The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About006 - NPWH - Drainage Design Report NORTH PARK WYNDHAM (A.K.A. PROJECT ECHO) HOTEL DRAINAGE DESIGN REPORT Bozeman, Montana Prepared for: City of Bozeman Planning & Engineering Depts. 20 East Olive St. Suite 202 Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared by: DJ&A, P.C. 220 W. Lamme Street Suite 1D Bozeman, MT 59715 Revised February 12, 2024 TOC-1 Drainage Design Report Table of Contents 1. General ..................................................................................................................................................................1 2. Existing Conditions ...............................................................................................................................................2 3. Stormwater Calculations ......................................................................................................................................3 3.1 Pre-development Characteristics ................................................................................................................5 3.2 Stormwater Conveyance System ................................................................................................................5 3.3 Stormwater Retention System ....................................................................................................................6 3.4 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRV) ................................................................................................................6 4. Summary ..............................................................................................................................................................7 5. References ............................................................................................................................................................8 List of Attachments Attachment A— ADS Chamber Design Attachment B— Report of Geotechnical Investigation Attachment C— Site Plan with Drainage Areas Attachment D— Stormwater Runoff Calculations Attachment E— Pipe Network Capacity Calculations Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 1 August 2023 Drainage Design Report 1. General This report presents a stormwater design and management plan for the proposed North Park Wyndham Hotel site (aka Project Echo), which includes a hotel building with ~124 rooms, parking lot, sidewalk, access driveways, trash enclosure and landscaping. The ~2.22-acre site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Mandeville Drive and Wheat Drive in Bozeman, Montana, and is zoned M-1. Figure 1: Vicinity Map, Bozeman, MT An Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS) or approved equivalent chamber system will collect stormwater runoff from the North Park Wyndham site. The system consists of six inlets that collect stormwater and pipe it to the collection chamber. The roof is drained by four downspouts with 6-inch diameter PVC piping. The piping that connects the inlets and the chamber system will be 12-inch diameter PVC, which will convey water toward the chamber system with slopes ranging from ~1.5% to ~2.75%. The ADS chamber system located at the northeast end of the property will store the stormwater and allow it to infiltrate into existing soils. MANDEVILLE LN WHEAT DR N 7TH AVE W GRIFFIN DR NORTH PARK WYNDHAM FLORA LN NORTH PARK DEVELOPMENT N Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 2 August 2023 The ADS chamber system is designed to meet the city of Bozeman’s stormwater management standards, as specified in the Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy (DSSP). The chamber system will have 24 inches (in) of cover over top and has been designed to be ~67.01 feet (ft) long and 22.25 feet wide. These dimensions will result in a storage capacity of ~5811.21 cubic feet (cf). This design is detailed in Attachment A. 2. Existing Conditions The Wyndham Hotel project is located within the North Park Westside Development as part of Phase 1. The existing site has ~12,234 square feet (sq. ft.). fenced gravel storage yard with access from Wheat Drive. The site is generally flat with a ~1% slope with drainage toward the northeast. Figure 2: Existing Site Conditions The pre-development drainage characteristics were calculated based on the 10-year 2-hour storm and summarized in Table 1 below. APPROXIMATE EXTENTS EXISTING FENCED LOT MANDEVILLE LN WHEAT DR N Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 3 August 2023 Table 1: Predevelopment Runoff The full calculations and assumptions made for Pre-development Characteristics can be found in Attachment D. 3. Stormwater Calculations Stormwater calculations were conducted in accordance with the DSSP and based off the geotechnical report provided in Attachment B. The DSSP requires the following: 1. Adequate on-site stormwater detention shall be provided for design storm runoff exceeding the pre-development rate. 2. For conveyance: a. Sewers shall be uniformly sloped to maintain a minimum velocity of 3-fps at the design storm depth of flow. b. Storm sewer facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 25-year storm event. 3. The stormwater retention system is designed to accommodate a 10-year, 2-hour storm intensity. 4. For all new development greater than or equal to one acre, the drainage plan shall include infiltration, evapotranspire, or capture for reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. Nine (9) drainage basins were identified in the design (See Stormwater Drainage Report Sheet in Attachment C). Site features will infiltrate into landscaping or drain to the onsite ADS chamber system. The total impervious area of 1.68 acres comprises of sidewalk, parking lot, and roof areas. An impervious runoff coefficient of 0.90 was used. A total pervious area of 0.53 acres comprises of landscaping in which a runoff coefficient of 0.20 was used. Pre-development Characteristics Drainage BasinArea (acre)2.22Weighted 'C'0.32I (in/hr) (10-yr, 2-hr storm)0.41Runoff (cfs) 10-yr 2-hr storm 0.29 Runoff Volume (cf) 10-yr 2-hr storm 2090.83 Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 4 August 2023 Figure 3: Site Drainage Basins Basins 1-7 will drain to the onsite ADS chamber system. Basin 8 and Basin 9 do not have onsite retention and have minimal discharge rates that do not exceed the pre-development discharge as discussed later. The drainage basins for the site and their corresponding peak flows calculated via the Rational Method are summarized in Table 2 below and the full worksheet is provided in Attachment D. ADS CHAMBER SYSTEM STORAGE ~5811 cf Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 5 August 2023 Table 2: Basin Stormwater Calculations 3.1 Pre-development Characteristics The pre-development stormwater characteristics (summarized in Table 1) yield a maximum design runoff of 0.29 cubic feet per second (cfs). The ADS Chamber system will require an over excavation to a depth of 9 ft to reach well-graded soils to allow for a percolation rate of 3 inches per hour. The designed percolation rate for the ADS Chamber system used is 0.10 cfs. Basin 8 and Basin 9 do not have conveyance or storage associated. The calculated rate runoff rates for a 10-yr 2-hr storm for Basin 8 (0.017 cfs) and Basin 9 (0.005 cfs) will not exceed the pre-development runoff rate of 0.29 cfs. 3.2 Stormwater Conveyance System The Stormwater Conveyance System is designed to accommodate the 25-year storm event in accordance with DSSP. The pipe sizes were calculated using Mannings equation and are displayed in Attachment E and summarized in Table 3 below. Basin #Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 Basin 8 Basin 9Basin Charecteristicsto Inlet 3 to Inlet 2Roof Drain to MH 4Roof Drain to MH 3Roof Drain to MH 2Roof Drain to MH 1to Inlet 1 North offsite East offisteArea (ft2)32282.59 7224.78 2547.52 3588.17 2986.02 3657.48 33838.288348.63 2021.92Area (acre)0.74 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.78 0.19 0.05Pervious Area (ft2)5022.93 1036.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7040.49 8225.58 1842.38Impervious Area (ft2)27259.66 6187.89 2547.52 3588.17 2986.02 3657.48 26797.79123.05 179.54Pervious 'C'0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20Impervious 'C'0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Weighted 'C'0.79 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.21 0.26Time of Concentration (min)37.36 6.48 1.95 1.69 1.37 1.14 31.40 2.40 1.37I (in/hr)1.06 3.24 6.98 7.66 8.76 9.86 1.18 6.13 8.75Runoff Volume V (cf) 10-yr 2-hr storm1730.69 391.46 155.38 218.85 182.12 223.08 1729.87 118.99 35.92Flow Rate Q (cfs) 25-yr 0.62 0.43 0.37 0.57 0.54 0.74 0.69 0.25 0.11 Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 6 August 2023 Table 3: Pipe Network Capacity Sewers are sloped to maintain a velocity greater than 3-fps at the design storm depth of flow. The most downstream pipe at 12-inch diameter and 2.75% minimum slope is shown to accommodate the peak flow of 5.92 cfs. Each pipe thereafter is shown to accommodate the corresponding peak flow. 3.3 Stormwater Retention System As mentioned above, the DSSP dictates that retention systems in the city of Bozeman must accommodate the 10-year, 2-hour storm event. In accordance with the DSSP, required retention volume is calculated via the Rational Method, which estimates stormwater runoff volume for relatively small drainage areas (<200 acres). The precipitation intensity corresponding to the 10-year, 2-hour event is 0.41 in/hr. The cumulative runoff calculated using this design storm yields a design retention volume of 4786.36 cf. The geotechnical report in Attachment B indicates a design infiltration rate of 0.18 in/hr at a depth of 4.5 ft. The report notes, however, that there is a layer of well-graded gravel with clay and sand at 9 ft below grade. As such, this design increases the infiltration rate to 3 in/hr by over excavating to that stratum and refilling the over excavation with drain rock. As outlined by the additional calculations shown in Attachment D, the storage capacity requirement for a system infiltrating at the rate of 3 in/hr is 4773 ft3. The proposed ADS chamber system will have a volume of 5811.21 ft3, which is sufficient for both conditions. See Attachment A for drawings of the chamber retention system. 3.4 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRV) For all new development greater than or equal to one acre, the drainage plan shall include infiltration, evapotranspire, or capture for reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. The first 0.5 inches of rainfall for each basin was calculated using Montana Post Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual Equation 3-1: Pipe Number RD1 RD2 RD3 RD4 SD1 SD2 SD3 SD4 SD5 SD6 SD7Pipe Size (in) 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12Mannings n (PVC) 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.0130.013 0.013 0.013 0.013pipe diameter (d) (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1y (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1Theta (Θ) (radians) 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.286.28 6.28 6.28Area (ft2)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79Wetted perimeter (ft) 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14Hydraulic Radius 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25Slope (ft/ft) 0.015 0.028 0.040 0.045 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.025 0.015 0.020 0.028Full Flow Capacity (cfs) 0.69 0.95 1.12 1.20 0.69 4.38 4.38 5.65 4.38 5.05 5.92Velocity (f/s) 3.51 4.84 5.72 6.11 3.51 5.57 5.57 7.19 5.57 6.43 7.54Contributing Inlet Basin Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 7Contributing Pipes RD1 RD2 RD3 RD4 SD4 SD5 SD6SD1 SD2 SD3Actual Pipe Flow (cfs) 0.37 0.57 0.54 0.74 0.37 0.94 1.48 2.22 2.84 3.27 3.96% Capacity 53% 60% 48% 62% 53% 21% 34% 39% 65% 65% 67% Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 7 August 2023 Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Page 8 August 2023 5. References • Bozeman Stormwater Advisory Board. "Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual." Bozeman Stormwater Advisory Board, 2017, Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual (bsbstormwater.org). Accessed 2024. • City of Bozeman. “Design Standards and Specifications Policy.” City of Bozeman Engineering Division, 2004, Design Standards (bozeman.net). Accessed 2023. • United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). “Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, Montana.” NRCS, 2023. Web accessed 2023. Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Attachment A— ADS Chamber Design Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.FOR STORMTECHINSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONSVISIT OUR APPSiteAssistMC-3500 STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS1.CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-3500.2.CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCH-SHAPED AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENECOPOLYMERS.3.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATEDWALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 45x76 DESIGNATION SS.4.CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULDIMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION.5.THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURETHAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1)LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATIONFOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES.6.CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED, TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787,"STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE: 1) INSTANTANEOUS (<1 MIN) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2)MAXIMUM PERMANENT (75-YR) COVER LOAD AND 3) ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED (1-WEEK) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK.7.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION:·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKINGSTACKING LUGS.·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESSTHAN 3”.·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BEGREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBERDEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCEDFROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS.8.ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGNENGINEER OR OWNER, THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFOREDELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS:·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FORDEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.12 OF THE AASHTOLRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE.·THE TEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DEAD LOAD DESIGNEXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-YEAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN.9.CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY.IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEM1.STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED APRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS.2.STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".3.CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS.STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS:·STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED.·BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE.·BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR.4.THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS.5.JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE.6.MAINTAIN MINIMUM - 6" (150 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS.7.INLET AND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12" (300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS.8.EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3OR #4.9.STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING.10.THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH CHAMBER FOUNDATION MATERIALS BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGNENGINEER.11.ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACESTORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF.NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT1.STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".2.THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-3500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED:·NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS.·NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".·WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".3.FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING.USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLEBACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARDWARRANTY.CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.©2023 ADS, INC.PROJECT INFORMATIONADS SALES REPPROJECT NO.ENGINEERED PRODUCTMANAGERNORTH PARK WYNDHAMBOZEMAN, MT, USA StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber System4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: TKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTIONNORTH PARK WYNDHAMBOZEMAN, MT, USASHEETOF26NOTES•MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH NOTE #6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE.•DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLDCOMPONENTS IN THE FIELD.•THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.•THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FORDETERMININGTHE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS. THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION ISPROVIDED.•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT & THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS:MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED):14.00MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC):8.00MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC):7.50MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT):7.50MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT):7.50TOP OF STONE:7.00TOP OF MC-3500 CHAMBER:6.0012" x 12" TOP MANIFOLD INVERT:4.4524" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT:2.42BOTTOM OF MC-3500 CHAMBER:2.25BOTTOM OF STONE:0.00PROPOSED LAYOUT24STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS6STORMTECH MC-3500 END CAPS12STONE ABOVE (in)27STONE BELOW (in)40STONE VOID5812INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF)(PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED)(COVER STONE INCLUDED)(BASE STONE INCLUDED)1491SYSTEM AREA (SF)178.5SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft)*INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBERMAX FLOWINVERT*DESCRIPTIONITEM ONLAYOUTPART TYPE2.06"24" BOTTOM CORED END CAP, PART#: MC3500IEPP24BC / TYP OF ALL 24" BOTTOMCONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSAPREFABRICATED END CAP26.36"12" TOP CORED END CAP, PART#: MC3500IEPP12T / TYP OF ALL 12" TOP CONNECTIONSBPREFABRICATED END CAPINSTALL FLAMP ON 24" ACCESS PIPE / PART#: MCFLAMPCFLAMP26.36"12" x 12" TOP MANIFOLD, ADS N-12DMANIFOLD5.0 CFS IN30" DIAMETER (24.00" SUMP MIN)ENYLOPLAST (INLET W/ ISOPLUS ROW)ISOLATOR ROW PLUS(SEE DETAIL)PLACE MINIMUM 17.50' OF ADSPLUS175 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDINGSTONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALLCHAMBER INLET ROWSBED LIMITS051067.01'22.25'61.08'20.25'DBCAE StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber SystemACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEMSPLEASE NOTE:1.THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE".2.STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR.3.WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FORCOMPACTION REQUIREMENTS.4.ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.NOTES:1.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 45x76DESIGNATION SS.2.MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".3.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATIONFOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS.4.PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS.5.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION:·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS.·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3”.·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OFASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOWCOLORS.MATERIAL LOCATIONDESCRIPTIONAASHTO MATERIALCLASSIFICATIONSCOMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENTDFINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C'LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHEDGRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D'LAYERANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS.CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS.N/APREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVEDINSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL ANDPREPARATION REQUIREMENTS.CINITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THEEMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE TOP OF THECHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C'LAYER.GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES ORPROCESSED AGGREGATE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THISLAYER.AASHTO M145¹A-1, A-2-4, A-3ORAASHTO M43¹3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF MATERIAL OVERTHE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN12" (300 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FORWELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FORPROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.BEMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THEFOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONEAASHTO M43¹3, 4AFOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TOTHE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONEAASHTO M43¹3, 4PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,345"(1140 mm)18"(450 mm) MIN*8'(2.4 m)MAX12" (300 mm) MIN77" (1950 mm)12" (300 mm) MIN6"(150 mm) MINDEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINEDBY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MINDCBA*TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVEDINSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR,INCREASE COVER TO 24" (600 mm).6" (150 mm) MINPERIMETER STONE(SEE NOTE 4)EXCAVATION WALL(CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL)MC-3500END CAPSUBGRADE SOILS(SEE NOTE 3)PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNEDBY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER)NO COMPACTION REQUIRED.ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALLAROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: TKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTIONNORTH PARK WYNDHAMBOZEMAN, MT, USASHEETOF36 StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber SystemINSPECTION & MAINTENANCESTEP 1)INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENTA.INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT)A.1.REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAINA.2.REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLEDA.3.USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOGA.4.LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL)A.5.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.B.ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSB.1.REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUSB.2.USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPEi)MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRYii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLEB.3.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.STEP 2)CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESSA.A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERREDB.APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEANC.VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIREDSTEP 3)REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS.STEP 4)INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM.NOTES1.INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUSOBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS.2.CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY.24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIREDUSE FACTORY PARTIAL CUT END CAP PART #:MC3500IEPP24BC OR MC3500IEPP24BWONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS175 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEENFOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS8.25' (2.51 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMSCOVER PIPE CONNECTION TO ENDCAP WITH ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601TNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEMC-3500 CHAMBERMC-3500 END CAPMC-3500 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAILNTSOPTIONAL INSPECTION PORTSTORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDSFLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAMSTRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATESELEVATED BYPASS MANIFOLDINSTALL FLAMP ON 24" (600 mm) ACCESS PIPEPART #: MCFLAMPSUMP DEPTH TBD BYSITE DESIGN ENGINEER(24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED)NYLOPLAST4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: TKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTIONNORTH PARK WYNDHAMBOZEMAN, MT, USASHEETOF46 StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber SystemMC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAILNTSNOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTALFOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING.MANIFOLD HEADERMANIFOLD STUBSTORMTECH END CAPMANIFOLD HEADERMANIFOLD STUB12" (300 mm)MIN SEPARATION12" (300 mm) MIN INSERTION12" (300 mm)MIN SEPARATION12" (300 mm)MIN INSERTIONPART #STUBBCMC3500IEPP06T6" (150 mm)33.21" (844 mm)---MC3500IEPP06B---0.66" (17 mm)MC3500IEPP08T8" (200 mm)31.16" (791 mm)---MC3500IEPP08B---0.81" (21 mm)MC3500IEPP10T10" (250 mm)29.04" (738 mm)---MC3500IEPP10B---0.93" (24 mm)MC3500IEPP12T12" (300 mm)26.36" (670 mm)---MC3500IEPP12B---1.35" (34 mm)MC3500IEPP15T15" (375 mm)23.39" (594 mm)---MC3500IEPP15B---1.50" (38 mm)MC3500IEPP18TC18" (450 mm)20.03" (509 mm)---MC3500IEPP18TWMC3500IEPP18BC---1.77" (45 mm)MC3500IEPP18BWMC3500IEPP24TC24" (600 mm)14.48" (368 mm)---MC3500IEPP24TWMC3500IEPP24BC---2.06" (52 mm)MC3500IEPP24BWMC3500IEPP30BC30" (750 mm)---2.75" (70 mm)NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)77.0" X 45.0" X 86.0" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 2184 mm)CHAMBER STORAGE109.9 CUBIC FEET (3.11 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*175.0 CUBIC FEET (4.96 m³)WEIGHT134 lbs.(60.8 kg)NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)75.0" X 45.0" X 22.2" (1905 mm X 1143 mm X 564 mm)END CAP STORAGE14.9 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*45.1 CUBIC FEET (1.28 m³)WEIGHT49 lbs.(22.2 kg)*ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION, 6" SPACING BETWEENCHAMBERS, 6" (152 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITYMC-3500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONNTS90.0" (2286 mm)ACTUAL LENGTH86.0" (2184 mm)INSTALLEDBUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTIONNOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINALLOWER JOINTCORRUGATIONWEBCRESTCRESTSTIFFENING RIBVALLEYSTIFFENING RIBBC75.0"(1905 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)25.7"(653 mm)FOOT77.0"(1956 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B"STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T"END CAPS WITH A WELDED CROWN PLATE END WITH "C"END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W"UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION22.2"(564 mm)INSTALLEDCUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS AREAVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZEAND 15-48" (375-1200 mm)ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOMINVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-3500END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOTRECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZESGREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THEINVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B'ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FORTHE PIPE SIZE.PART #STUBBCMC3500IEPP06T6" (150 mm)33.21" (844 mm)---MC3500IEPP06B---0.66" (17 mm)MC3500IEPP08T8" (200 mm)31.16" (791 mm)---MC3500IEPP08B---0.81" (21 mm)MC3500IEPP10T10" (250 mm)29.04" (738 mm)---MC3500IEPP10B---0.93" (24 mm)MC3500IEPP12T12" (300 mm)26.36" (670 mm)---MC3500IEPP12B---1.35" (34 mm)MC3500IEPP15T15" (375 mm)23.39" (594 mm)---MC3500IEPP15B---1.50" (38 mm)MC3500IEPP18TC18" (450 mm)20.03" (509 mm)---MC3500IEPP18TWMC3500IEPP18BC---1.77" (45 mm)MC3500IEPP18BWMC3500IEPP24TC24" (600 mm)14.48" (368 mm)---MC3500IEPP24TWMC3500IEPP24BC---2.06" (52 mm)MC3500IEPP24BWMC3500IEPP30BC30" (750 mm)---2.75" (70 mm)NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)77.0" X 45.0" X 86.0" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 2184 mm)CHAMBER STORAGE109.9 CUBIC FEET (3.11 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*175.0 CUBIC FEET (4.96 m³)WEIGHT134 lbs.