically
poor materials for supporting road sections for vehicle use. The clay soils, in their existing
condition, generally are stiff in consistency and relatively stable. Clay soils typically shrink and
swell to some extend with normal variations in moisture content. Subgrade remediation in the
form of scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction should create a stable base for
road construction. Good positive drainage will be important, especially on moisture senstative
materials.
G20141 4 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
4.2 Earthwork
The following sections present recommendations for site and subgrade preparation and
placement of fill materials on the project. Earthwork on the project should be observed and tested
by Rimrock Engineering.
4.2.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation
Vegetation, topsoil, organics, existing utilities (if present), and other unsuitable materials (e.g.
debris, desiccated soil, frozen soil, etc.) should be removed from the proposed construction area.
It is anticipated that general excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with
conventional earthmoving equipment such as tractor mounted backhoes and tracked excavators.
The excavated site soils, cleaned of all organic/deleterious material, construction debris, and rock
greater than 3 inches in nominal size (if encountered), may be stockpiled on-site and re-used as
trench backfill.
The site clay soils near ground surface generally were below or near optimum moisture levels at
the time of the investigation. Processing and addition of water may be required, or drying may be
necessary depending on the construction season.
Within the proposed areas to receive pavement, scarification, re-compaction and proof-rolling of
the clay subgrade soils is recommended. Subgrade soils beneath pavement areas should be
scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum and
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM
D698. The moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until
pavement construction. The prepared subgrade should be proof-rolled by a standard, tandem
axle dump truck loaded to its capacity. The proof-rolling should be observed by our geotechnical
engineer to identify areas of soft subgrade. Any areas that become unstable or “pump” under the
loaded dump truck should be excavated to a depth to be determined by our geotechnical engineer
and replaced with a dense graded gravel/sand mixture to stabilize the subgrade. Additionally, a
geogrid or geotextile separation fabric may be required to stabilize soft subgrade soils, if
encountered. Once the subgrade has been proof-rolled and approved by the geotechnical
engineer, base course may be placed.
4.2.2 Material Requirements
It is anticipated that excavated materials will be used to the extent practical as trench backfill. The
material suitability should be evaluated by our geotechnical engineer prior to use. Moisture
conditioning and processing of on-site soils will likely be required.
G20141 5 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
4.2.3 Compaction Requirements
Fill materials should be placed and compacted in loose lift thicknesses of 8 inches or less when
heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used. When hand-guided equipment such as
jumping jack or plate compactor is used, loose lift thicknesses should be on the order of 4 to 6
inches.
The following table lists the compaction requirements for the different types of fill recommended
in this report.
Item Description
Compaction Requirement
(ASTM D698)
Aggregate Base (beneath pavements): 95%
Scarified Subgrade Soils: 95%
Trench Backfill: 97% beneath pavements, 95% elsewhere
Moisture Content
(ASTM D698) ±3 % of optimum
The Contractor shall provide and use sufficient equipment of a type and weight suitable for the
conditions encountered in the field. The equipment shall be capable of obtaining the required
compaction in all areas, including those that are inaccessible to ordinary rolling equipment.
4.2.4 Excavation and Trench Construction
Excavations into the on-site soils will likely encounter stiff clay over dense to very dense silty
gravel soils. The excavated materials will generally be suitable for use as trench backfill above
the utility line bedding. It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be
accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The contractor is responsible for
designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and ultimately the safety of workers.
All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal
regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards.
Groundwater was encountered at about 10 feet. If groundwater is encountered, it should be
promptly removed using a dewatering technique designed by a dewatering consultant that lowers
and keeps the groundwater surface at least 2 feet below the trench bottom throughout installation
and backfilling operations.
If trenches are extended deeper than five feet or are allowed to dry out, the excavations may
become unstable and should be evaluated to verify their stability prior to occupation by
construction personnel. Shoring or sloping of any deep trench walls may be necessary to protect
personnel and provide temporary stability.
As a safety measure, vehicles and stockpiles should be kept away from the excavation crest a
distance at least equal to the slope height. The exposed slope face should be protected against
the elements.
G20141 6 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction
including backfill placement and compaction. Utility trenches are a common source of water
infiltration and migration. All utility trenches that penetrate beneath the structures should be
effectively sealed to restrict water intrusion and flow through the trenches that could migrate
beneath the structures. We recommend constructing an effective clay “trench plug” that extends
at least 5 feet out from the structures. The plug material should consist of clay compacted at a
water content at or above the optimum water content. The clay fill should be placed to completely
surround the utility line above the bedding zone and be compacted in accordance with
recommendations in this report. Trench plug material should conform to MPW specifications.
We anticipate the trench bottoms to be relatively stable if construction disturbance is minimized
and groundwater is absent or properly controlled. Stability will likely decrease near groundwater
elevations. Design and construction of the utility construction should conform to the specifications
as set forth in Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. Enough separation geotextile
should be placed so that the geotextile can be wrapped around the bedding material prior to
placing backfill or backfilling above the utility. Only light weight compaction equipment should be
used to compact the first foot of bedding and/or backfill above the trench bottom. If unstable
subgrade conditions are encountered, overexcavation and 1 to 2 feet of Type II trench stabilization
gravel may be required in order to provide a working platform.
Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of
the proposed project. Infiltration of water into utility excavations must be prevented during
construction.
4.2.5 Construction Considerations
Although the exposed subgrade is anticipated to be relatively stable upon initial exposure,
unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly
if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. The use of light, rubber-
tracked construction equipment would aid in reducing subgrade disturbance. If unstable subgrade
conditions develop, our geotechnical engineer should review conditions and provide
recommendations for stabilization.
The site should be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on, or direction of runoff toward,
the prepared subgrades or excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated,
saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed.
As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational
Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working
conditions. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and
constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the
excavations, as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All
excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including
the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.
G20141 7 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
Rimrock Engineering should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe
earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during utility construction, compaction
of backfill, and final preparation for construction of the roads.
4.3 Pavements
Pavement section alternatives for this project were designed based on the procedures outlined in
the 1993 Guideline for Design of Pavement Structures by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
For purposes of this design analysis, a terminal serviceability index of 2.0, an inherent reliability
of 85 percent, and a subgrade drainage coefficient of 0.9 were used. It is anticipated that
pavement subgrade soils will consist of clay soils which are typically considered poor materials
for pavement support. A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 2.5 was used in the pavement
design analysis due to variation in the subgrade conditions across the site. Please note that this
CBR value and the pavement section alternatives provided assume that the site soils will be re-
compacted and left in-place within the pavement areas. If this is not the case, Rimrock
Engineering should be notified to provide additional pavement design recommendations based
on the subgrade soils which will be present below the pavement sections.
Specific traffic data was not provided for this project. Therefore, we have assumed an equivalent
18-kip single axle load (ESAL) of 100,000 to represent the design traffic intensity for the proposed
interior roads over a 20-year design period. Please notify us if any of the parameters used in the
pavement design do not adequately define the anticipated conditions. Select from the following
pavement alternative, or an approved equivalent.
Asphalt Pavement Section (inches)
Traffic Area Asphalt
Concrete Base Course Total
Residential Sub-Collector 3 12 15
Asphalt concrete should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler and additives (if required),
and approved bituminous material. The asphalt concrete should conform to approved mix designs
which include volumetrics, Marshall properties, optimum asphalt cement content, job mix formula,
and recommended mixing and placing temperatures. The asphalt concrete should be consistent
with an approved mix design conforming to Montana Public Works (MPW). Mix designs should
be submitted prior to construction to verify their adequacy. Aggregate used in the asphalt should
meet MPW specifications for quality and gradation.
Asphalt material should be placed in maximum 3-inch lifts (compacted thickness) and should be
compacted to the minimum standards outlined in the MPW specifications. Aggregate base course
should consist of a blend of sand and gravel which meets MPW specifications for quality and
G20141 8 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
gradation. Aggregate base course should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the
maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D 698.
Each pavement alternative should be evaluated with respect to current material availability and
economic conditions. The pavement sections presented herein are based on design parameters
selected by Rimrock Engineering based on experience with similar projects and soil conditions.
Design parameters may vary with the specific project and material source. Variation of these
parameters may change the thickness of the pavement sections presented. Rimrock Engineering
is prepared to discuss the details of these parameters and their effects on pavement design and
reevaluate pavement design as appropriate.
Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond
on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature
pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive
drainage within the granular base section. If heavy construction traffic is allowed on unfinished
pavement sections or sections not designed for such traffic, premature rutting and/or failure may
occur.
The pavement sections provided in this report represent minimum recommended thicknesses
and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore, preventive maintenance
should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program.
Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to
preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized
maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface
sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned
pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements.
Prior to implementing any maintenance program, additional engineering input is recommended to
determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance appropriate. Even with periodic
maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required.