(60.8 kg)NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)75.0" X 45.0" X 22.2" (1905 mm X 1143 mm X 564 mm)END CAP STORAGE14.9 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*45.1 CUBIC FEET (1.28 m³)WEIGHT49 lbs.(22.2 kg)*ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION, 6" SPACING BETWEENCHAMBERS, 6" (152 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITYMC-3500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONNTS90.0" (2286 mm)ACTUAL LENGTH86.0" (2184 mm)INSTALLEDBUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTIONNOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINALLOWER JOINTCORRUGATIONWEBCRESTCRESTSTIFFENING RIBVALLEYSTIFFENING RIBBC75.0"(1905 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)25.7"(653 mm)FOOT77.0"(1956 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B"STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T"END CAPS WITH A WELDED CROWN PLATE END WITH "C"END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W"UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION22.2"(564 mm)INSTALLEDCUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS AREAVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZEAND 15-48" (375-1200 mm)ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOMINVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-3500END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOTRECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZESGREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THEINVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B'ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FORTHE PIPE SIZE.4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: TKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTIONNORTH PARK WYNDHAMBOZEMAN, MT, USASHEETOF56 NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASINNTSNOTES1.8-30" (200-750 mm) GRATES/SOLID COVERS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536GRADE 70-50-052.12-30" (300-750 mm) FRAMES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-053.DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS4.DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS & HANCOR DUAL WALL) & SDR 35 PVC5.FOR COMPLETE DESIGN AND PRODUCT INFORMATION: WWW.NYLOPLAST-US.COM6.TO ORDER CALL: 800-821-6710APART #GRATE/SOLID COVER OPTIONS8"(200 mm)2808AGPEDESTRIAN LIGHTDUTYSTANDARD LIGHTDUTYSOLID LIGHT DUTY10"(250 mm)2810AGPEDESTRIAN LIGHTDUTYSTANDARD LIGHTDUTYSOLID LIGHT DUTY12"(300 mm)2812AGPEDESTRIANAASHTO H-10STANDARD AASHTOH-20SOLIDAASHTO H-2015"(375 mm)2815AGPEDESTRIANAASHTO H-10STANDARD AASHTOH-20SOLIDAASHTO H-2018"(450 mm)2818AGPEDESTRIANAASHTO H-10STANDARD AASHTOH-20SOLIDAASHTO H-2024"(600 mm)2824AGPEDESTRIANAASHTO H-10STANDARD AASHTOH-20SOLIDAASHTO H-2030"(750 mm)2830AGPEDESTRIANAASHTO H-20STANDARD AASHTOH-20SOLIDAASHTO H-20INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRONFRAME & GRATE/SOLID TOMATCH BASIN O.D.VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET ANDOUTLET ADAPTERS AVAILABLE:4-30" (100-750 mm) FORCORRUGATED HDPEWATERTIGHT JOINT(CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN)BACKFILL MATERIAL BELOW AND TO SIDESOF STRUCTURE SHALL BE ASTM D2321CLASS I OR II CRUSHED STONE OR GRAVELAND BE PLACED UNIFORMLY IN 12" (305 mm)LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO MIN OF 90%TRAFFIC LOADS: CONCRETE DIMENSIONSARE FOR GUIDELINE PUPOSES ONLY.ACTUAL CONCRETE SLAB MUST BEDESIGNED GIVING CONSIDERATION FORLOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC LOADING& OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN FACTORSADAPTER ANGLES VARIABLE 0°- 360°ACCORDING TO PLANS18" (457 mm)MIN WIDTHAAASHTO H-20 CONCRETE SLAB8" (203 mm) MIN THICKNESSVARIABLE SUMP DEPTHACCORDING TO PLANS[6" (152 mm) MIN ON 8-24" (200-600 mm),10" (254 mm) MIN ON 30" (750 mm)]4" (102 mm) MIN ON 8-24" (200-600 mm)6" (152 mm) MIN ON 30" (750 mm)12" (610 mm) MIN(FOR AASHTO H-20)INVERT ACCORDING TOPLANS/TAKE OFFNyloplast770-932-2443 | WWW.NYLOPLAST-US.COM®4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: TKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTIONNORTH PARK WYNDHAMBOZEMAN, MT, USASHEETOF66 Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Attachment B—Report of Geotechnical Investigation MONTANA | WASHINGTON | IDAHO | NORTH DAKOTA | PENNSYLVANIA JOB NO. B23-039-001 July 2023 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CLIENT ENGINEER York Esh, LLC 5157 US 89 S Livingston, MT 59047 Kyle Scarr, PE kyle.scarr@tdhengineering.com REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION 406.586.0277 tdhe ngineering.com 234 E Bab cock St reet, Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 ECHO HOTEL BOZEMAN, MONTANA Echo Hotel Table of Contents Bozeman, Montana i Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Geology and Physiography .............................................................................................. 4 3.2 Surface Conditions ........................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5 3.3.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................... 5 3.3.2 Ground Water ........................................................................................................... 7 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Site Grading and Excavations.......................................................................................... 8 4.3 Conventional Shallow Foundations on Structural Fill ...................................................... 9 4.4 Conventional Shallow Foundations on EAP Improved Soils ........................................... 9 4.5 Foundation and Retaining Walls .................................................................................... 10 4.6 Interior Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork ..................................................................... 10 4.7 Pavements ..................................................................................................................... 11 4.8 On-Site Infiltration .......................................................................................................... 12 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 13 5.1 Site Grading and Excavations........................................................................................ 13 5.2 Conventional Shallow Foundations on Structural Fill .................................................... 14 5.3 Conventional Shallow Foundations on EAP Improved Soils ......................................... 15 5.4 Foundation and Retaining Walls .................................................................................... 16 5.5 Interior Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork ..................................................................... 17 5.6 Pavements ..................................................................................................................... 18 5.7 On-Site Infiltration .......................................................................................................... 19 5.8 Continuing Services ....................................................................................................... 19 6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES ....................................................... 21 6.1 Field Explorations ........................................................................................................... 21 6.2 Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................... 21 7.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 23 Echo Hotel Appendix Bozeman, Montana ii APPENDIX  Boring Location Map (Figure 1)  Logs of Exploratory Borings (Figures 2 through 4)  Laboratory Test Data (Figures 5 through 10)  LTTBind Online PG Asphalt Binder Analysis Summary  Soil Classification and Sampling Terminology for Engineering Purposes  Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes Echo Hotel Executive Summary Bozeman, Montana Page 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ECHO HOTEL BOZEMAN, MONTANA 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The geotechnical investigation for the proposed Echo Hotel to be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Mandeville Lane and Wheat Drive in Bozeman, Montana encountered relatively consistent soil conditions. The proposed structure is to be located within a newly developed area of Bozeman which, in general, is west of Murdochs Ranch and Home Supply off North 7th Avenue. We understand that the project includes a multi-story hotel building, a multi-access parking lot, and general site development elements. The subsurface soil conditions are comprised of a topsoil horizon exhibiting a thickness of approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet overlying a zone of lean clay with sand. The surficial clays extend to depths of approximately 7.0 to 9.0 feet within the borings performed and are underlain by native gravel deposits. The native gravels extend to depths of at least 21.5 feet, the maximum depth investigated. The seismic site class is D, and the risk of seismically-induced liquefaction or soil settlement is considered low and does not warrant additional evaluation. The primary geotechnical concern regarding this project is the presence of weak and highly compressible surficial clay soils. This zone is relatively weak and typically unsuitable to support multi-story structures due to excessive settlement risk. Based on the site conditions encountered, it is our opinion that the clays are not suitable for the support of the planned structure using conventional shallow foundations without subsurface improvements to improve bearing and control settlement. Objectionable movement is possible for foundations supported over the native clay material. The recommended bearing stratum for this project are the native gravels which were encountered in all three borings at depths between 7.0 to 9.0 feet. We would advise the complete removal of the topsoil and native clay to the underlying native gravels and replacement of this zone with compacted structural fill to the desired building elevation. The site is suitable for conventional shallow foundations bearing on properly compacted structural fill extending to native gravels. A maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) should be utilized for the design of all foundations provided the recommendations included in this report are followed. A one-third increase in the provided bearing pressure is permissible for the consideration of dynamic load cases. As an alternative to complete removal of the clay material and replacement with structural fill to the underlying native gravels, alternative subgrade improvements can be used and may result in lower construction costs. Alternative subgrade improvement methods such as the use of an engineered aggregate pier (EAP) system is expected to provide sufficient improvement to the highly compressible clay soil but would warrant further evaluation by an EAP designer. EAPs are densely compacted stone columns extending through the soft clay soil with a relatively tight spacing. During construction, the materials surrounding the EAP are densified and improved. Such a system would Echo Hotel Executive Summary Bozeman, Montana Page 2 accommodate the use of shallow foundations and slab-on-grade construction without the need for the complete removal of the existing clay. EAP systems have been utilized on several structures around Bozeman and in Big Sky. Based on the existing site grade and the borings performed, interior building slabs are anticipated to require fill thicknesses on the order of 9.0 feet utilizing the same removal and replacement methods as described above. Considering the size of the structure, this may not be conducive to the overall cost of the project. It is our opinion that interior building slabs may be supported over the native clay materials, provided a lower level of performance is acceptable and additional subsurface improvements are included. Following the removal of all topsoil, we advise the use of an appropriate geotextile overlying the native lean clay material in conjunction with a minimum of 12 inches of properly compacted structural fill to the desired building elevation. This level of subsurface improvement is not intended to prevent the risk of settlement associated with construction over the native clay material; however, the section is considered adequate to minimize the distress associated with potential settlements. If no level of acceptable settlement risk exists for this project, we would advise the complete removal of all topsoil and native clay material from beneath the building footprint and replace with properly compacted structural to the desired building elevation or the installation of alternative subgrade improvement systems such as EAPs described above. Echo Hotel Introduction Bozeman, Montana Page 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the proposed Echo Hotel to be located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Mandeville Lane and Wheat Drive. The purpose of the geotechnical study is to determine the general surface and subsurface conditions at the proposed site and to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for support of the proposed structure and design of related facilities. This report describes the field work and laboratory analyses conducted for this project, the surface and subsurface conditions encountered, and presents our recommendations for the proposed foundations and related site development. Our field work included drilling three soil borings across the footprint of the proposed structure. Samples were obtained from the borings and returned to our Great Falls laboratory for testing. Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. The information obtained during our field investigation and laboratory analyses was used to develop recommendations for the design of the proposed foundation systems. 2.2 Project Description It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of, in part, a multi-story structure approximately 250 by 50 feet in plan, with an approximate building footprint of 12,500 square feet. The structure is anticipated to utilize typical wood-framing or steel stud construction and is to be supported on conventional shallow foundations incorporating slab-on-grade construction. Structural loads had not been developed at the time of this report. However, for the purpose of our analysis, we have assumed that wall loads will be less than 6,000 pounds per lineal foot or less and column loads will be less than 300 kips. Site development will most likely include landscaping, exterior concrete flatwork, and asphalt pavement for parking lots and access roads. If the assumed design values presented above vary from the actual project parameters, the recommendations presented in this report should be reevaluated. Echo Hotel Site Conditions Bozeman, Montana Page 4 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Geology and Physiography According to the geologic map of Montana, the site is geologically characterized as being upper tertiary sediments or sedimentary rock (Tsu). This formation includes conglomerate, tuffaceous sandstone and siltstone, marlstone, and equivalent sediment and ash beds. However, a sliver of the site in the southwest corner and much of the areas south of the project, suggest variable deposits of gravel (Qgr). The gravel ranges from pebble to boulder in size and includes varying amounts of sand, silt, and clay. These deposits are dominantly alluvial terrace, abandoned channel and floodplain, remnant alluvial fan, and local glacial outwash. Additional data provided by the geologic map of the Bozeman further classifies the site as being Braid Plain alluvium (Qabo) of the Pleistocene epoch. These deposits consist of cobble to boulder size clasts containing sand, silt, and clay. The rounded to well-rounded clasts are most commonly composed of Archean metamorphic rock, and dark colored volcanic rock, with subordinate Paleozoic limestone and Proterozoic Belt rocks. According to the geology report, a well in this unit indicates a thickness of 30 feet of alluvium overlying tertiary deposits. However, nearby water well logs indicate gravel materials extend to depths of approximately 100 feet in this area of Bozeman. Geologic Map of Montana, Edition 1.0 (2007) Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology Approximate Site Location Echo Hotel Site Conditions Bozeman, Montana Page 5 Geologic Map of the Bozeman, Southwestern Montana (2014) Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, the site falls under seismic Site Class D. The structural engineer should utilize the site classification above to determine the appropriate seismic design data for use on this project in accordance with current applicable building codes. The likelihood of seismically-induced soil liquefaction or settlement for this project is low and does not warrant additional evaluation. 3.2 Surface Conditions The proposed project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Mandeville Lane and Wheat Drive in Bozeman, Montana. Based on our observations, the project site is located in a newly developed area consisting of roadways, and water and sewer main extensions. However, the site itself presently consists of an undeveloped parcel of land within an existing farm field. Based on background information and site observations, the site is considered nearly level. 3.3 Subsurface Conditions 3.3.1 Soils The subsurface soil conditions appear to be relatively consistent based on our exploratory drilling, and soil sampling. In general, the subsurface soil conditions encountered within the borings consist of a topsoil horizon ranging in thickness from 1.0 to 2.0 feet overlying a zone of native lean clay with sand. The surficial clays extend to depths of 7.0 to 9.0 feet below existing site grades and are underlain by native gravel deposits. The native gravels extend to depths of at least 21.5 feet, the maximum depth investigated. Approximate Site Location Echo Hotel Site Conditions Bozeman, Montana Page 6 The subsurface soils are described in detail on the enclosed boring logs and are summarized below. The stratification lines shown on the logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types and the actual in situ transition may be gradual vertically or discontinuous laterally. TOPSOIL A topsoil horizon was encountered in each boring overlying the lean clay with sand and native gravel deposits. This zone observed trace organics, in the form of roots, and is approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet thick within the borings performed. The topsoil horizon was visually classified as lean clay and exhibits a dark brown to brown coloration. Typically topsoil layers display a dark brown to black coloration due to being heavily enriched by organic material. Based on our observations, this layer is more consistent with the underlying clay given its coloration and relatively low organic content. However, the material is still considered a topsoil media due to containing organics and is unsuitable to remain within building footprints or any areas to receive site grading fill. The material is considered very soft to stiff as indicated by penetration resistance values which ranged from 4 to 15 blows per foot (bpf) and averaged 9 bpf. The natural moisture contents varied from 20.0 to 27.5 percent and averaged 23.0 percent. LEAN CLAY WITH SAND Lean clay with sand was encountered in all three borings beneath the overlying topsoil horizon at depths of 1.0 to 2.0 feet. The surficial clays extend to depths of 7.0 to 9.0 feet, observing the greatest thickness on the north end of the project area. The stratum is considered very soft to firm as indicated by penetration resistance values which ranged between 2 and 5 bpf and averaged 3 bpf. The material is considered highly compressible as indicated by the consolidation test result shown on Figure 10. One sample of the material contained 0.5 percent gravel, 20.0 percent sand, and 79.5 percent fines (silt and clay). Two samples of the clays exhibited liquid limits of 32 and 37 percent and plasticity indices of 12 and 18 percent. The natural moisture contents varied from 19.3 to 28.5 percent and average 23.5 percent. WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND / CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND Native well-graded gravel with clay and sand was encountered in all borings beneath the overburden clays at depths of 7.0 to 9.0 feet. The gravel is dense to very dense as indicated by penetration resistance values which ranged between 35 to greater than 100 bpf. Multiple samples of the material were combined into one composite sample and tested in our laboratory. The single composite sample contained 53.4 percent gravel, 38.1 percent sand, and 8.5 percent fines (silt and clay). The natural moisture contents varied from 3.7 to 7.0 percent and averaged 5.1 percent. The well-graded gravel with clay and sand observed a gradual transition into a similar native gravel containing a higher content of clay at a depth of approximately 13.2 feet in borings B- 1 and B-2, and approximately 9.5 feet in boring B-3. Based on our observations, the Echo Hotel Site Conditions Bozeman, Montana Page 7 transition appears to occur in close proximity to the ground water table. The material was visually classified as clayey gravel with sand and is considered dense to very dense as indicated by penetration resistance values which ranged between 31 to greater than 100 bpf. Multiple samples of the material were combined into one composite sample to access the materials composition. The single composite sample contained 38.9 percent gravel, 44.1 percent sand, and 17.0 percent fines (silt and clay). The natural moisture contents varied between 10.5 to 14.9 percent and averaged 12.7 percent. Due to the sampling methods utilized which are unable to sample rocks larger than 1.5-inch and result in fracturing of some materials, the samples may not accurately depict the in-situ material gradation of the native gravels. Additionally, drilling actions at various depths suggests the presence of large cobbles or boulders within the gravels that were unable to be further accessed. The native gravels extend to a depth of at least 21.5 feet, the maximum depth investigated. 3.3.2 Ground Water Ground water was encountered in all borings at depths ranging from 9.8 to 14.8 feet below the ground surface. During our investigation, one monitoring well was installed in borings B- 2 to monitor the ground water fluctuations throughout the summer and fall seasons of 2023. To date four readings have been collected from the boring. The monitoring data up to the completion of this report is summarized in the table below. We are available to provide additional data following future monitoring cycles upon request. Date of Measurement Depth to Ground Water (ft) B-2 06-16-2023 13.16 06-21-2023 13.02 06-29-2023 12.89 07-05-2023 12.94 The presence or absence of observed ground water may be directly related to the time of the subsurface investigation. Numerous factors contribute to seasonal ground water occurrences and fluctuations, and the evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. Echo Hotel Engineering Analysis Bozeman, Montana Page 8 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction The primary geotechnical concern regarding this project is the presence of soft and highly compressible clay soils extending to and below the anticipated foundation elevations for the proposed structure. This zone is relatively weak and unable to support typical foundation bearing pressures associated with multi-story construction. Based on the site conditions encountered, it is our opinion that the clays are not suitable for the support of the planned structure using conventional shallow foundations without subsurface improvement to increase bearing and control settlement. The recommended bearing stratum for this project is the native gravel which was encountered in all three borings at depths between 7.0 to 9.0 feet below existing site grades. The removal and replacement of the soft compressible zone with properly compacted structural fill will mitigate settlement potential and significantly improve bearing conditions within the limits of the planned structure. As an alternative to complete removal of the clay materials and replacement with structural fill to the underlying native gravel, alternative subgrade improvements can be used and may result in lower construction costs. Alternative subgrade improvement methods such as the use of an engineered aggregate pier (EAP) system is expected to provide sufficient improvement to the highly compressible clay soil but would warrant further evaluation by an EAP designer. Based on the existing site grade and the borings performed, interior building slabs are anticipated to require fill thicknesses on the order of 9.0 feet utilizing the same removal and replacement methods as described above to reach the desired building elevation. It is our opinion that interior building slabs may be supported over the native clay materials, provided a lower level of performance is acceptable and additional subsurface improvements are included. If no level of acceptable settlement risk exists for this project, we would advise the complete removal of all topsoil and native clay materials from beneath the building footprint and replaced with properly compacted structural fill to the desired building elevation or an alternative subgrade improvement system such as EAPs. 4.2 Site Grading and Excavations The ground surface at the proposed site appears to be nearly level. Based on our field work, surficial lean clay with sand and native gravels will be encountered in foundation excavations to the depths anticipated. Ground water was encountered in all borings at depths ranging between 9.8 to 14.8 feet at the time of our investigation. However, the ground water elevation is anticipated to fluctuate depending on the time year. Levels will be documented in future ground water monitoring of the site and will give a more accurate representation of the anticipated groundwater levels during seasonal lows and highs. Ground water levels and fluctuations can vary from year to year and the monitoring being performed is not capable of or intended to determine the maximum water levels which may be realized over the life of the project. Echo Hotel Engineering Analysis Bozeman, Montana Page 9 4.3 Conventional Shallow Foundations on Structural Fill Considering the subsurface conditions encountered and the nature of the proposed construction, the structure should be supported using conventional shallow foundations bearing on properly compacted structural fill extending to native gravels. Based on the existing grade of the site and borings performed, structural fill thicknesses are anticipated to range between three to five feet beneath footings and should increase from south to north across the project limits. However, the actual thickness of structural will depend on the finished floor elevation of the proposed structure. Our engineers should be involved during construction to ensure that the soft compressible soil has been removed and that the subsequent structural fill has been placed and compacted in accordance with our recommendations. Based on our experience, the theory of elasticity, and using an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf, we estimate the total settlement for footings will be less than ¾-inch when supported on properly compacted structural fill extending to native gravel. All compaction efforts should comply with the recommendations of this report and be verified during construction. Differential settlement within the structure should be on the order of one-half this magnitude. A one-third increase in the provided bearing pressure is permissible for the consideration of dynamic load cases. The lateral resistance of spread footings is controlled by a combination of sliding resistance between the footing and the foundation material at the base of the footing and the passive earth pressure against the side of the footing in the direction of movement. Design parameters are given in the recommendations section of this report. 