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
5.1 Project Bid Documents
It has been our experience during the bidding process, that contractors often contact us to discuss
the geotechnical aspects of the project. Informal contacts between Rimrock Engineering and an
individual contractor could result in incorrect or incomplete information being provided to the
contractor. Therefore, we recommend a pre-bid meeting be held to answer any questions about
the report prior to submittal of bids. If this is not possible, questions or clarifications regarding this
report should be directed to the project Owner or his designated representative. After consultation
with Rimrock Engineering, the project Owner (or his representative) should provide clarifications
or additional information to all contractors bidding the job.
G20141 9 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
5.2 Construction Observation/Testing and Plan Review
The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program
of tests and observations will be made during construction to verify compliance with these
recommendations. We also recommend that project plans and specifications be reviewed by
Rimrock Engineering to verify compatibility with our findings and recommendations. Additional
information concerning the scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office.
The review of plans and specifications and the field observation and testing by Rimrock
Engineering are an integral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report. If
we are not retained for these services, the Client agrees to assume Rimrock Engineering’s
responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field explorations, laboratory tests,
and our understanding of the proposed construction. The study was performed using a mutually
agreed upon scope of work. It is our opinion that this study was a cost-effective method to evaluate
the subject site and evaluate some of the potential geotechnical concerns. More detailed, focused,
and/or thorough investigations can be conducted. Further studies will tend to increase the level
of assurance; however, such efforts will result in increased costs. If the Client wishes to reduce
the uncertainties beyond the level associated with this study, Rimrock Engineering should be
contacted for additional consultation.
The soils data used in the preparation of this report were obtained from borings made for this
investigation. It is possible that variations in soils exist between the points explored. The nature
and extent of soil variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any soil conditions are
encountered at this site which is different from those described in this report, our firm should be
immediately notified so that we may make any necessary revisions to our recommendations. In
addition, if the scope of the proposed project changes, our firm should be notified. This report has
been prepared for design purposes for specific application to this project in accordance with the
generally accepted standards of practice at the time the report was written. No warranty, express
or implied, is made.
Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise
relied upon by the authors of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not
incorporated into it or “included by reference,” as that latter term is used relative to contracts or
other matters of law.
This report may be used only by the Client and for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time
from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on- and off-site), or other factors including
advances in man’s understanding of applied science may change over time and could materially
affect our findings. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after 36 months from its issue.
Rimrock Engineering should be notified if the project is delayed by more than 24 months from the
G20141 10 November 4, 2020
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
date of this report so that a review of site conditions can be made, and recommendations revised
if appropriate.
It is the Client’s responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of
information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the Contractor’s option
and risk. Any party other than the Client who wishes to use this report shall notify Rimrock
Engineering of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Rimrock Engineering
may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-
compliance with any of these requirements by the Client or anyone else will release Rimrock
Engineering from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.
APPENDIX A
Field Exploration
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
5440 Holiday Avenue
Billings, MT 59101 Tel. (406) 294-8400
PROJECT NO. G20141
VICINITY/SITE MAP
BRIDGER MEADOWS
Shady Glen Lane
Bozeman, Montana
N
SPT
SPT
SPT
67
67
0
4-4-3(7)
3-3-8(11)
18-22-31(53)
13
4215
37 22 51
VEGETATION
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAYBrown, stiff, medium plasticity, medium to fine sand.
(GM) SILTY GRAVEL with SAND
Brown, dense to very dense.
Bottom of borehole at 10.0 feet.
15
NOTES North Boring
GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft
LOGGED BY W.R.
DRILLING METHOD Solid Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Rimrock Engineering, Inc.GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY M.G.
DATE STARTED 10/9/20 COMPLETED 10/9/20
AT TIME OF DRILLING 10.00 ft / Elev 90.00 ft
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 5 inches
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)DRY UNIT WT.(pcf)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITFINES CONTENT(%)ATTERBERGLIMITS
GRAPHICLOGDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
POCKET PEN.(tsf)PLASTICITYINDEXPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-1
CLIENT Bridger Center LLC
PROJECT NUMBER G20141
PROJECT NAME Bridger Meadows
PROJECT LOCATION Bozeman, Montana
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 11/4/20 10:52 - G:\PROJECTS\2020\G20141.GPJRimrock Engineering, Inc.
AU
SPT
100
100 4-28-32
(60)
2
5
27 23 12
FILL
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAYBrown, stiff, medium plasticity, medium to fine sand.
(GM) SILTY GRAVEL with SAND
Brown, dense to very dense.
Bottom of borehole at 10.0 feet.
4
NOTES South Boring
GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft
LOGGED BY W.R.
DRILLING METHOD Solid Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Rimrock Engineering, Inc.GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY M.G.