4.4 Conventional Shallow Foundations on EAP Improved Soils As an alternative to the complete removal and replacement of the lean clay soil, the use of an engineered aggregate pier system (EAP) may be considered. This system is specialized and proprietary; thus, we recommend consulting either Specialty Foundation Systems, GeoTech Foundation Company (GTFC – West), Keller North America, or Montana Helical Pier for the design and installation of such services. This system has been recently used on several structures around Bozeman and in Big Sky. EAPs are installed by drilling a hole of a specified depth and diameter and constructing rock columns comprised of very dense, highly compacted aggregate. Ramming of thin lifts takes place with a high-energy beveled tamper that densifies the aggregate and forces it laterally into the sidewalls of the hole. This action increases the lateral stress in the surrounding soil, thereby providing a stabilized composite soil mass. The result of the EAP installation is a significant strengthening and stiffening of the subsurface soils that would then support conventional footings. This allows for improved performance of the clay soils without requiring it to be completely removed thus potentially reducing the overall cost of the project. EAPs can be installed in a variety of ground water conditions using varying methods and may or may not warrant some level of site dewatering Echo Hotel Engineering Analysis Bozeman, Montana Page 10 during construction. This should be discussed with the EAP designer / installer based on their available equipment and abilities. Based on our experience with the EAP system in similar conditions, we anticipate EAP elements to utilize 24-inch to 30-inch diameter piers and lengths sufficient to tie the columns into the underlying native gravel to provide adequate subgrade improvement for support of typical foundation loads. Footings supported on EAP improved soils are generally designed to limit potential settlements to less than ¾-inch with differential settlements being less than ½-inch; however, stricter design criteria could be utilized and would likely result in more EAP elements extending to greater depths. On EAP projects, the EAP designer typically works closely with the design team, and they create their own EAP installation plans to be included as part of the overall package. They then provide the specialized construction and quality control during the installation of this system. Their design is prepared utilizing the data provided in this report and structural loads provided by the project structural engineer. Once a preliminary foundation plan is available, we highly recommend that you contact an EAP designer / contractor to provide preliminary pricing for the EAP system. 4.5 Foundation and Retaining Walls Currently, we are not aware of plans for the structure to utilize a crawlspace, basement, or the need for other site grading retaining walls. Should any of these components be included in the final design, we should be consulted to provide suitable lateral pressures to be utilized in their design. 4.6 Interior Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork The primary concern associated with interior slabs for this project is the potential for settlement when supported over the native clay encountered in all borings. The clay is soft and highly compressible, however, considering the relatively low loads associated with slab-on-grade construction, it is our opinion that interior building slabs supported over the native clay soils are permissible provided a lower level of performance is acceptable and additional subsurface improvements are included. At a minimum, all topsoil should be removed and the prepared subgrade should be overlain by an appropriate geotextile incorporating a minimum of 12 inches of properly compacted structural fill to the desired building elevation. The topsoil horizon observed thickened areas within the northern portion of the site and up to 24 inches of structural fill may be necessary. This level of subsurface improvement is not intended to prevent the risk of settlement associated with construction over the native clay materials; however, the section is considered adequate to minimize the distress associated with potential settlements which are not anticipated to exceed ¾-inch. However, if no level of acceptable settlement risk exists for this project, we would advise the complete removal of all topsoil and native clay materials from beneath the building footprint and replaced with properly compacted structural to fill the desired building elevation or the Echo Hotel Engineering Analysis Bozeman, Montana Page 11 installation of an alternative subgrade improvement system such as EAPs described above in Section 4.4. Exterior flatwork is more readily repaired or replaced should displacement occur; thus, conventional construction of exterior flatwork over selected site grading fill or native soils is permissible provided the Owner is willing to accept the risk of movements and understands that a higher level of maintenance and future repair / replacement may be required. For portions of the exterior flatwork which are especially sensitive to vertical movement, or which may impact the structure’s performance, should consider additional subsurface improvements as recommended for interior floor systems. 4.7 Pavements A pavement section is a layered system designed to distribute concentrated traffic loads to the subgrade. Performance of the pavement structure is directly related to the physical properties of the subgrade soils and the magnitude and frequency of traffic loadings. Pavement design procedures are based on strength properties of the subgrade and pavement materials, along with the design traffic conditions. Traffic information was not available at the time of this report. We have assumed that traffic for the parking lots of the hotel will be limited to passenger-type vehicles with occasional truck traffic associated with building services and commercial guests using the hotel. The pavement section provided has been prepared using a maximum anticipated equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) of 100,000 over a 20-year design life of the pavement. The potential worst case subgrade material is the lean clay with sand which is classified as an A-6 soil, in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification. AASHTO considers this soil type to be a poor subgrade medium due to its moisture sensitivity and poor drainage properties. Typical California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values for this type of soil range from three to five percent. However, areas of the site exhibited in-situ moistures that were elevated beyond their typical values to achieve maximum compaction, thus, a decreased CBR value of two percent was utilized in our analysis to account for potential issues that may arise during construction. It will be necessary to scarify and recompact the subgrade soils prior to placing fill material associated with the pavement section. Should compaction efforts of the subgrade be unattainable during construction, the prepared subgrade should be cleared of all loose soil and rolled smooth using static methods only, as to limit soil destabilization or pumping. All fill associated with the pavement section should be selected, placed, and compacted in accordance with our recommendations. A geotextile acting as a separator is recommended between the pavement section gravels and the lean clay with sand subgrade. The geotextile will prevent the upward migration of fines and the loss of aggregate into the subgrade, thereby prolonging the structural integrity and performance of the pavement section. Echo Hotel Engineering Analysis Bozeman, Montana Page 12 The pavement section presented in this report is based on an assumed CBR value of two percent, assumed traffic loadings, recommended pavement section design information presented in the Asphalt Institute and AASHTO Design Manuals, and our past pavement design experience in Bozeman. Please note that our design has not considered construction traffic or staging use as part of the analysis. The sections provided are not suitable for these purposes. If the contractor plans to utilize the pavement section gravels for construction access roads or as staging areas which will realize larger construction vehicles and deliveries, we should be consulted to provide additional pavement recommendations including increased base course thicknesses and additional geosynthetic reinforcement capable of supporting the larger construction loads. 4.8 On-Site Infiltration Based on the borings performed, excavations for storm water features will encounter native clay soils to depths of approximately 7.0 to 9.0 feet. The clays were classified in our laboratory as lean clay with sand and are expected to have limited permeability for site infiltration. During our investigation, a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was set approximately 25-feet northeast of boring B-1 to a depth of 4.5 feet to test the native clay’s ability to absorb and disperse water as it is infiltrated. This test is known as a percolation test, or perc test, and depending on the soil type, follows a specific procedure of pre-soaking the material and measuring the drop in added water over a duration of time. The percolation test for the site was performed on July 7, 2023, and the results are summarized in the table below. Start Time of Day End Time of Day Initial Distance Below Reference Point (ft) Final Distance Below Reference Point (ft) Time Interval (min) Drop in Water Level (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 1:24 1:44 2.22 2.23 20 0.12 0.36 1:44 2:04 2.23 2.24 20 0.12 0.36 2:04 2:24 2.24 2.25 20 0.12 0.36 2:24 2:44 2.25 2.26 20 0.12 0.36 2:44 3:04 2.26 2.27 20 0.12 0.36 3:04 3:24 2.27 2.28 20 0.12 0.36 The test observed an infiltration rate of 0.36 inches per hour (in/hr), however, Circular-8 of Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) requires the measured infiltration rate to be divided by a factor of safety of two to arrive at a design infiltration rate. The design infiltration rate for the site is 0.18 in/hr. Based on Table 2 in MDEQ Circular-8, this result is between the suggested design infiltration rates for “sandy clay” and “fine sandy loam, loam” with values of 0.07 and 0.7 in/hr, respectively. Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 13 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Site Grading and Excavations 1. All topsoil and organic material should be removed from the proposed building and pavement areas and any areas to receive site grading fill. 2. All fill and backfill should be non-expansive, free of organics and debris and should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer. The on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable for use as exterior foundation backfill and general site grading fill, provided they are moisture conditioned and conducive to adequate levels of compaction. All fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness for fine- grained soils and not exceeding 12 inches for granular soils. All materials compacted using hand compaction methods or small walk-behind units should utilize a maximum lift thickness of 6 inches to ensure adequate compaction throughout the lift. All fill and backfill shall be moisture conditioned to near the optimum moisture content and compacted to the following percentages of the maximum dry density determined by a standard proctor test which is outlined by ASTM D698 or equivalent (e.g. ASTM D4253-D4254). a) Subgrade & Structural Fill Below Foundations ........................... 98% b) Structural Fill Below Interior Slabs .............................................. 98% c) Subgrade Below Interior Slabs .................................................... 95% d) Exterior Foundation Backfill & Below Exterior Flatwork .............. 95% e) Below Streets, Parking Lots, or Other Paved Areas ................... 95% f) General Landscaping or Nonstructural Areas .............................. 92% g) Utility Trench Backfill, To Within 2 Feet of Surface..................... 95% For your consideration, verification of compaction requires laboratory proctor tests to be performed on a representative sample of the soil prior to construction. These tests can require up to one week to complete (depending on laboratory backlog) and this should be considered when coordinating the construction schedule to ensure that delays in construction or additional testing expense is not required due to laboratory processing times or rush processing fees. 3. Imported structural fill should be non-expansive, free of organics and debris, and conform to the material requirements outlined in Section 02234 of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS). All gradations outlined in this standard are acceptable for use on this project; however, conventional proctor methods (outlined in ASTM D698) shall not be used for any materials containing less than 70 percent passing the ¾-inch sieve. Conventional proctor methods are Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 14 not suitable for these types of materials, and the field compaction value must be determined using a relative density test outlined in ASTM D4253-4254. 4. Develop and maintain site grades which will rapidly drain surface and roof runoff away from foundation and subgrade soils; both during and after construction. 5. At a minimum, downspouts from roof drains should discharge at least six feet away from the foundation or beyond the limits of foundation backfill, whichever is greater. All downspout discharge areas should be properly graded away from the structure to promote drainage and prevent ponding. Downspouts which will discharge directly onto relatively impervious surface (i.e. asphalt or concrete) may discharge no less than 12 inches from the foundation wall provided the impervious surfacing is properly graded away from the structure and continuous within a minimum distance of six feet. 6. Site utilities should be installed with proper bedding in accordance with pipe manufacturer’s requirements. 7. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to provide safe working conditions in connection with underground excavations. Temporary construction excavations greater than four feet in depth, which workers will enter, will be governed by OSHA guidelines given in 29 CFR, Part 1926. The contractor is responsible for providing an OSHA knowledgeable individual during all excavation activities to regularly assess the soil conditions and ensure that all necessary safety precautions are implemented and followed. 5.2 Conventional Shallow Foundations on Structural Fill The design and construction criteria below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. The construction details should be considered when preparing the project documents. 8. Both interior and exterior footings should bear on properly compacted structural fill extending to native gravel. The limits of over-excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill should extend at least 24 inches beyond the outer face of the footing in all directions. Footings supported as described should be designed using a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf provided settlements as outlined in the Engineering Analysis are acceptable. A one-third increase in the provided bearing pressure is permissible for the consideration of dynamic load cases. Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 15 9. Soils disturbed below the planned depths of footing excavations should be either re- compacted or replaced with additional structural fill compacted to the requirements of item 2a above. 10. Footings shall be sized to satisfy the minimum requirements of the applicable building codes while not exceeding the maximum allowable bearing pressure provided in Item 8 above. 11. Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be placed at least 48 inches below finished exterior grade for frost protection. 12. The bottom of the footing excavations should be free of cobbles and boulders to avoid stress concentrations acting on the base of the footings. When the bearing surface cannot be rolled smooth due to protruding cobbles or boulders, a thin leveling course of material conforming to MPWSS Section 02235 may be placed and compacted directly beneath the foundation. Compaction shall conform to the requirements of Item 2a. 13. Lateral loads are resisted by sliding friction between the footing base and the supporting soil and by lateral pressure against the footings opposing movement. For design purposes, a friction coefficient of 0.45 and a lateral resistance pressure of 150 psf per foot of depth are appropriate for footings supported on structural fill and backfilled with properly moisture conditioned and compacted native soils. 14. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer should be retained to observe all footing excavations and backfill phases prior to the placement of concrete formwork. 5.3 Conventional Shallow Foundations on EAP Improved Soils Should an EAP system be utilized as an alternative to conventional shallow foundation over structural fill, the EAP design must be performed by a licensed design/build contractor. The recommendations below are intended to be preliminary guidelines based on our experience with this system. These recommendations shall not be utilized for final design of the foundation system without being verified by a licensed EAP designer. 15. Both interior and exterior footings should bear on EAP improved soils and be designed using the maximum allowable bearing pressure to be issued by the EAP designer. For preliminary planning purposes, maximum allowable soil bearing pressures of 4,000 to 6,000 psf are typical for these systems. EAP elements are anticipated to be up to 30 inches in diameter with depths extending to the native gravels; however, EAP sizes will be specified by the designer of record based on Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 16 their analysis. Any compacted gravel specified by the EAP designer as a capping substrate shall be compacted and installed per the EAP designer requirements. 16. Footings shall be sized to satisfy the minimum requirements of the applicable building codes while not exceeding the maximum allowable bearing pressure provided by the EAP designer. 17. Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be placed at least 48 inches below finished exterior grade for frost protection. 18. Lateral loads are resisted by sliding friction between the footing base and the supporting soil and by lateral pressure against the footings opposing movement. For preliminary design purposes, our experience indicates that a friction coefficient of 0.5 is typical of EAP improved soils; however, this value shall be verified by the EAP designer during the final design process. A lateral resistance pressure of 150 psf per foot of depth is appropriate for backfill consisting of properly moisture conditioned and compacted native soils. 19. The EAP designer / installer shall provide their own internal quality control system and foundation installation certification. 5.4 Foundation and Retaining Walls Currently, we are not aware of plans to incorporate a basement, crawlspace, or the need for exterior site grading retaining walls. We can provide the appropriate lateral design parameters upon request if these elements are needed. The following recommendations are intended to address backfill components along conventional foundation walls. 20. Backfill should be selected, placed, and compacted per Item 2c above. Care should be taken not to over-compact the backfill since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the walls. Only hand-operated compaction equipment should be used within 5 feet of retaining and foundation walls. 21. Exterior footing drains are not required for this project based on our understanding that conventional slab-on-grade construction is planned and that no basement, crawlspace, or other below grade components are planned. In accordance with applicable building codes, if the design will include a crawlspace, basement, or if interior finished floor elevation will be lower than exterior grade at any location, a foundation drain system will be required and we can provide a typical detail for the recommendation construction. 22. Foundation wall damp or water proofing is not required for this project. However, given the relatively shallow ground water table and if the design were to include any Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 17 of the elements described in Item 22, such applications will need to be considered, as outlined in applicable sections of the International Building Code (IBC). 5.5 Interior Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork 23. For normally loaded, exterior concrete flatwork, a typical cushion course consisting of free-draining, crushed gravel should be placed beneath the concrete and compacted to the requirements of Item 2c above. A cushion course thickness of six inches is typically utilized but requirements may vary locally. Conventional construction, as has been described, is not intended to mitigate settlement concerns associated with the subsurface conditions encountered. In most cases, the cost to repair and/or replace exterior flatwork when excessive movements occur is far more economical than efforts to mitigate these movements. However, any exterior flatwork which is especially sensitive to vertical movement or those which would be a significant cost to replace or have detrimental impacts to the facility operation should consider additional subsurface improvements as recommended in Item 24 below. 24. For normally loaded, interior slab-on-grade construction, a minimum of 12 inches structural fill should be placed beneath the slabs to the desired building elevation and compacted to the requirements of Item 2b above. Prior to gravel installation, the clay subgrade should be cleared of all loose soil and debris, compacted to the requirements of item 2c above, and a separation geotextile consisting of a Mirafi HP570, or equivalent, installed in accordance with all manufacturer recommendations. Should compaction efforts be unattainable or cause excessive soil destabilization or pumping, the prepared subgrade should be cleared of all loose soil debris and rolled smooth using static methods prior to the placement of the geotextile and subsequent structural fill. A thin cushion course may also be incorporated directly beneath the concrete slab at the discretion of the designer or contractor. Such materials are easier to fine grade and more conducive to the installation of interior plumbing and utilities. 25. Cushion course materials utilized beneath slab-on-grade applications should conform to the requirements outlined in Section 02235 of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS). All gradation outlined in this specification are acceptable for this application. 26. Concrete floor slabs should be designed using a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction no greater than 200 pci when designed and constructed as recommended above. Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 18 27. Geotechnically, an underslab vapor barrier is not required for this project. A vapor barrier is normally used to limit the migration of soil gas and moisture into occupied spaces through floor slabs. The need for a vapor barrier should be determined by the architect and/or structural engineer based on interior improvements and/or moisture and gas control requirements. 28. If no acceptable risk of slab movement can be assumed by the Owner, the only positive method to control potential slab movements is to completely remove and replace the native lean clay soil with compacted structural fill or incorporate an alternative subgrade improvement system such as EAP improved soils. 5.6 Pavements 29. The following pavement section or an approved equivalent section should be selected in accordance with the discussions in the Engineering Analysis. Pavement Component Component Thickness Asphaltic Concrete Pavement 3” Crushed Base Course 6” Crushed Subbase Course 12” Total 21” 30. Final pavement thicknesses exceeding 3 inches shall be constructed in two uniform lifts. 31. Crushed base courses shall conform to the material properties outlined in Section 02235 of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS). All gradations outlined in this specification are acceptable for this application based on the local availability and contractor preference. Crushed subbase courses shall conform to material properties outlined in Section 02234 of the MPWSS. All gradations outlined in this specification are acceptable for this application based on local availability and contractor preference. 32. Where the existing grades will be raised more than the thickness of the pavement section, all fill should be placed, compacted and meet the general requirements given in Item 2 above. Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 19 33. A geotextile is recommended between the pavement section and the prepared subgrade to prevent the migration of fines upward into the gravel and the loss of aggregate into the subgrade. A Mirafi HP570, or equivalent geotextile is appropriate for the site conditions encountered. 34. Ideally, the asphaltic cement should be a Performance Graded (PG) binder having the following minimum high and low temperature values based on the desired pavement reliability. Reliability Min. High Temp Rating Min. Low Temp Rating Ideal Oil Grade 50% 35.8 -30.6 PG 52-34 98% 39.8 -39.4 PG 52-40 In our experience, neither of the oil grades summarized above are available through local suppliers and would result in additional costs associated with importing specialized products. Thus, for this project the use of a PG 58-28 grade oil is recommended as this product is locally available through asphalt suppliers and will provide the highest reliability level without the added expense of importing specialized products. 5.7 On-Site Infiltration 35. Sizing of infiltration features should be performed based on the following design infiltration rate determined through a percolation test of the native clay. Material Type Design Infiltration Rate Lean CLAY with Sand 0.18 inch/hour 5.8 Continuing Services Three additional elements of geotechnical engineering service are important to the successful completion of this project. 36. Consultation between the geotechnical engineer and the design professionals during the design phases is highly recommended. This is important to ensure that the intentions of our recommendations are incorporated into the design, and that any changes in the design concept consider the geotechnical limitations dictated by the on-site subsurface soil and ground water conditions. 37. Observation, monitoring, and testing during construction is required to document the successful completion of all earthwork and foundation phases. A geotechnical Echo Hotel Recommendations Bozeman, Montana Page 20 engineer from our firm should be retained to observe the excavation, earthwork, and foundation phases of the work to determine that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design. 38. During site grading, placement of all fill and backfill should be observed and tested to confirm that the specified density has been achieved. We recommend that the Owner maintain control of the construction quality control by retaining the services of an experienced construction materials testing laboratory. We are available to provide construction inspection services as well as materials testing of compacted soils and the placement of Portland cement concrete and asphalt. In the absence of project specific testing frequencies, TD&H recommends the following minimum testing frequencies be used: Compaction Testing Beneath Column Footings 1 Test per Footing per Lift Beneath Wall Footings 1 Test per 50 LF of Wall per Lift Beneath Slabs 1 Test per 1,500 SF per Lift Foundation Backfill 1 Test per 100 LF of Wall per Lift Parking Lot & Access Roads 1 Test per 2,500 SF per Lift LF = Lineal Feet SF = Square Feet Echo Hotel Summary of Field & Laboratory Studies Bozeman, Montana Page 21 6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES 6.1 Field Explorations The field exploration program was conducted on June 6th of 2023. A total of three borings were drilled to depths ranging from 20.8 to 21.5 feet at the locations shown on Figure 1 to observe subsurface soil and ground water conditions. The borings were advanced through the subsurface soils using a truck-mounted Mobile B-60X drill rig equipped with 4.25-inch hollowstem augers. The subsurface exploration and sampling methods used are indicated on the attached boring logs. The borings were logged by Mr. Nic Couch, EI of TD&H Engineering. Samples of the subsurface materials were taken using 1⅜-inch I.D. split spoon samplers. The samplers were driven 18 inches, when possible, into the various strata using a 140-pound drop hammer falling 30 inches onto the drill rods. For each sample, the number of blows required to advance the sampler each successive six-inch increment was recorded, and the total number of blows required to advance the sampler the final 12 inches is termed the penetration resistance (“N- value”). This test is known as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) described by ASTM D1586. When the sampler is driven more than 18 inches, the number of blows required to advance the sampler the second and third six-inch increments are used to determine the N-value. Penetration resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of fine- grained soils. Samples were also obtained by hydraulically pushing a 3-inch I.D., thin-walled Shelby tube sampler into the subsoils. Logs of all soil borings, which include soil descriptions, sample depths, and penetration resistance values, are presented on Figures 2 through 4. Ground water was encountered in each boring performed to depths ranging from 9.8 to 14.8 feet below the ground surface. Measurements to determine the presence and depth of ground water were made in the borings by lowering an electronic water sounder through the open boring or auger shortly after the completion of drilling. 