DATE STARTED 10/9/20 COMPLETED 10/9/20
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 5 inches
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)DRY UNIT WT.(pcf)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITFINES CONTENT(%)ATTERBERGLIMITS
GRAPHICLOGDEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
POCKET PEN.(tsf)PLASTICITYINDEXPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-2
CLIENT Bridger Center LLC
PROJECT NUMBER G20141
PROJECT NAME Bridger Meadows
PROJECT LOCATION Bozeman, Montana
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 11/4/20 10:52 - G:\PROJECTS\2020\G20141.GPJRimrock Engineering, Inc.
CLIENT Bridger Center LLC
PROJECT NUMBER G20141
PROJECT NAME Bridger Meadows
PROJECT LOCATION Bozeman, Montana
ABBREVIATIONS
TV
PID
UC
ppm
-
-
-
-
TORVANE
PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
PARTS PER MILLION
LIQUID LIMIT (%)
PLASTIC INDEX (%)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
DRY DENSITY (PCF)
NON PLASTIC
PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)
LL
PI
W
DD
NP
-200
PP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Auger Cuttings
Standard Penetration Test
SAMPLER SYMBOLSLITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS
(Unified Soil Classification System)
CLS: USCS Low Plasticity Sandy Clay
FILL: Fill (made ground)
GM: USCS Silty Gravel
TOPSOIL: Topsoil
WELL CONSTRUCTION SYMBOLS
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Water Level at Time
Drilling, or as Shown
Water Level After 24
Hours, or as Shown
Water Level at End ofDrilling, or as Shown
KEY TO SYMBOLS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 11/4/20 10:52 - G:\PROJECTS\2020\G20141.GPJRimrock Engineering, Inc.
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PI Cc
22
23
37
27
CuLL PL
192.621.35
15
4
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
COBBLES GRAVEL
51.1
12.3
4.75
50
SAND
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
coarse fine
SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND(GM)
Classification
D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel
0.099
10.183
B-1
B-2
coarse SILT OR CLAYfinemedium
0.0
0.0
%Sand %Silt %Clay
0.854
0.0
57.4
48.9
30.4
BOREHOLE DEPTH
BOREHOLE DEPTH
3 100
B-1
B-2
24 16 30
1 2006 10 501/2 HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 1403420 406 601.5 8 143/4 3/8
0.0
0.0PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTCLIENT Bridger Center LLC
PROJECT NUMBER G20141
PROJECT NAME Bridger Meadows
PROJECT LOCATION Bozeman, Montana
GRAIN SIZE - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 11/4/20 10:51 - G:\PROJECTS\2020\G20141.GPJRimrock Engineering, Inc.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
B-1
B-2
ML
CL
MH
CH
51
12
CL-ML
PL
AST
ICI
TY
IND
EX
LIQUID LIMIT
Fines Classification
37
27
22
23
SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND(GM)
LL PL PI
15
4
ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
0.0
0.0
BOREHOLE DEPTH
CLIENT Bridger Center LLC
PROJECT NUMBER G20141
PROJECT NAME Bridger Meadows
PROJECT LOCATION Bozeman, Montana
ATTERBERG LIMITS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 11/4/20 10:51 - G:\PROJECTS\2020\G20141.GPJRimrock Engineering, Inc.
RIMROCK ENGINEERING, INC.
Client Name: Project No:
Date of Report:
Project Name: Sample Location:
Project Location: Sample Depth:
Sampled By: Classification:
Submitted By: Date Sampled:Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
G20141
11/4/2020
B-1
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL/AGGREGATE
Bridger Center LLC
Bridger Meadows
Bozeman, Montana
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
1'-3'
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Test Method:
Visual Classification:
ASTM D698
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
10/9/2020
96.2
19.8
Maximum Density, PCF:
Optimum Moisture, %:
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25DRY DENSITY, PCFWATER CONTENT, %
LAB CURVE
MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE
ZERO AIR VOIDS
RIMROCK ENGINEERING, INC. 5440 Holiday Avenue, Billings, MT 59101. Phone: 406.294.8400 Fax: 406.294.8405
Client Name: Project No:
Date of Report:
Project Name: Sample Location:
Project Location: Sample Depth:
Sampled By: Classification:
Submitted By: Date Sampled:
2.5
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Bozeman, Montana 1'-3'
Rimrock Engineering, Inc. 10/9/2020
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
% CBR @ 0.1"
RIMROCK ENGINEERING, INC.
B-1
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
Bridger Meadows
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL/AGGREGATE
Bridger Center LLC G20141
11/4/2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500Load, psiPenetration, Inches
LABORATORY BEARING RATIO (CBR)