6.2 Laboratory Testing Samples obtained during the field exploration were returned to our materials laboratory where they were observed and visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487, which is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Representative samples were selected for testing to determine the engineering and physical properties of the soils in general accordance with ASTM or other approved procedures. Tests Conducted: To determine: Natural Moisture Content Representative moisture content of soil at the time of sampling. Grain-Size Distribution Particle size distribution of soil constituents describing the percentages of clay/silt, sand and gravel. Echo Hotel Summary of Field & Laboratory Studies Bozeman, Montana Page 22 Atterberg Limits A method of describing the effect of varying water content on the consistency and behavior of fine-grained soils. Consolidation Measurements of the percent compression experienced under various loading conditions. For use in settlement analysis and foundation design. The laboratory testing program for this project consisted of 24 moisture-visual analyses, 3 sieve (grain-size distribution) analyses, and 2 Atterberg Limits analysis. The results of the water content analyses are presented on the boring logs, Figures 2 through 4. The grain-size distribution curves and Atterberg limits are presented on Figures 5 through 9 In addition, one consolidation was performed and is presented on Figure 10. Echo Hotel Limitations Bozeman, Montana Page 23 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The findings, analyses, and recommendations contained in this report reflect our professional opinion regarding potential impacts the subsurface conditions may have on the proposed project and are based on site conditions encountered. Our analysis assumes that the results of the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, that is, that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the subsurface study. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by a limited number of soil borings and laboratory analyses. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that some additional expenditures be made to obtain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. The recommendations contained within this report are based on the subsurface conditions observed in the borings and are subject to change pending observation of the actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction. TD&H cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations provided if we are not provided the opportunity to perform limited construction inspection and confirm the engineering assumptions made during our analysis. A representative of TD&H should be retained to observe all construction activities associated with subgrade preparation, foundations, and other geotechnical aspects of the project to ensure the conditions encountered are consistent with our assumptions. Unforeseen conditions or undisclosed changes to the project parameters or site conditions may warrant modification to the project recommendations. Long delays between the geotechnical investigation and the start of construction increase the potential for changes to the site and subsurface conditions which could impact the applicability of the recommendations provided. If site conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, TD&H should be retained to review the contents of this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations provide considering the time lapse or changed conditions. Misinterpretation of the geotechnical information by other design team members is possible and can result in costly issues during construction and with the final product. Our geotechnical engineers are available upon request to review those portions of the plans and specifications which pertain to earthwork and foundations to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations and to suggest necessary modifications as warranted. This service was not included in the original scope of the project and will require additional fees for the time required for specification and plan document review and comment. In addition, TD&H should be involved throughout the construction process to observe construction, particularly the placement and compaction of all fill, preparation of all foundations, and all other geotechnical aspects. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who prepared your geotechnical report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Echo Hotel Limitations Bozeman, Montana Page 24 This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the owner and architect and/or engineer in the design of the subject facility. It should be made available to prospective contractors and/or the contractor for information on factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions such as those interpreted from the boring logs and presented in discussions of subsurface conditions included in this report. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Nic Couch EI Kyle Scarr PE & Principal Geotechnical Engineer Regional Manager TD&H ENGINEERING TD&H ENGINEERING DESIGNED BY:QUALITY CHECK:JOB NO.FIELDBOOKDRAWN BY:DATE:B23-039 GEOTECHREV DATE REVISION ECHO HOTEL BOZEMAN, MONTANA BORING LOCATION MAP B23-03907.10.2023.DWGSHEETFG1.0ZJLJ:\2023\B23-039 Echo Hotel\CADD\B23-039 GEOTECH.dwg, 7/11/2023 9:35:14 AM, ZJL 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 TOPSOIL: Lean CLAY, stiff, dark brown, moist, trace organics Lean CLAY with Sand, soft, brown to light brown, moist - See Figure 10 for consolidation test result Well-Graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand, very dense, dark brown, moist Clayey GRAVEL with Sand, very dense, brown, very moist to wet, some red 1.3 9.0 13.2 4-4-6 2-2-2 PUSH 2-2-2 18-42- 50/0.5 T 92/0.9 LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-1SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits Field Moisture content Echo Hotel Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level Grab/composite sample 1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI 2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:O'Keefe Drilling Truck-Mounted Mobile B-60X with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic 3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries may be gradual or transitional. June 5, 2023 B23-039-001 No sample recovery Figure No.2 SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION SURFACE:Vegetated Farm Field SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 50 = BLOWS PER FOOT = MOISTURE CONTENT 1 of 2 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Bottom of Boring 20.8 15-27- 34 20-50/ 0.33 51 50/0.33 LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-1SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits Field Moisture content Echo Hotel Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level Grab/composite sample 1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI 2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:O'Keefe Drilling Truck-Mounted Mobile B-60X with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic 3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries may be gradual or transitional. June 5, 2023 B23-039-001 No sample recovery Figure No.2 SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION SURFACE:Vegetated Farm Field SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 50 = BLOWS PER FOOT = MOISTURE CONTENT 2 of 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 TOPSOIL: Lean CLAY, stiff, dark brown, moist, high plasticity, trace organics Lean CLAY with Sand, stiff, brown, moist - soft and light brown below 2 feet Well-Graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand, very dense, dark brown, moist Clayey GRAVEL with Sand, very dense, brown, very moist to wet 1.0 8.0 13.2 3-7-8 2-2-1 1-2-2 19-50/ 0.4 18-45- 50/0.4 50/0.4 95/0.9 LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-2SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits Field Moisture content Echo Hotel Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level Grab/composite sample 1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI 2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:O'Keefe Drilling Truck-Mounted Mobile B-60X with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic 3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries may be gradual or transitional. June 5, 2023 B23-039-001 No sample recovery Figure No.3 SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION SURFACE:Vegetated Farm Field SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 50 = BLOWS PER FOOT = MOISTURE CONTENT 1 of 2 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 - Occasional large cobble or boulder below 15 feet - Brown to red below 20 feet Bottom of Boring (Groundwater Monitoring Well Installed Following Completion) Screen from 21.5 to 11.5 feet Sand from 21.5 to 10.0 feet Bentonite from 10.0 to 5.0 feet Sand from 5.0 to 1.5 feet 3 foot Well Structure (1.5 feet Exposed) Filled with Sand to Ground Elevation, 5.0 to 0.0 feet Exterior Sand from 5.0 to 0.8 feet Exterior Concrete 0.8 to 0.0 feet 21.5 33-50/ 0.4 30-47- 42 50/0.4 89 LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-2SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits Field Moisture content Echo Hotel Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level Grab/composite sample 1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI 2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:O'Keefe Drilling Truck-Mounted Mobile B-60X with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic 3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries may be gradual or transitional. June 5, 2023 B23-039-001 No sample recovery Figure No.3 SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION SURFACE:Vegetated Farm Field SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 50 = BLOWS PER FOOT = MOISTURE CONTENT 2 of 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 TOPSOIL: Lean CLAY, very soft to soft, dark brown, moist, trace organics - Brown, trace sand, and trace organics below 1 foot Lean CLAY with Sand, soft to very soft, light brown, moist Well-Graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand, dense, dark brown to brown, moist to wet Clayey GRAVEL with Sand, dense to very dense, brown to gray, very moist to wet, some red and light brown 2.0 7.0 9.5 0-0-4 2-2-3 0-0-2 10-16- 19 17-23- 25 LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-3SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits Field Moisture content Echo Hotel Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level Grab/composite sample 1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI 2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:O'keefe Drilling Truck-Mounted Mobile B-60X with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic 3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries may be gradual or transitional. June 5, 2023 B23-039-001 No sample recovery Figure No.4 SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION SURFACE:Vegetated Farm Field SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 50 = BLOWS PER FOOT = MOISTURE CONTENT 1 of 2 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Bottom of Boring 21.5 4-5-26- 35 27-40- 42 82 LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-3SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits Field Moisture content Echo Hotel Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level Grab/composite sample 1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI 2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:O'keefe Drilling Truck-Mounted Mobile B-60X with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic 3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries may be gradual or transitional. June 5, 2023 B23-039-001 No sample recovery Figure No.4 SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION SURFACE:Vegetated Farm Field SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 50 = BLOWS PER FOOT = MOISTURE CONTENT 2 of 2 Tested By: BC Checked By: Particle Size Distribution Report ASTM C117 & C136 PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 2.7 16.6 79.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Test Remarks Sample Date:Location: B-1 Sample Number: A-28010 Depth: 7.0 - 8.5 ft Client: Project: Project No:Figure Sieve Size or Diam. (mm.) Finer (%) Spec.* (%) Out of Spec. (%) Pct. of Fines Lean CLAY with Sand 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #80 #100 #200 100.0 99.5 98.8 97.7 96.1 93.9 91.9 89.9 79.5 20 32 12 0.1512 0.1072 CL A-6(8) Report No. A-28010-206 Report Date: 6-26-2023 F.M.=0.22 6-5-2023 York Esh, LLC Echo Hotel Bozeman, Montana B23-039-001 PL= LL= PI= D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 5 Tested By: BC Checked By: Particle Size Distribution Report ASTM C117 & C136 PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 14.7 38.7 12.3 16.2 9.6 8.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Test Remarks Sample Date:Location: B-1 through B-3 Sample Number: A-28011COMP Depth: 7.5 - 11.5 ft Client: Project: Project No:Figure Sieve Size or Diam. (mm.) Finer (%) Spec.* (%) Out of Spec. (%) Pct. of Fines Well-Graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #80 #100 #200 100.0 95.2 85.3 68.1 61.0 46.6 34.3 25.2 18.1 14.3 12.4 11.3 8.5 Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested 21.5216 18.8959 9.1048 5.7124 1.3587 0.2803 0.1111 81.96 1.83 GW-GC Report No. A-28011COMP-206 Report Date: 6-26-2023 F.M.=4.94 6-5-2023 York Esh, LLC Echo Hotel Bozeman, Montana B23-039-001 PL= LL= PI= D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 6 Tested By: BC Checked By: Particle Size Distribution Report ASTM C117 & C136 PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 9.0 29.9 13.0 16.4 14.7 17.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Test Remarks Sample Date:Location: B-1 through B-3 Sample Number: A-28012COMP Depth: 15.0 - 21.5 ft Client: Project: Project No:Figure Sieve Size or Diam. (mm.) Finer (%) Spec.* (%) Out of Spec. (%) Pct. of Fines Clayey SAND with Gravel 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #80 #100 #200 100.0 99.1 91.0 79.6 74.2 61.1 48.1 38.5 31.7 26.5 23.5 21.6 17.0 Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested 18.3826 15.5099 4.4374 2.3075 0.3569 SC Report No. A-28012COMP-206 Report Date: 6-26-2023 F.M.=3.96 6-5-2023 York Esh, LLC Echo Hotel Bozeman, Montana B23-039-001 PL= LL= PI= D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 7 Tested By: NS/BH Checked By: LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CL-ML C L o r O L C H o r O H ML or OL MH or OH Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 47 WATER CONTENT31 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32 32.2 32.4 32.6 32.8 33 NUMBER OF BLOWS 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS Project No. Client:Remarks: Project: Location: B-1 Sample Number: A-28010 Depth: 7.0 - 8.5 ft Figure Lean CLAY with Sand 32 20 12 96.1 79.5 CL B23-039-001 York Esh, LLC 8 Report No. A-28010-207 Report Date: 6-26-2023Echo Hotel Bozeman, Montana Tested By: MS Checked By: LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CL-ML C L o r O L C H o r O H ML or OL MH or OH Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 47 WATER CONTENT35.2 35.6 36 36.4 36.8 37.2 37.6 38 38.4 38.8 39.2 NUMBER OF BLOWS 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS Project No. Client:Remarks: Project: Location: B-3 Sample Number: A-28025 Depth: 2.5 - 4.0 ft Figure Lean CLAY with Sand 37 19 18 Not Tested Not Tested CL B23-039-001 York Esh, LLC 9 Report No. A-28025-207 Report Date: 7-5-2023Echo Hotel Bozeman, Montana Tested By: CRN Checked By: CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT Percent Strain12.0 10.5 9.0 7.5 6.0 4.5 3.0 1.5 0.0 -1.5 -3.0 Applied Pressure - psf 100 1000 10000 Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press.Swell %eoSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (psf) (psf) (psf) 88.4 % 27.3 % 92.8 32 12 2.75 825 4269 0.19 0.02 0.849 Lean CLAY with Sand CL B23-039- York Esh, LLC Echo Hotel Bozeman, Montana Report No. A-28009-219 Report Date: 6-29-2023 10 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO Project No. Client:Remarks: Project: Location: B-1 Depth: 5.0 - 7.0 ft Sample Number: A-28009 Figure General Project Information Project Number: B23-039-001 Project Title: Echo Hotel Project Description: Climatic Data Source (MERRA) Latitude, Degree: 45.70044 Longitude, Degree: -111.05105 Climatic Data Lowest Yearly Air Temperature, ºC: -40.90 Low Air Temp Standard Deviation, ºC: 5.19 Yearly Degree-Days > 10 Deg. ºC: 1656.66 High Air Temperature of high 7 days: 28.91 Standard Dev. of the high 7 days: 2.01 Low Pavement Temperature 50%: -30.50 Low Pavement Temperature 98%: -39.30 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 50%: 50.90 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 98%: 55.06 Target Rut Depth Target Rut Depth (mm): 16.5 Temperature Adjustments Depth of Layer, mm: 0 Base HT PG: 52 Traffic Adjustments Traffic loading Cumulative ESAL for the Design Period, Millions: 0.1 Traffic Speed (Fast: >70 km/h, Slow: 20-70 km/h, Standing: < 20 km/h): Standing Performance Grade AASHTO M320-10 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder PG Temperature High Low Performance Grade Temperature at 50% Reliability 35.8 -30.6 Performance Grade Temperature at 98% Reliability 39.8 -39.4 Adjustment for Traffic (AASHTO M323-13)2.8 Adjustment for Depth 0.0 -0.0 Adjusted Performance Grade Temperature 42.6 -39.4 Selected PG Grade 52 -40 PG Grade M323, PG 52-40 AASHTO M 332-14 Performance-Grade Asphalt Binder using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test PG Temperature High Low Performance Grade Temperature at 50% Reliability 35.8 -30.6 Performance Grade Temperature at 98% Reliability 39.8 -39.4 Designation for traffic loading V Selected PG Grade 46 -40 PG Grade M332, PG 46V-40 Temperature Report Lowest Yearly Air Temperature, ºC:-40.90 Low Air Temp Standard Deviation, ºC:5.19 Yearly Degree-Days > 10 Deg. ºC:1656.66 High Air Temperature of high 7 days:28.91 Standard Dev. of the high 7 days:2.01 Low Pavement Temperature 50%:-30.50 Low Pavement Temperature 98%:-39.30 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 50%:50.90 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 98%:55.06 Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Attachment C— Site Plan with Drainage Areas E SW 12''S W 1 2 ' ' SW SW SW SWSWSWSWSW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * >MHGWMEW EW EW EW EW 4725472 5 4725 0.9%2.0%-1.2% 0.0%-1.5%0.0%-1.5%-1.7%0.2%-1.5%-1.1% -1.6% -1 .9% 0.0%-1.8%-2.9% -0.1%-0.6%-0.3% -0.5%-0.6%0.1%3.6%-1.6% 4726 4727 4726 4724 4723 4724 4723BASIN 1 0.74 ACRES BASIN 2 0.17 ACRES BASIN 3 0.06 ACRES BASIN 4 0.08 ACRES BASIN 5 0.07 ACRES BASIN 6 0.08 ACRES BASIN 7 0.78 ACRES BASIN 9 0.05 ACRES BASIN 8 0.19 ACRES & ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS DESIGNER DRAWN CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE SURVEYED DESCRIPTIONDATEREVISION SHEET OF 2/12/24 14:24 SHARI.ESLINGER F:\7348 NORTH PARK WYNDHAM HOTEL SITE PLAN\DRAWINGS\DWG\CIVIL\5 SHEET PRODUCTION\DRAINAGE BASIN.DWG;22 --- DJ&A, P.C. 02/07/2024 7348 MR SLE BZ STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT BOZEMAN, MT PROJECT ECHO NORTH PARK WYNDHAM HOTEL NSCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 SPILL CURB/GUTTER VALLEY GUTTER CATCH CURB/GUTTER DRAINAGE PLAN KEY: #STORM CURB INLET I.D. NUMBER (SEE DETAILS) DOWNSPOUT I.D. NUMBER# 1 3 4 1 1 KEY NOTES ADS CHAMBER SYSTEM (SEE DETAILS) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM STORAGE CAPACITY REQUIRED = 5383 CUBIC FEET. 1 2 3 2 WHEAT DRIVEMANDEVILLE LANEEXISTING GROUND CONTOUR, TYP. FINISHED GROUND CONTOUR, TYP.FINISHED GROUND CONTOUR, TYP. 123 # SW # EXISTING GROUND CONTOUR, TYP. 4 STORM MANHOLE I.D. NUMBER (SEE DETAILS) SEE MANDEVILLE LANE DRAWINGS SEE MANDEVILLE LANE DRAWINGS BASIN DESIGN RETENTION (CF) DESIGN CONVEYANCE (CFS) BASIN 1 1730.69 0.62 BASIN 2 391.46 0.43 BASIN 3 155.38 0.04 BASIN 4 218.85 0.57 BASIN 5 182.12 0.54 BASIN 6 223.08 0.74 BASIN 7 1729.87 0.69 BASIN 8 118.99 0.25 BASIN 9 35.92 0.11 RD1 6" RD2 6"RD3 6"RD4 6" SD5 12" SD2 12" SD3 12" SD4 12"SD1 6" SD6 12" SD7 12" Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Attachment D—Stormwater Runoff Calculations Project:North Park Wyndham Date:2/7/2024 PRE-Development Runoff Calculations Rational Formula C Values Basin (acre) (per MTDEQ 8)43560 Impervious Area/Pond Surface 0.90 0.00 0.00 Gravel Area 0.80 12233.90 0.28 Unimproved Area 0.25 84261.51 1.93 Lawn/Landscape 0.20 0.00 0.00 Total: 96495.41 2.22 Pre-development Characteristics Drainage Basin Area (acre)2.22 Weighted 'C'0.32 I (in/hr) (10-yr, 2-hr storm)0.41 Design Release Rate Runoff (cfs) 10-yr 2-hr storm 0.29 Q = CIA Runoff Volume (cf) 10-yr 2-hr storm 2090.83 C Weighted CBasin (ft2)Cweight = 0.32 Project:North Park Wyndham Date:2/7/2024 acre = 43560 ft2 Basin #Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 Basin 8 Basin 9 Retention I = 10-yr 2-hr 0.41 in/hr Basin Charecteristics to Inlet 3 to Inlet 2 Roof Drain to MH 4Roof Drain to MH 3Roof Drain to MH 2Roof Drain to MH 1to Inlet 1 North offsite East offiste conveyance i= 25-yr 5-min 3.826 in/hr Area (ft2)32282.59 7224.78 2547.52 3588.17 2986.02 3657.48 33838.28 8348.63 2021.92 96495.40 ft2 2.22 acre V= 7200 *Q (cf) Area (acre)0.74 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.78 0.19 0.05 2.22 acre Pervious Area (ft2)5022.93 1036.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7040.49 8225.58 1842.38 23168.28 ft2 0.53 acre Impervious Area (ft2)27259.66 6187.89 2547.52 3588.17 2986.02 3657.48 26797.79 123.05 179.54 73327.12 ft2 1.68 acre Pervious 'C'0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Impervious 'C'0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Weighted 'C'0.79 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.21 0.26 Time of Concentration (min)37.36 6.48 1.95 1.69 1.37 1.14 31.40 2.40 1.37 I (in/hr)1.06 3.24 6.98 7.66 8.76 9.86 1.18 6.13 8.75 Retention Calc Runoff Volume V (cf) 10-yr 2-hr storm 1730.69 391.46 155.38 218.85 182.12 223.08 1729.87 118.99 35.92 cumulative runoff = 4786.36 cf Conveyance Calc Flow Rate Q (cfs) 25-yr 0.62 0.43 0.37 0.57 0.54 0.74 0.69 0.25 0.11 0.017 0.005 cfs (10-yr, 2-hr)cfs (10-yr, 2-hr) Total Wydham Hotel Area Calculations Area Coefficents UNIMPROVED (Al):0.53 acres Cl :0.20 PAVED AND ROOF AREA (Ar):1.68 acres Cr :0.90 GRAVEL AREA (Ag):0.00 acres Cg : TOTAL AREA (A):2.22 acres TOTAL C:0.73 Runoff Calculations Allowable Runoff (or percolation)*0.10 cfs Footnote 1 1490.97 :area (SF) of drainage system perc rate from report 0.36 in/hr Time (min) CA (Acres) Intensity (in/hr) Time (sec) Cumulative Runoff (ft3)Release Volume Storage (ft3)design rate = 0.18 in/hr 5 1.62 3.22 300 1,566 31 1,534 design rate =0.01 cfs 10 1.62 2.05 600 1,995 62 1,933 max design rate = 0.29 cfs 20 1.62 1.31 1,200 2,543 124 2,419 40 1.62 0.83 2,400 3,241 248 2,993 60 1.62 0.64 3,600 3,736 373 3,363 80 1.62 0.53 4,800 4,131 497 3,634 100 1.62 0.46 6,000 4,467 621 3,846 120 1.62 0.41 7,200 4,761 745 4,016 140 1.62 0.37 8,400 5,025 870 4,156 160 1.62 0.34 9,600 5,266 994 4,272 180 1.62 0.31 10,800 5,487 1,118 4,369 210 1.62 0.28 12,600 5,792 1,305 4,487 240 1.62 0.26 14,400 6,069 1,491 4,578 270 1.62 0.24 16,200 6,324 1,677 4,647 300 1.62 0.22 18,000 6,562 1,864 4,698 360 1.62 0.20 21,600 6,994 2,236 4,758 400 1.62 0.19 24,000 7,257 2,485 4,772 410 1.62 0.18 24,600 7,320 2,547 4,773 Footnote 2 420 1.62 0.18 25,200 7,382 2,609 4,772 430 1.62 0.18 25,800 7,443 2,671 4,771 450 1.62 0.17 27,000 7,562 2,796 4,767 480 1.62 0.17 28,800 7,735 2,982 4,753 510 1.62 0.16 30,600 7,901 3,168 4,732 540 1.62 0.15 32,400 8,060 3,355 4,706 600 1.62 0.14 36,000 8,363 3,727 4,636 660 1.62 0.13 39,600 8,647 4,100 4,547 720 1.62 0.13 43,200 8,914 4,473 4,441 STORAGE REQUIRED : 4,773 cf STORAGE PROVIDED :97,060 Bozeman IDF Curve for 10 yr Y, intensity (in/hr) X, duration in minutes Footnote 1: Assumes 3"/hour perc rate IAW geotech rept. Note, overexcavating to 9' @B-1 in order to reach Well-Graded GRAVEL Footnote 2: Use 10-year, 2-hour, storm event for sizing retention facilities facilities IAW DSSP Section II, pg 24. Project:North Park Wyndham Date:2/7/2024 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRV) - First .5" of Rainfall acre = 43560 ft2 Basin #Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 Basin 8 Basin 9 Retention I = 10-yr 2-hr 0.41 in/hr Basin Charecteristics to Inlet 3 to Inlet 2 Roof Drain to MH 4Roof Drain to MH 3Roof Drain to MH 2Roof Drain to MH 1to Inlet 1 North offsite East offiste Area (ft2)32282.59 7224.78 2547.52 3588.17 2986.02 3657.48 33838.28 8348.63 2021.92 V= 7200 *Q (cf) Area (acre)0.74 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.78 0.19 0.05 Impervious Area (ft2)27259.66 6187.89 2547.52 3588.17 2986.02 3657.48 26797.79 123.05 179.54 0.18 in/hr Percent Impervious Area (I)0.84 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.01 0.09 0.015 ft/hr Water Quality Rainfall Depth (P) (in)0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Runoff Coefficient (Rv)0.81 0.82 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.76 0.06 0.13 RRV (ac-ft)0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 RRV (cf)1089.49 247.10 100.84 142.03 118.20 144.78 1075.41 22.01 10.94R v = 0.05+0.9(I) 0.44 0.44 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.47 5.69 2.77 *RRV = PRv A/12 per Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual Eq. 3-1 Drainage Design Report North Park Wyndham Hotel, Bozeman MT Attachment E—Pipe Network Capacity Calculations Project:North Park WyndhamDate:2/7/2024Pipe Network CapacityPipe NumberRD1RD2RD3RD4SD1SD2SD3SD4SD5SD6SD7Pipe Size (in)66666121212121212Mannings n (PVC)0.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.0130.013pipe diameter (d) (ft)0.50.50.50.50.5111111y (ft)0.50.50.50.50.51111112*arccos(1-y/(d/2))Theta (Θ) (radians)6.286.286.286.286.286.286.286.286.286.286.28(1/8)*(Θ-sinΘ)d2 Area (ft2)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.790.5ΘdWetted perimeter (ft)1.571.571.571.571.573.143.143.143.143.143.14(.25)*(1-(sinΘ)/Θ)dHydraulic Radius0.130.130.130.130.130.250.250.250.250.250.25input design slopeSlope (ft/ft) 0.0150.0280.0400.0450.0150.0150.0150.0250.0150.0200.0281.49/n*A*R2/3*S00.5Full Flow Capacity (cfs) 0.69 0.95 1.12 1.20 0.69 4.38 4.385.65 4.38 5.05 5.92minimum is 3 fpsVelocity (f/s)3.514.845.726.113.515.575.577.195.576.437.54Contributing Inlet BasinBasin 3Basin 4Basin 5Basin 6Basin 1Basin 2Basin 7Contributing PipesRD1RD2RD3RD4SD4SD5SD6SD1SD2SD3Peak runoff from 3. Storm Run off - 25 yr storm Actual Pipe Flow (cfs) 0.37 0.57 0.54 0.74 0.37 0.94 1.48 2.22 2.84 3.27 3.96% Capacity53%60%48%62%53%21%34%39%65%65%67%Input Values Input Values Input Valuesd = 0.500 ft 0.50 Pipe Diameter [ft] d = 1.000 ft 1.00 Pipe Diameter [ft] d =1.250 ft 1.25 Pipe Diameter [ft]y =0.500ft 0.35 y =0.750ft 0.71 y =1.250ft 0.88Calculated Values(Equations from Open-Channel Hydraulics by Chow)Calculated Values(Equations from Open-Channel Hydraulics by Chow)Calculated Values(Equations from Open-Channel Hydraulics by Chow)Theta (Θ) 6.28 3.99 rad 2*arccos(1-y/(d/2)) Theta (Θ) 4.19 3.99 rad 2*arccos(1-y/(d/2))Theta (Θ)6.28 3.99 rad 2*arccos(1-y/(d/2))Area (A) 0.20 0.15ft2(1/8)*(Θ-sinΘ)d2Area (A) 0.63 0.59ft2(1/8)*(Θ-sinΘ)d2Area (A) 1.23 0.92ft2(1/8)*(Θ-sinΘ)d2Wetted Perimeter (P) 1.57 1.00 ft 0.5Θd Wetted Perimeter (P) 2.09 1.99 ft 0.5ΘdWetted Perimeter (P) 3.93 2.49 ft 0.5ΘdHydraulic Radius (R ) 0.13 0.15 ft (.25)*(1-(sinΘ)/Θ)d Hydraulic Radius (R ) 0.30 0.30 ft (.25)*(1-(sinΘ)/Θ)dHydraulic Radius (R ) 0.31 0.37 ft (.25)*(1-(sinΘ)/Θ)dTop Width (T) 0.00 0.46 ft (sin 0.5Θ)d Top Width (T) 0.870.91 ft (sin 0.5Θ)dTop Width (T) 0.00 1.14 ft (sin 0.5Θ)dMannings Equation Mannings Equation Mannings Equationn = 0.013 Manning's Rougness Coefficient for PVC pipen = 0.013 Manning's Rougness Coefficient for PVC pipen =0.013 Manning's Rougness Coefficient for PVC pipeS0 =0.0275 ft/ftS0 =0.0275 ft/ftS0 =0.0275 ft/ftQ = 0.93 cfs1.49/n*A*R2/3*S00.5Q = 5.40 cfs1.49/n*A*R2/3*S00.5Q =10.74 cfs1.49/n*A*R2/3*S00.5418.73gpm Peak Flow2424.46gpm Peak Flow4820.65gpm Peak FlowQfull75% = 0.79 cfs 5.3288317 occurs when y/d = 0.94*.75Qfull75% = 5.01 cfs 8.458993 occurs when y/d = 0.94*.75Qfull75% = 9.08 cfs 9.815792 occurs when y/d = 0.94*.75353.84gpm2246.71gpm4073.56gpm6"12"15"